The ACLU will not do it. Appeals are limited to the trial record. Appellate courts almost always focus on the legal rulings of the trial judge. The belief is that the witnesses do not tesitfy before the appeals court. They cannot see body language, hear voice inflections, --the trial judge and jury saw that. It will focus on whether legally the WT can be found liable. The trial judge, in deciding that the case could go forth, held a summary judgment motion. If all the facts that Conti pleaded could be proven satisfactorily, would the WT have liability? I don't know whether this was a maverick judge. If it truly was the first case to impose liability, chances are the verdict will be overturned. Every once in a long while, though, the law changes.
I would think that whether the WT has liability should be matter for the CA legislature. Someone reported here that CA is not a mandatory reporting state for penance purposes. I found that shocking b/c California in countless areas of law has been the forerunner for the rest of the country. It serves as a valuable lab for other states to see the pragmatic effects of a progressive change. Laywers joke about CA law b/c it is so different from the rest of the country.
Do JWs engage in penitient activities with JW ministers (not clelrgy) or do they engage in counselling, where mandatory reporting does exist.
The momentum seems to be to carve out an exemption of the usually absolute clergy/penbitent privilege.
This case will be decided by the CA appellate courts. We could do much to support a national trend, however, by writing letters to the editor, opinion pieces, calling in to topical talk shows, etc. I wonder if the Roman Catholic groups would embrace us since we have common cause.