BishopAccountability.org
	Tough Road Ahead for State Diocese By Sam Hemingway Burlington Free Press December 9, 2007 http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/NEWS02/712090323/1007/NEWS05 The state's Roman Catholic diocese is fresh from a jury verdict in a priest molestation case that one of its lawyers called gratifying, but the church continues to face a litany of lawsuits. A review of the docket at Chittenden County Superior Court shows that 17 of the 24 pending priest sex abuse cases filed against the diocese involve molestation claims against the former Rev. Edward Paquette, including 11 of the next 13 cases on the docket. Paquette's conduct and the diocese's knowledge of it -- he allegedly molested boys in two other states prior to incidents in Rutland, Montpelier and Burlington in the 1970s -- led the church in 2006 to settle the first Paquette case on the docket for $965,000, by far the diocese's largest settlement. "In almost every one of our other cases we can show that the diocese knew before the abuse took place that the abuser was somebody who had previously abused," Jerome O'Neill, the attorney representing the victims in the 24 cases, said last week. That was not the situation in the case filed by James Turner that concluded last week with the jury's issuing a split verdict: ruling that the diocese didn't properly supervise the Rev. Alfred Willis, the priest who abused Turner, but nullifying a $15,000 damages award because it said Turner violated the statute of limitations by waiting too long to file his lawsuit. "This is not one of our strongest cases," O'Neill told reporters moments after the jury's verdict was announced. "This was one of those cases where it was a much more difficult challenge." Diocesan lawyer Tom McCormick, pointing to what he described as a "modest" damage award and the statute of limitations finding, praised the jury's decision in his comments to reporters. "We're grateful for the result," he said. O'Neill said he is unsure whether the next case will be one of the Paquette cases or another Willis case. The next Paquette case involves claims by a man who alleges he was a Burlington altar boy when he was molested by Paquette in 1978. The next Willis case involves a former Milton altar boy who claims Willis fondled him inside a tent during a backyard campout in 1980. "We actually think the Willis case is the most appropriate case to go forward with," O'Neill said. O'Neill also said he will ask Judge Matthew Katz, who presided over the Turner trial, to set aside the statute of limitations part of last week's jury verdict, saying Katz told both sides before the trial he knew a split verdict such as the one that occurred could be problematic. "Based on the jury's verdict, the diocese now has to prove that Turner was aware of the fact that the diocese negligently supervised Willis in order for the statute of limitations to stand," O'Neill said. "There are obviously no facts to support that." Under the statute of limitations, a person has to bring a legal claim within a certain time after the incident in question took place, or the impact of the incident became known. McCormick said in an interview he understands the jury's split decision will not be the last word on the statute of limitations issue. "There are legal questions to be answered," he said. He declined further comment on the issue. Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor, said O'Neill's argument for having the statute of limitations' ruling set aside made sense. He called Katz's decision to make the jury decide the statute of limitations question only after determining the negligent supervision and damages issues a "a very smart order." Diocesan lawyers had sought to have the statute of limitations issue addressed by the jury earlier in its decision process, before the other questions, but Katz rejected the request. Mello said Katz's strategy made sure another jury would not have to be convened to decide the damages question if the statute of limitations issue had to be set aside. The recent trial was the second to hear the Turner case. The first ended in a mistrial in June. "As a matter of judicial craftsmanship, this is as good as you are going to see," Mello said. O'Neill declined to say whether he would consider negotiating with the diocese on a "global settlement" to resolve all the lawsuits at one time, as has been done in some other places around the country. "We want full, fair and justified compensation," he said. "Until such time as we obtain that, we'll keep going with the cases." McCormick said he and diocesan co-counsel, David Cleary, were regrouping in the aftermath of last week's trial and were unsure of the diocese's next step. "We don't have a plan as to where we are going next at this point," McCormick said. "We just need to sort it out." Contact Sam Hemingway at 660-1850 or e-mail at shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.