Pennsylvania Superior Court hears an appeal of the first Catholic church official convicted in the clergy sex-abuse scandal.

by Sol Reform 6 Replies latest social current

• 

  Sol Reform

  The legal theory underlying the prosecution of the first Catholic church official convicted in the clergy sex-abuse scandal came under attack Tuesday in an appeal hearing before the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20130918_Convicted_priests_lawyer_questions_law_s_application.html

  Convicted priest's lawyer questions law's application FILE - In a Tuesday, March 27, 2012 file photo, Monsignor William Lynn leaves the Criminal Justice Center, in Philadelphia. Lynn was the first U.S. church official branded a felon for covering up molestation claims against priests. He's serving three to six years in prison. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

  Joseph A. Slobodzian, Inquirer Staff Writer LAST UPDATED: Tuesday, September 17, 2013, 12:37 PM POSTED: Tuesday, September 17, 2013, 12:36 PM

  The legal theory underlying the prosecution of the first Catholic church official convicted in the clergy sex-abuse scandal came under attack Tuesday in an appeal hearing before Pennsylvania Superior Court.

  Arguing before a three-judge panel in Philadelphia, the lawyer for Msgr. William J. Lynn told the court that Lynn's 2012 conviction cannot be affirmed under the state's original child endangerment statute or the amended version enacted in 2007.

  The pre-2007 version requires direct, personal supervision of a child, said Lynn's attorney, Thomas A. Bergstrom. But as the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's secretary of clergy - responsible for investigating complaints against priests and recommending discipline - Lynn was only a "supervisor of a supervisor," Bergstrom said.

  Bergstrom said the post-2007 law, which enabled prosecution of church officials for crimes committed by priests they supervise cannot be applied to Lynn because he left the secretary of clergy post three years earlier. "We can all still understand and read and write the English language and it says what it says," Bergstrom told the judges. Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns, chief of the office's appeals unit, argued that Bergstrom's interpretation of the pre-2007 statute was too narrow. "It's much broader than simply having direct supervision of a child," Burns argued.

  "It's supervising the welfare of children." Burns argued that the law required Lynn to protect children from pedophile priests he knew were likely to prey on children in future parish assignments. The three judges peppered both lawyers with questions during the half-hour argument on the validity of Lynn's conviction.

  The state's intermediate appellate court has no deadline for deciding the appeal and the judges gave no indication of when they might rule. But Judge John T. Bender seemed especially interested in Lynn's sentence and how much time the 62-year-old monsignor has spent in prison.

  Lynn was sentenced to three to six years in prison on July 24, 2012, by Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina after a 13-week-trial and 12-1/2 days of deliberations. Lynn was denied bail pending appeal and has spent most of the last 15 months in Waymart state prison in Northeast Pennsylvania.

  Under state law, Lynn becomes eligible for parole when he completes his minimum sentence in 15 more months. Bergstrom said afterward that he was encouraged that Bender's question might mean the court would expedite its decision.

  Lynn was not accused of personally molesting children and he insisted at trial that he had no knowledge of the 1999 sexual assault of a 10-year-old Northeast altar boy by a priest he knew had a history of sexually abusing children.

  Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20130918_Convicted_priests_lawyer_questions_law_s_application.html#ee7YPqQeGrsOsOlO.99
• 

  Sol Reform

  fondling boys, "not so bad." - John T. Bender, the president judge of the 15-member appellate court

  Judge Bender brought up Father Avery's prior behavior. The more he read, he told Burns, "it strikes me" that Avery's behavior was "not so bad." What the judge appeared to be referring to was that Avery had been accused of fondling boys, not raping them.

  Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2013/09/appellate-judges-in-msgr-lynn-case-ask.html#k5mwqJdjMBbvdHG2.99

  Appellate Judges In Msgr. Lynn Case Ask Philly D.A. Some Questions He Can't Answer

  Monsignor William J. Lynn

  By Ralph Cipriano
  for Bigtrial.net
  
  In a sunlight-drenched courtroom this morning, a couple of state appellate judges asked the Philadelphia district attorney's office to explain the pretzel logic of its suspect prosecution of Msgr. William J. Lynn.
  
  After four years of hiding behind secret grand juries and gag orders, the D.A. finally had to answer some tough questions in broad daylight. Seth Williams wasn't there, but his top appellate lawyer was. He responded with a litany of legal citations. But when the judges attempted to pin him down, the bottom line was, the D.A.'s office has no real answers. It's hard to explain the illogical and the politically expedient.
  
  Msgr. Lynn is now serving a 3 to 6 year prison term for his June 22, 2012 conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child. Could the appellate judges be contemplating a ruling that might free the defendant? There was a moment today during the intense 40-minute hearing that quickened the pulse of every defense lawyer in the packed courtroom.
  
  It came when John T. Bender, the president judge of the 15-member appellate court, asked defense lawyer Thomas A. Bergstrom how long his client had been in jail. It was a question that seemingly came out of nowhere. The answer was 15 months. But it left defense lawyers wondering whether the appellate court was sending a signal that it would entertain a new bail motion to be filed on behalf of Msgr. Lynn.
  
  "I don't know what to do; I don't want to be precipitous," a smiling Bergstrom told reporters after the hearing. Bergstrom said he would wait until the court issues a ruling on the Lynn appeal. And if that ruling favors his client, Bergstrom said, he'll be filing that bail motion about "five minutes later."
  
  Today's hearing took place on the 17th floor of 530 Walnut Street, in an ornate courtroom featuring candle chandeliers and sconces, and tall windows overflowing with blinding sunlight.
  
  The questions that the appellate judges asked that the D.A. couldn't answer concerned two subjects. The first was the D.A.'s flip-flop on the state's 1972 endangering the welfare of a child law, known as EWOC. The second was Judge M. Teresa Sarmina's decision to allow prosecutors in the Lynn trial to present 21 supplemental cases of past sex abuse dating back to 1948, three years before Lynn was born, to show a pattern of bad behavior in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
  
  Let's start with the 1972 EWOC law. It says: "A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he knowingly endangers the welfare of a child by violating a duty of care, protection or support."
  In 2005, then-District Attorney Lynne Abraham and a grand jury concluded that the 1972 EWOC law did not apply to Msgr. Lynn, Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua, or any other high-ranking official of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. A grand jury issued a report that said although it would like to, it could not legally indict Lynn or Bevilacqua for the crime of endangering the welfare of a child.
  
  In 2011, a new district attorney, Seth Williams, and another grand jury looked at the same 1972 EWOC law and concluded that it did apply, not only to Msgr. Lynn, but also to Fathers Edward V. Avery, James J. Brennan and Charles Engelhardt, as well as a lay teacher, Bernard Shero. The grand jury indicted the four priests and the teacher, and charged them with endangering the welfare of a child. The 1972 state EWOC law refers to "a parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child." The way the law has traditionally been applied usually involves an adult who has a relationship with a child, such as a parent, guardian or teacher; the law also requires a person who "knowingly endangers the welfare of a child." But in Msgr. Lynn's case, he was prosecuted for endangering the welfare of "a child he never met, he never knew existed at all," Bergstrom told the appellate judges.

  Thomas A. Bergstrom (center)

  Instead, Bergstrom said, Lynn was charged ex post facto," or after the fact, under the standards of an EWOC law amended in 2007 to include supervisors. The 1972 EWOC law that makes it a crime to endanger the welfare of a child [EWOC] applies to "a parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age." The amended EWOC law, which took effect in 2007, applies not only to "a parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age," but also to "a person that employs or supervises such a person." The law was amended after the 2005 grand jury report to specifically target supervisors such as Lynn. "Lynn never supervised the child," Bergstrom told the appellate judges. Instead, Lynn supervised Father Avery, who pleaded guilty to raping a 10-year-old altar identified by the 2011 grand jury report as Billy Doe. Judge John L. Musmanno asked Bergstrom if Lynn was guilty of "facilitating the crime." In other words, did Lynn "aid or abet" the rape of Billy Doe, the judge wanted to know. Bergstrom returned to the language of the 1972 EWOC law. It required that the parent, guardian or person supervising the welfare of a child to "knowingly" endanger the welfare of that child, he said. In Lynn's case, the alleged rape of Billy Doe, which took place during the 1998-99 school year, was not reported to the archdiocese until 2009. To find that Lynn was guilty of EWOC under the old law, you'd have to conclude that Avery "was some kind of virus," Bergstrom said. Bergstrom argued that whatever bad acts were perpetrated by Avery were "not bad acts of Lynn." "He had no knowledge of it," Bergstrom said. Bergstrom then addressed the 21 supplemental cases of prior sex abuse allowed into trial by Judge Sarmina. Bergstrom said by his count, 26 of 32 trial days were taken up with hearing evidence from the supplemental cases. Only six days were spent on the alleged crimes behind the actual charges against Lynn. Bergstrom's position was that Judge Sarmina should have never allowed the 21 supplemental cases into evidence, as it prejudiced the jury, and had little or nothing to do with the alleged rape of Billy Doe by Avery.

  Hugh J. Burns Jr.

  Next up was Hugh J. Burns Jr. chief of the D.A.'s appeals unit. Burns said the 21 supplemental cases of sex abuse were "probative and relevant" to Lynn's "knowledge and intent." Lynn had a history of transferring abusive priests in the archdiocese from parish to parish, without warning parishioners or parents, Burns said. He argued that under the old EWOC law, it was Lynn's responsibility to supervise the welfare of a child. "That's your position?" asked Judge Bender. It was. "He [Lynn] didn't simply put Avery out there, he was systematically putting others out there," Burns said, referring to other abusive priests. But Judge Bender cut Burns off, and asked the $64,000 question. "Why did they amend the statute?" he asked. Burns said there was no evidence that "a change in language means a change in intent." His position was the 1972 law, as well as the 2007 amended law, were both about protecting the welfare of children. Judge Christine L. Donohue interrupted Burns to ask how many times had the 1972 EWOC law been interpreted to apply to the supervisor of a supervisor of children, as it had in Lynn's case. This is an issue that Lynn's lawyers have researched. Since 1972, the old EWOC law has been applied in nearly 300 cases. Not once had it been applied to a supervisor of a supervisor of children until Lynn came along. Were there any other cases besides Lynn's that support your position, Judge Donohue asked Burns? In other words, did any other supervisor like Lynn ever get charged with EWOC under the 1972 EWOC law? "No," Burns said. Judge Bender brought up Father Avery's prior behavior. The more he read, he told Burns, "it strikes me" that Avery's behavior was "not so bad." What the judge appeared to be referring to was that Avery had been accused of fondling boys, not raping them. The judge wondered if under those circumstances, whether the judge's decision to admit the 21 supplemental cases of sex abuse was warranted.
  Based on the priest's prior behavior, "it wasn't so clear what Avery would do," Judge Bender said. Those words had to be a real downer for the folks from the district attorney's office who sat stone-faced in the front row of the courtroom. Burns did his best to portray Lynn as a bad actor. Indeed, Lynn went "out of his way to see to it that [Avery] had access to children," Burns argued, by allowing Avery to work as a hospital chaplain, but also live at St. Jerome's rectory, where he would be near school children.
  According to secret archdiocese reports, Avery was a "time bomb" who could go off at any time, Burns said. Judge Donohue asked about Avery's prior bad acts. They should have been used to establish "knowledge of what, the judge wanted to know. "Knowledge of risk," Burns replied. "Knowledge of potential harm to children." Once again, Judge Bender chimed in. "Avery wasn't so clear," he told Burns. "The more I read, his past was not so bad." Burns didn't think so. He also wasn't excusing Lynn. "He [Lynn] was ignoring the welfare of children," Burns said.
  
  On his feet, Burns made one factual mistake. He argued that on Lynn's watch Avery was allowed to exhibit "grooming" behavior by plying youths with alcohol at events where he worked as a disc jockey.
  
  This was not blatantly not true. The event that Burns apparently was referring to was a 1978 incident involving a 15-year-old who was helping Avery work as a DJ at Smokey Joe's bar in West Philly. Afterwards, Avery molested the drunken boy who shared his bed that night.
  
  The victim in the incident, a 49-year-old married doctor, testified during the Lynn trial in one of the supplemental sex abuse cases. The incident happened long before Avery showed up up at St. Jerome's. Burns sat down, and Bergstrom got a two-minute rebuttal. Lynn, he said, was not responsible for protecting all the children in the archdiocese. In the trial of Lynn, the prosecution's burden was to prove that Lynn was guilty of knowingly endangering the welfare of a single child, namely Billy Doe. The prosecutors didn't prove that, Bergstrom said. They couldn't because Lynn didn't even know Billy Doe. "What have they done?" Bergstrom said of the prosecution. "They were walking away from that position." Instead, they charged that Lynn had a duty to supervise Avery. Bergstrom then read what the defense has characterized as a "single breathtaking admission" from the district attorney's office. It came in a 63-page brief filed June 25 in Superior Court. In the brief, the D.A. stated that Lynn had "endangered the welfare of" Billy Doe by "breaching his duty to prevent priests under his supervision, such as [Father Edward V.] Avery, from sexually molesting children. The evidence is sufficient because [Lynn] was Avery's supervisor, with a specific duty to prevent Avery from doing exactly what [Lynn] instead facilitated." This is the exact language of the amended EWOC law of 2007, Bergstrom declared. It can not be applied after the fact to Lynn.
  Bergstrom sat down. Judge Bender told the lawyers on both sides that the case was "very well argued." Judge Donohue added that the case was "very well briefed." Grim-faced staffers from the D.A.'s office left without saying anything to reporters, as is their usual custom. If the appellate court rules against them, it's a case of pick your poison.
  
  If the appellate court rules that Lynn shouldn't have been charged under the 1972 EWOC law, the legal remedy would be a reversal of the conviction. If the appellate court rules that Judge Sarmina shouldn't have allowed into evidence the 21 supplemental sex abuse cases, the remedy would be a new trial. After the hearing, Bergstrom told reporters about how well his client was holding up behind bars. "He's lost 70 pounds," Bergstrom said. "He feels good. He's doing a lot of reading in the prison library." The defense lawyer left the courthouse a happy man after what seemed to be a cathartic experience. "I feel like I finally got somebody to listen," Bergstrom said.
  Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2013/09/appellate-judges-in-msgr-lynn-case-ask.html#k5mwqJdjMBbvdHG2.99
• 

  Sol Reform

  http://www.sunherald.com/2013/12/27/5220428/analysis-philadelphia-sex-abuse.html

  ANALYSIS: Philadelphia sex-abuse reversal conveys a painful lesson

  By DAVID GIBSON Religion News ServiceDecember 27, 2013

  ALEX BRANDON — ASSOCIATED PRESS ANALYSIS:

  Philadelphia sex-abuse reversal conveys a painful lesson

  This week's court decision that freed a senior cleric in Philadelphia who had been jailed for shielding an abusive priest was a symbolic setback for victims' advocates but one with a substantial, and discouraging, message for their cause:

  None of the churchmen implicated in cover-ups during the worst decades of abuse will likely ever face charges.

  The June 2012 conviction of Monsignor William Lynn was seen as a landmark verdict because until then no one in the upper levels of the Catholic Church had ever faced a trial or been found guilty for shielding molesters. Lynn, who oversaw clergy and fielded abuse complaints for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, was sentenced to three to six years on one count of child endangerment.

  After serving 18 months in prison, Lynn was expected to be released from prison soon.

  During the past few decades, a number of abusers have been convicted, and many defrocked. But public outrage was largely directed against the bishops and senior church officials like Lynn who, as the appeals court noted in its ruling on Thursday, "prioritized the archdiocese's reputation over the safety of potential victims of sexually abusive priests."

  But the appeals ruling also said that Lynn's behavior, while outrageous to much of the Catholic faithful and the wider public, did not violate the child welfare law in place at the time of the abuse. The harsh reality And therein lies the harsh reality of the clergy abuse scandal:

  Much like the financial scandals that rocked the nation after the recession of 2007, almost no one at the highest echelons of responsibility was ever brought to trial or even charged with a crime. "Literally thousands of U.S. Catholic officials have done precisely what Monsignor Lynn did and were never even charged or exposed, much less convicted," said David Clohessy, executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP.

  "And we believe that hundreds or thousands of chancery officials across the globe are doing -- right now -- exactly what Monsignor Lynn did for years." A chief reason that the American hierarchy escaped prosecution was simple: The offenses that came to light largely took place years earlier, and if the statute of limitations on those crimes had not run out, many of the bishops and cardinals responsible for protecting the abusers had themselves expired.

  Another paradox Another cruel paradox is that the revelations often led to tougher laws and reforms that extended the statute of limitations on reporting abuse, but it was too late to snare the churchmen responsible for the offenses that prompted those changes. The Lynn case was a microcosm of the conundrum: Pennsylvania's child welfare law was amended in 2007 in the wake of abuse reports to explicitly include supervisors like Lynn. But that was after Lynn had retired, and it was not retroactive.

  Moreover, Lynn was always something of a consolation prize. Lynn's boss, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, who headed the archdiocese from 1988 to 2003, was found by a grand jury to have orchestrated policies that ignored victims and shielded hundreds of abusive clergy from punishment.

  But the laws at the time were too weak to bring Bevilacqua up on charges, and he died in January 2012 before the start of Lynn's trial, where he was expected to be a star witness. In a similar fashion, disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston also escaped charges despite his role in a series of cover-ups.

  After months as the target of public anger, then-Pope John Paul II gave Law a post in Rome, where he has lived quietly and out of the spotlight. Even Cardinal Roger Mahony, who was just 49 when he was named archbishop of Los Angeles in 1985, was never charged with a crime despite thousands of pages of internal documents released in recent years that detailed how he shuffled priests around to protect them. Mahony is 77 and retired in 2011. What now?

  So, what now? In Philadelphia, District Attorney Seth Williams said he would probably appeal the Lynn ruling. Some church observers say that whatever happens, the Lynn case put church officials across the country on notice that they have to report crimes.

  "Law enforcement officials, if they have the courage, can often find creative ways to charge and convict corrupt clerics," Clohessy said. Clohessy and others noted that three months after Lynn's conviction, Bishop Robert W. Finn of Missouri was sentenced to two years of court-supervised probation for failing to report suspected child abuse by a priest who was later convicted on federal child pornography charges.

  The crime in that instance took place in 2010 and was a rare example of a case authorities could readily prosecute. Victims' advocates are also encouraged that the Catholic scandal continues to prompt reforms in abuse laws and prevention policies and that those who were abused are more likely than ever to come forward with their stories.

  Hope shifts to the Vatican But increasingly, the focus of hope is shifting to the Vatican, where advocates say Pope Francis needs to ensure that a new commission on child abuse establishes the kind of church penalties for bishops that they never faced in the secular sphere. Finn, victims' advocates note, remains in office, and archbishops in Minnesota and New Jersey have not been removed despite new revelations about their roles in protecting abusive priests.

  "It's good that Finn and Lynn were convicted, but the value of those two cases was always symbolic -- they showed a kind of accountability that was never going to be as broad as it should be," said Terence McKiernan, head of BishopAccountability.org, a watchdog group. Nicholas Cafardi, a canon and civil lawyer at the Duquesne Law School in Pittsburgh and former head of the Catholic bishops' national review board on clergy abuse, said Francis must broaden the mandate of the commission to include his brother bishops.

  "We have to insist that there be repercussions for any bishop who would re-assign or cover-up for a sexually abusive priest,"

  Cafardi wrote in an email. "The church will never have closure on this issue unless the larger problem of hierarchical complicity is dealt with."

  Read more here: http://www.sunherald.com/2013/12/27/5220428/analysis-philadelphia-sex-abuse.html#storylink=cpy
• 

  Sol Reform

  http://road-to-recovery.org/page/about-road-recovery

  Monday Bail Hearing PHILADELPHIA (PA) Road to Recovery Road to Recovery, Inc. P.O. Box 279 Livingston, NJ 07039 862-368-2800 [email protected]

  MEDIA RELEASE DECEMBER 29, 2013

  Bail hearing for Philadelphia priest, Msgr. William Lynn, who supervised sexually abusive clergy is another “punch in the gut” to clergy sexual abuse survivors Survivors of sexual abuse will call on judge to deny bail to Philadelphia priest who enabled sexual abuse of children

  Once again, highly-placed religious leaders might be “bailed out” of responsibility for enabling sexual abuse of children while many survivors will never be bailed out of their misery

  What: A demonstration calling on Judge Teresa Sarmina to deny bail to Msgr. William Lynn, former Secretary for Clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, who was convicted by a jury of his peers in a Philadelphia courtroom of enabling the sexual abuse of children by his clergy colleagues.

  When: Monday, December 30, 2013 at 9:00 A.M.

  Where: On the sidewalk in front of the courthouse at 1301 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

  Who: Members of Road to Recovery, a non-profit charity that assists victims of sexual abuse, including a man from suburban Philadelphia who will speak about his sexual abuse by a priest in another state.

  Many of the other demonstrators are survivors of clergy sexual abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese and surrounding dioceses and states. Why: Once again, the criminal justice system favors sexual abusers and enablers of sexual abuse.

  Monsignor William Lynn was convicted by a jury of his peers who heard months of testimony, including poignant and credible accounts by survivors of clergy sexual abuse.

  He was deemed to be a criminal, and survivors of clergy sexual abuse once again call on the courts for free and equitable treatment. Up to this point, laws and religious leaders have not bailed victims out of their trauma and treated them with the respect they deserve, and Msgr. William Lynn is one such church leader who has not treated clergy abuse victims honesty, truthfully, and compassionately.

  He was convicted for such behavior by a jury of citizens who judged his behavior to be criminal.

  Lynn does not deserve to be bailed out unless and until every one of the victims to whom he denied fair hearings is “bailed out” of their pain.

  Contacts: Robert M. Hoatson, Ph.D. – President, Road to Recovery, Inc. – 862-368-2800

  http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTrackerArchive/2013/12/#093319
• 

  Band on the Run

  Wow. An entire half hour of oral arguments. This same conviction was hailed as a victory by the press when it happened. Sometimes you need test cases. I don't know the merits.
• 

  Sol Reform

  http://www.myfoxph illy.com/story/24329624/reactions-to

  Local Reactions To Monsg Lynn Getting Bail Posted: Dec 30, 2013 3:53 PM

  Judge To OK Bail For Pa. Priest After Appeal Win

  PHILADELPHIA -

  "I'm disgusted by the Superior Court's cavalier disregard for the child victims…"

  District Attorney Seth Williams says that the battle to get Monsignor William Lynn back behind bars has just begun. After serving 18 months of his 36 year sentence, Monsignor William Lynn will be released from prison on bail.

  The 62-year old former Secretary of Clergy for the Archdiocese was convicted in July of 2012 for covering up sex abuse claims in his role of assigning priests. Last week in state superior court, the landmark conviction was overturned on the grounds that the child endangerment law that he was convicted under didn't apply to him...

  "He's gonna be out of jail and that's what pleases me. And we can accommodate your honor and we will so," said Tim Bergstrom, the defense lawyer. In addition to posting bail, Monsignor Lynn was ordered to turn over his passport, wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and report weekly to law enforcement officials.

  "It's heartbreaking in a way because no one is held accountable," said Kevin Waldrip, a protestor. Protestors who braved the cold outside today's bail hearing say that they hope the DA wins an appeal

  "Clearly the overturn of Monsg William Lynn's conviction was an injustice that sends the wrong message to Philadelphians and every victim," DA Williams said.

  The Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) said in a statement today: Msgr. Lynn's callousness, recklessness and deceit caused kids to be hurt and predators to walk free.

  We hope that Pennsylvania's highest court will re-instate his conviction.
• 

  Sol Reform

  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140509_Pa__Supreme_Court_to_hear_Msgr__Lynn_s_appeal.html

  Pa. Supreme Court to decide Msgr. Lynn's case

  2 Comments

  Monsignor William Lynn leaves the Criminal Justice Center yesterday in Center City.

  He served 18 months of a three- to six-year prison sentence.

  (Alejandor A. Alvarez/Staff) Joseph A. Slobodzian, Inquirer Staff Writer Last updated: Thursday, May 8, 2014, 5:39 PM Posted: Thursday, May 8, 2014, 3:56 PM

  Pennsylvania's Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to resolve the contested key legal theory underpinning the landmark 2012 prosecution of the first Catholic Church official charged in the clergy child sex-abuse scandal.

  The decision by the state's highest court will decide the future of Msgr. William J. Lynn, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's former official responsible for investigating and recommending punishment for priests accused of sexual and other misconduct.

  It could also dictate the standards for prosecutors to bring future charges against church officials accused of covering up misconduct by the clergy they supervise.

  The Supreme Court did not set a date for oral argument, or even a briefing schedule for what will be months of legal filings by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and lawyers for the Archdiocese and for Lynn.

  "I'm a little disappointed," said Thomas A. Bergstrom, Lynn's lead attorney, who had asked the high court to let stand last year's Superior Court decision reversing Lynn's conviction on a count of child endangerment. "On the other hand, the fight goes on and we'll see."

  Tasha Jamerson, spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office, said there was no comment on the Supreme Court decision. The justices' ruling came about two months after Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams formally asked them to reinstate Lynn's conviction involving his supervisory role over a predator priest who went on to assault another child in 1999. In July 2012, after a 13-week trial and 121/2 days of deliberations, a Common Pleas Court judge sentenced Lynn to three to six years in prison. He immediately went into custody.

  The jury found that Lynn allowed the Rev. Edward V. Avery, who had a history of sexually abusing children, to live in a Northeast rectory where he later assaulted a 10-year-old altar boy. Avery pleaded guilty in 2012 and was sentenced to 21/2 to five years in state prison. But on Dec. 26, a three-judge Superior Court panel reversed Lynn's conviction.

  The 63-year-old cleric was released from prison on Jan. 2 after the Archdiocese of Philadelphia posted the required 10 percent of his $250,000 bail. He lives in the rectory of St. William, a parish in Lawncrest, on electronically monitored house arrest. The Superior Court panel agreed with Lynn's attorneys that his conviction could not be affirmed under the original child-endangerment law or the amended version enacted in 2007. Bergstrom argued that the pre-2007 version required direct personal supervision of a child.

  As the Archdiocese's secretary of clergy, he said, Lynn was just a "supervisor of a supervisor." But the post-2007 law, which enabled prosecution of church officials for crimes committed by priests they supervised, cannot be retroactively applied to Lynn, who left the clergy secretary post in 2004 after 12 years. The District Attorney's Office argued that the Superior Court wrongly interpreted the original child-endangerment statute to mean "direct supervision."

  In accepting the appeal, the justices asked the lawyers to argue the direct supervision question under the pre-2007 law.

  But they also asked the them to address if Lynn could be convicted under an alternative theory: as "accomplice" to a scheme in which sexually deviant priests were reassigned to places they could prey on other children.

  [email protected] Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140509_Pa__Supreme_Court_to_hear_Msgr__Lynn_s_appeal.html#Hu85HOdb02rEeLW5.99