[ back ]
Sexual Relationship Between Two Priests Complicates Sex Abuse Tr
James Turner was 16 in 1977 when he was sexually abused by a Catholic priest, Alfred Willis. Willis and James’ brother, Bernard, also a priest, were friends who had a sexual relationship. James sued the Church in 2004 asserting it had negligently hired or supervised Willis. A person has to bring a sexual assault claim within six years of learning he has a claim. James asserted he only learned he had a claim after 1998.
The Church claimed James had learned he had a claim from his brother. However, the Judge ruled that Church lawyers could not ask James anything about knowing his brother and Willis had a sexual relationship because it would prejudice his case against the Church, and was irrelevant to the limitations issue. Notwithstanding, Church lawyers did ask James questions that violated the order. The Judge declared a mistrial and ordered the Church to pay $112,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses caused by the mistrial.
A second trial followed. When selecting a jury, the lawyers for each party can excuse 6 jurors for no reason at all, but otherwise they must show a potential juror is biased. The Judge must then excuse the juror if he/she determines there is potential bias. James challenged a potential juror who was a member of the Catholic diocese and had read the Bishop’s pastoral letter calling suits against priests “unjust and a terribly unreasonable assault.” The Judge put her on the jury. The jury then found James knew he had a case prior to 1998 and so sued too late. The judge overruled the jury on that issue and permitted the case to go to verdict. It awarded damages of $15,000.
Both sides appealed; the Church because the judge overruled the jury on the limitations question, and also claimed civil court could not interfere in church business because the First Amendment, provides Congress, States and Judges “shall make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Court could not regulate a church it argued. James appealed because the juror should not have been seated which tainted the limitations and damages decisions.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Church, that the judge should not have overruled the jury on the limitations issue, but held the Church has no immunity from suit under the First Amendment because everyone must comply with legal standards of behavior that applied generally to all of society. But the Court agreed with James, that the juror was potentially biased and should not have been allowed on the case. Because the key issues were decided against James by a tainted jury, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial. It also upheld the fine of $112,000.
Lessons: If a judge tells you not to ask a question, don’t. Our justice rests on the jury system. Accordingly, judges should ensure jurors or not biased and then should not overrule their decisions unless there are no facts in evidence to support the result. Turner v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, VT 2009 VT 101.
[ back ]
