BishopAccountability.org
	Clergy Abuse Trial Headed to Jury on Monday By Sam Hemingway Burlington Free Press August 23, 2008 http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080823/NEWS02/808230305/-1/NEWS05 The jury in the Burlington clergy sex abuse trial will begin deliberations Monday in the case of man who claims the state's Roman Catholic diocese is to blame for his molestation as an altar boy by the Rev. Edward Paquette in the late 1970s. Lawyers for the diocese and the former altar boy rested their cases Friday and the jury was sent home for the weekend by Judge Matthew Katz shortly before 1 p.m. Katz scheduled closing arguments for 9:30 a.m. Monday. "If we were to try to get everything done today, you probably would not get the case until late in the afternoon," Katz told the six-man, six-woman jury. "That's not the right way to start deliberations in a trial that has lasted six or seven days." The case involves claims by a Waitsfield man that as an altar boy at Christ the King Church in Burlington he was molested by Paquette between 20 and 50 times in 1977 and 1978. The Burlington Free Press does not identify the alleged victims of sex abuse without their consent. The man is suing the diocese, claiming it allowed Paquette to remain a priest -- and to molest him -- despite knowing he had sexually abused boys in three states, including Vermont. The diocese, which does not dispute the abuse claims, has contended the man waited too long to file his lawsuit and should have sought help sooner for the abuse he suffered. Friday, both sides concluded their cases by showing the jury videotaped depositions of witnesses unable to appear in court in person. The diocese's defense amounted to two videotapes that mostly focused on how the diocese handled molestation claims in 1980 involving another priest, the Rev. Alfred Willis. Kaveh Shahi, a diocesan lawyer, said in an interview afterward that Katz had prohibited the diocese from putting on witnesses that would have shown aggressive efforts by the diocese since the 1970s to deal with priests accused of sexual misconduct. "We couldn't put on 90 percent of our case," Shahi said. Shahi and Tom McCormick, another diocesan lawyer, wanted to have several parishioners, parents, teachers and Shelburne child safety expert Ken Wooden testify on behalf of the diocese. Katz, as he did in a previous trial involving similar claims about Paquette and the diocese, said court rules prevent a defendant from telling a jury what was done after the fact to address alleged misconduct should it happen again. "Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is generally inadmissible," Katz wrote in an Aug. 12 pre-trial order. "Even courts that have admitted such evidence do so with the caveat that the remedial measures must have immediately followed the tortuous conduct." Jerome O'Neill, one of the Waitsfield man's lawyers, said in a separate interview that Shahi's rendition of Katz's position was inaccurate. O'Neill said Shahi had floated a plan during the trial to explore the diocese's child abuse prevention programs with a diocesan official already on the witness stand but did not pursue it after O'Neill warned that he would challenge the timing and quality of the programs. "They made a choice not to ask the witness about it, for good reason," O'Neill said. Evidence of what the diocese has or has not done about child sexual abuse in recent years could have an impact on the size of any punitive damage award the jury might award in the case. In a May verdict, a jury awarded $8.7 million to another former altar boy abused by Paquette, a figure that included more than $7.7 million in punitive damages meant to punish the diocese for its personnel decisions involving Paquette. That verdict is under appeal. 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.