Ruling in Roman Catholic Official's Sex Abuse Case Could Help Former Penn State Administrators
By Charles Thompson
That’s because, some legal experts say, Pennsylvania Superior Court’s reversal Thursday of Monsignor William Lynn’s 2012 child endangerment conviction may well knock out similar charges lodged against Spanier, his athletic director, Tim Curley, and his vice president for business and finance Gary Schultz. “There are huge implications for the Penn State prosecution from this case,” said Wes Oliver, a professor at the Duquesne University School of Law who has closely watched the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. “This could mean that some of the most serious charges (against Spanier, Curley and Schultz) are gone,” Oliver said. The three former Penn State administrators face trial in Harrisburg next year on charges that they lied to state investigators about what they knew of child sex abuse allegations against Sandusky, then a beloved Penn State football hero, and what they did in response. But a major element of the Penn State cover-up case – that other children were harmed because of their inaction – appears directly threatened by Thursday’s ruling. A three-judge panel in Lynn's case held that only persons directly responsible for the supervision of a child could be found criminally liable for endangering the welfare of children before 2007, when the law was broadened to include employers of those committing the abuse. That timing is especially important in the Curley, Schultz and Spanier case. The endangerment charge here springs largely from allegations that the administrators collective decision to not report a 2001 eyewitness account of abuse by Sandusky to police left numerous other boys exposed to the former coach’s pedophilia between then and 2008. At least four men have testified to abuses they suffered at Sandusky’s hands after then graduate assistant football coach Mike McQueary came forward with his account in February 2001. The Superior Court decision – which is still subject to a potential appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – does not in itself have any direct impact on the Spanier charges. But attorneys for Spanier and Schultz, when contacted by PennLive this week, made clear they are ready to use it to their advantage in the case pending before Dauphin County Judge Todd Hoover. “The Lynn decision is conclusive in requiring dismissal of the (endangerment) charges in our case,” said Thomas J. Farrell, attorney for Gary Schultz. “The time has not been set for the filing of that motion, but I trust that the prosecution will have the good grace to recognize the import of Lynn and withdraw the charge.” Spanier’s attorney, Elizabeth Ainslie, seemed to agree with Farrell’s assessment. “It should be very helpful,” she said. In Lynn's case, tried by the Philadelphia district attorney's office, the Superior Court ruled that the endangering welfare of a child statute, through 2006, only held accountable those persons who directly supervised the child who was placed at risk. President Judge John T. Bender, joined by Judge Christine L. Donohue and Senior Judge John Musmanno, also held Lynn could not be considered an accomplice because even though he knew of a troubled priest’s past history when he reassigned the man, he had no “specific knowledge” that further assaults would ensue. Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s staff, which is leading the prosecution against the three former Penn State administrators, issued this statement in response to the Superior Court ruling Friday through Kane's spokesman, Joe Peters: “We are reviewing the just-handed-down decision. Additionally, I would point out that as specified in the information, there are specific actions/ conduct charged which is post-2007.” Oliver, from Duquesne, predicted Friday that prosecutors will likely fight to retain all of the cover-up case charges for now, in part because Bender’s opinion could be still reversed by the state Supreme Court. The high court, he added, could very well find that the old law did have application to administrators like Lynn or Spanier in cases where a known abuser was left in a situation where he or she would have regular contact with children. “At a certain point, your callous indifference (to that risk) could rise to the level of violating a duty you have to the welfare of those children,” Oliver said. But other experts guessed Friday that the Superior Court ruling will stick, in part because the 2007 change to the child endangerment statute were made specifically to address just this kind of loophole. “This is the exact situation that the new law was intended to correct,” one person involved with that change said. If Thursday's ruling stands, in the absence of facts showing Spanier, Curley or Schultz were directly confronted with fresh evidence about Sandusky after 2007 and still failed to act, it could be hard to carry the charges forward. The endangering welfare of a child is one of two sets of felony charges the former Penn State administrators are up against. They all also face perjury counts, stemming from what prosecutors allege were lies told before the Sandusky grand jury in an attempt to cover up their early knowledge and inaction on sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky. The defense is separately challenging those counts on grounds that the prosecution is improperly trying to use evidence gained through the testimony of former Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin. Finally, Spanier, Curley and Schultz also face second-degree misdemeanor counts of obstruction of justice and summary citations for failure to report child abuse. Contact: cthompson@pennlive.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.