Posted on May 11, 2010 by Chuck Peterson

Idaho Priest Reportedly Accused of Sexual Misconduct

 The Idaho Statesman reports that an Idaho priest has been accused of sexual misconduct stemming from his assignment at an Idaho Falls church in 1981. The allegations involve a man who was under 18 at the time. A similar claim was apparently made against the priest in 2005, resulting in his treatment out of state in 2006. 

Idaho law prohibits sexual contact with a minor. Our law includes two felony charges covering such matters - lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 16, and sexual battery of a minor 16 or 17. Both charges frequently carry prison sentences, so the notion that sending someone out of state for treatment would "solve" the problem misses the mark. The Statesman report deals with allegations that have not been proven, and as such, Rev. William Gould is entitled to the full protection of the law, including the presumption of innocence.

More problematic for the church is the bad press and the potential lawsuits which might flow from the reported sexual misconduct. If church officials had knowledge of the 2005 allegations, it is almost impossible to imagine that they gave Rev. Gould the "return to work, problems solved" light. Then again, we don't know what the circumstances were that resulted in that "treatment." Maybe there was no touching at all, and their efforts were directed at restoring the priest to his position of trust, entirely in good faith. And their knowledge of Gould's problems in 2005 does not necessarily mean they had knowledge in 1981 (when the "new" allegations are reported to have occurred).

Regardless - it doesn't look right. And it is not right. Priests, pastors, bishops and other religious leaders are called to a level of scrutiny that they must either withstand or be replaced. It is not possible for any church to simply "shuffle" the problem away to some other parish. As the Pope is reported to have proclaimed today, the problems in the Catholic church are the result of insiders, not some huge conspiracy from outside. For the Church - it is a matter of "purification" according to the Pope. For victims of clerical sexual abuse, the options include both criminal and civil cases. 

Tags:
Posted on May 2, 2010 by Chuck Peterson

Can You Answer The Jury's Questions? You Need To Do So To Win

 I occasionally (OK - often) mention Paul Luvera and his careful study of the business of trials. The truth is, guys like Luvera have been doing this stuff forever. Or so it seems. And with that experience comes wisdom. We all want wisdom. At least that is what I want to believe. I also believe we want to win as trial lawyers, and winning is not always the same thing as getting justice. But justice is just that - a concept; a feeling that makes us all go "ahh . . . ." 

Winning is beyond "ahh...." Winning is a symphony. Full orchestra. Big music. Grand themes!

So here is something for you to consider, whether you are a lawyer or a person looking to win your case in one of this country's courts.

To win - we need to think more like jurors. So says Luvera, and that's good enough for me.

Jurors want to know what happened.

What does the plaintiff say? If you are in a criminal case - what does the prosecutor say happened? What is the defense? What does the plaintiff (state) want? In a civil case - who is paying? In a criminal case - how much time would this guy spend if we found him guilty? 

And if it's a civil case - what is the money going to be used for?

Luvera says this is the stuff that the jury is thinking so we have to think about the same stuff and focus our case to answer their questions. I know it seems so logical, but we don't always do this. Or at least I don't.

The questions he suggests are actually more about the needs every juror has when they sit as judges in any case, whether civil or criminal. They take their roles very seriously. The need to feel like they have gotten toward justice - and that means we cannot avoid the big questions.

Here is one more. "Why didn't the defendant testify?"

That jury instruction that says the defendant doesn't need to testify is great stuff for lawyers. It simply does not ring the bell for jurors. Oh, I have won cases where my client did not testify, but I am increasingly worried that most jurors need to hear the defendant regardless of how smart I am, how persuasive I can be, or how weak the state's evidence seems.

So if you are planning your case, or a client's case, time to think like a juror. Stand back and ask yourself the tough questions about the case. 

 

Tags: