BishopAccountability.org
	Court OKs Access to Church Records But Rejects Case of Two Muslims at Guantánamo By Charlie Savage Boston Globe April 18, 2006 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/ 2006/04/18/court_oks_access_to_church_records/ WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court yesterday cleared the way for prosecutors to obtain sex-abuse records from the Catholic Church, a decision that could affect hundreds of cases in which priests have been accused of molesting children. Also, in a Boston-related case, the court rejected a request that it hear an appeal by two Chinese Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who maintain they should be freed, saying the case should be heard by a lower court first. The Catholic Church and Guantanamo cases headlined a slew of cases the Supreme Court rejected yesterday as it did some spring-cleaning of its inbox. In the child molestation case, the court turned down an appeal by the archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, and two unnamed priests who wanted to block a subpoena for internal church records. The order lets stand a state-court ruling that allows the Los Angeles County district attorney to obtain pastoral counseling records that could reveal the priests' confessions and any psychological treatment. The court's decision could have broad consequences for hundreds of civil lawsuits filed by sexual-abuse victims against the church. Just in California, according to the church's filing at the court, there are more than 500 lawsuits in which alleged victims of abuse are seeking counseling records. Seeking a declaration that such internal records should be kept confidential, church lawyers had argued that the subpoenas violated the First Amendment because pastoral counseling -- a process in which a bishop advises a priest -- is a religious practice. Granting the subpoenas, the church's lawyers wrote in a court filing, would "chill" the relationship between a bishop and the priests under his supervision, driving priests who are accused of wrongdoing to hire lawyers instead of undergoing counseling. "State review of confidential, pastoral counseling . . . inherently entangles the state in the internal religious life of churches and intrudes into religious practice," they wrote. But the prosecutor, asking the Supreme Court not to take the appeal, argued that religious institutions should not be exempt from turning over records to criminal investigators. In a statement yesterday, the archdiocese called the decision "disappointing," but said it would turn over the 21 pages of documents to prosecutors. Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley hailed the decision. "This is a decisive victory for victims of clerical abuse," Cooley said in a statement. "It's unfortunate that it took four years of litigation to reach this day of justice for victims. The US Supreme Court's denial to review this matter establishes an important principle that evidence of criminality be made available to appropriate authorities." In the Guantanamo case, Boston-based attorney Sabin Willett had argued that the Chinese Muslims had suffered for so long that the Supreme Court should take their case right away, rather than wait for a lower court to hear the case. The justices decided that he should go to the lower court first. Willett is representing two ethnic Uighurs -- a Muslim group living in China -- who were captured after the US invasion of Afghanistan and later brought to Guantanamo. A military tribunal later decided that the two men had not been enemies of the United States and cleared them for release. But they have remained imprisoned because there is nowhere for them to go. Under US and international law, the military cannot return them to China because the Chinese government has a history of persecuting Muslims. No other country has offered to take them in. Last fall, a district court judge ruled that it was illegal for the US government to continue to detain the men. But the judge also said his court lacked the power to order the military to release the detainees, so they have remained stuck in the prison. Willett has proposed letting his clients live in a hotel on the civilian part of Guantanamo Bay Navy Base, in Cuba, or moving them to the continental United States. The Bush administration has opposed both suggestions, but says it is still trying to find another country that would be willing to take the men in. Willett said yesterday that he was "a little disappointed" but not surprised by the decision since the Supreme Court rarely hears a case before an appeals court has reviewed it. He said he is now focused on preparing for arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is scheduled to hear the case on May 8. Also yesterday, the court agreed to review the fairness of a murder trial in California at which spectators in the courtroom were allowed to wear buttons displaying a picture of the victim. The defendant claimed that he shot the man in self-defense, arguing that his right to a fair trial was undermined by the judge's decision to let relatives of the dead man wear the badges. The pictures, the defendant claimed, improperly influenced the jury into believing that the dead man was not at fault. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit threw out the conviction. But the California attorney general wants the Supreme Court to reinstate the conviction without a new trial, arguing that there is no evidence that the jury was influenced by the buttons. The report included material from Globe wire services.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.