By Lynne Terry lynneterry@news.oregonian.com
The Oregonian
May 17, 2007

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/05/jurors_discuss_difficulty_of_o.html

[Scroll down for links to video interviews of four jurors.]

[For a summary of the Sprauer allegations, see Portland Claims, The Oregonian (11/12/06). See also Jurors Say They Found Accusers More Credible, by Alan Gustafson, Statesman Journal (5/18/07) with links to depositions; and Salem Priest to Face Accusers at Trial, by Alan Gustafson, Statesman Journal (4/29/07).]

Jurors in the first priest sex-abuse trial in Oregon, and one of the few nationwide, lingered together today outside the courthouse, remembering the difficulty of the case against the Rev. Michael Sprauer.

They listened to about two weeks of testimony and evidence, accusations and denials. In the end, they considered Sprauer guilty of molesting two teenage boys at MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility in Woodburn in the 1970s, awarding the plaintiffs nearly $1.4 million. They decided against the claim of a third man.

The choice was tough, the deliberations tense, and the verdict not unanimous, with a vote of 10-2 against Sprauer.

Here are the comments of four jurors, including the presiding juror, outside Judge Marshall Amiton's courtroom in the Multnomah County Courthouse.

[Transcriptions are by BishopAccountability.org. Click the photos to play the videos.]

Steve Lamere, presiding juror:

I think the most difficult thing—the initial instructions given by the judge were not to discuss the case in any way, so everybody gets in the jury room and starts talking about food or, you know, their personal life, something like that. And it’s really difficult because, I knew from the first day that it was going to be an emotionally draining case, just for the severity of the topic of the case. And having these men stand up, sit up on the stand and give the most shameful episodes in their life, and have to go through a graphic description of it. I was juror number seven and so I was front row, closest to the witness stand, and just to see their faces as they gave testimony really gave a lot of validity to the accusation. Some of the witnesses were credible; some of them were not, for various reasons.

Leann Pence:

The content was the most difficult for me to deal with, you know, going home at night, and then you’d think about it. It’d be hard to go to sleep some nights.

Jennifer Trilby Martin:

I felt it was extremely difficult, and for me the testimony was very compelling on the plaintiffs’ side. That didn’t make my decision. It was very hard evidence on both sides, extremely difficult. It came down to two pieces of paper for me. A signed affidavit saying that a former employee at McLaren had seen Father Mike around the campus through his time, you know, into 1978. He signed the affidavit, I had to take that into account. And then also a letter from the archdiocese saying that Father Mike would remain in residency at McLaren once he started working at OSCI [Oregon State Correctional Institution]. And I kind of had to make that the kind of extra bit of evidence on the side of the plaintiffs.

Devin Russo:

I think the thing that really touched me a lot, when the verdict was finally read, was seeing Mr. Paul kind of break down and cry. And all of us on the jury kind of said we weren’t going to look at anyone but the judge, but I happened to look over at him, and I almost kind of started crying myself, seeing that situation. And in a way, that kind of reinforced my decision in favor of him, definitely, because there was definitely a lot of pain there, and I think we came to understand where that came from.