BishopAccountability.org
	Former Clinton Pastor's Alleged Sex Abuse Confession Questioned By Rocco Laduca Observer-Dispatch October 26, 2007 http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x357269307 UTICA - When former pastor the Rev. William Procanick of Clinton sat down with investigators earlier this year, he was never told how serious the sexual abuse allegations were that he was about to be questioned on, according to testimony during a pre-trial hearing Friday in Oneida County Court. Then, shortly after a 45-minute conversation with Oneida County sheriff's Sgt. Denise Luker, Procanick unexpectedly found himself under arrest for allegedly touching a 7-year-old girl at his residence, Luker testified. Procanick faces charges of felony first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor endangering the welfare of a child. "He said he was shocked," Luker told Assistant District Attorney Doug DeMarche Jr. "He said that if he knew how serious the charge was, he would have asked for a lawyer." That concern was the reason Procanick's defense attorney George Aney asked for Friday's Huntley hearing to examine the circumstances surrounding Procanick's alleged confession to Luker, who was assigned to the county's Child Advocacy Center at the time. In that April 13 statement, the 53-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God on Kirkland Avenue told Luker that he had "crossed the line" by inappropriately rubbing the girl while trying to get her to fall asleep at his residence. Procanick then told the girl's mother the next day that, "I am guilty of sleeping next to your daughter," according to the statement. When her mother told Procanick several weeks later that the girl was having nightmares, Procanick apologized, he told Luker. "This is the first and only time that I have ever hurt a child," Procanick stated. "I don't have any idea why I did it." But Aney is arguing that Procanick would not have said so much to Luker without an attorney if he knew that he was being considered a suspect in a serious crime. Before he was questioned, Procanick asked Luker if he needed an attorney, to which Luker said she could not advise him on that matter, she testified. Luker then told Procanick he did have a right to an attorney, but Procanick chose to talk with Luker anyway, she testified. However, Aney said he believes Luker diminished the gravity of the allegations against Procanick so that he would talk to investigators without asking for an attorney. And in Aney's opinion, that is on ongoing problem with how police question suspects, he said after the proceeding. "They downplay the seriousness of a charge all the time, and I'm sick of it," Aney said. Since Procanick's arrest, Aney has said all along that Procanick's actions never rose to the level of a crime. During the hearing, Aney asked Luker, "Did you indicate to Mr. Procanick - in substance - that he had nothing to worry about?" "No sir, not that I recall," Luker replied. As Procanick listened in silence, he just shook his head from side to side in disagreement. Aney also took issue with the Luker's version of Procanick's story. At one point, Aney asked Luker if she summarized Procanick's 45-minute conversation into a statement that took roughly seven minutes to read. "Yes, because …" Luker began to answer before Aney cut her off. "Thank you," Aney snapped. Judge Michael L. Dwyer will decide at a later date if Procanick's statement can be used at trial, which will likely take place later this year or in January.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.