The unjust imprisonment and suffering of Catholic
priests at the hands of communist, fascist and other evil despots has and will unfortunately
never end. Of course, let us not forget that Jesus Christ himself told his
apostles that the world will hate them as they hated him. Let us not forget also that Christ was
falsely accused and condemned because one man, Pontius Pilate, like most of us,
did not have the courage to stand up against the hysterical crowd which did not
know, or want to know the truth. As our Lord taught, “The Son of Man came ...
not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
(Matt. 20:28)
When such persecutions occur there is little if
anything that the Church can do. What if
anything even our Holy Father, Pope Francis can do to stop the daily killing of
Christians throughout the world today?
However, such unjust punishments are not limited to
these regimes, and one such travesty of injustice which has been occurring for
the last 21-years, right here in the United
States, is the wrongful conviction and imprisonment
of Father Gordon MacRae. In 1994 this
young and dedicated priest was sentenced by a New
Hampshire state judge to the draconian sentence
of 33 ½ to 67-years, a virtual life sentence.
Because Father MacRae before trial had refused to admit to a crime in
which he did not commit and take a plea offer, or while in prison make such an
admission of guilt, Father Gordon will probably never be paroled from prison,
and is likely to die in jail for a crime which he did not commit.
Any reasonable person examining the trial with any
degree of fairness cannot come to the conclusion that the prosecution and
continuing imprisonment of Father Gordon is not only a personal tragedy for
this good and holy priest, all the clergy and the faithful, but also, a blight
on our criminal justice system which refuses to acknowledge the mistake that
was made. The machine of the criminal
justice system of the State of New
Hampshire will never attempt to re-examine this
case, and rectify it.
It is without dispute that our society in general is
quick to condemn someone accused of committing a crime. This is especially true, when it is an
allegation of a sexual crime, and even more especially true when the accuser
claims that it occurred at the hands of a Catholic priest. No serious thinker,
even one with the most law enforcement conservative mindset, would deny that
for the last 25-years, that the deck has been stacked against any priest
charged with a sexual offense, and that it is virtually impossible for a priest
in the Catholic Church to be judged fairly by a jury, or for that matter a
judge.
During the period of time of Father Gordon persecution there was a climate of national hysteria regarding any allegation of sexual offenses, true or false, on anyone under 18-years of age, especially a Catholic priest by the public in general, but especially true of the salacious media which fueled such hysteria. Such a climate made it virtually impossible for a jury to apply the reasonable doubt standard and such juries were and are prone to believe any allegation of sexual misconduct no matter how bizarre the allegations are. Many legal scholars who have examined this period of child sexual hysteria of the 1980’s and 1990’s equate this period to the Salem witch trials of the seventeenth century. The prosecution of Father MacRae was fueled by media hype and media sensationalism which cares little about civil liberties and the presumption of innocence when it comes to allegations of an alleged Catholic sexual abuse case.
Further, at the time of Father MacRae’s prosecution,
as one court put it: “[A] series of highly questionable child sex abuse
prosecutions ... were fueled by a vast moral panic ... a period in
which allegations of outrageously bizarre and often ritualistic child abuse
spread like wildfire across the country and garnered world-wide media
attention.” “[T]remendous emotion [was] generated by the public” as a result of
which “the criminal process often fail[ed]....” Friedman v. Rehal,
618 F.3d 142, 155, 158 (2 Cir. 2010
The genesis of the criminal prosecution of Father
Gordon is no different than the ingredients in most other wrongful convictions. The convergence of factors in this case was a
perfect storm for this wrongful conviction.
In the wake of these factors, Father Gordon had zero chance of receiving
a fair trial, and being acquitted of the false charges at trial. As a practicing criminal defense attorney
involved in many such cases over the last 25-years, any defendant charged with
such a crime must actually prove his or her innocence’s. The scared duty that a jury is charged with
in a criminal case, that being, that the defendant is innocent, and that the
prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond any
reasonable doubt, and that the defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever, is
often ignored in these types of cases.
To begin with the evidence is overwhelming that the false
criminal allegations were brought by a sophisticated-manipulative young man,
who had a financial motive to lie.
Second, this accuser was trained and couched during the entire criminal process
by his civil attorney who was seeking a large payday from the dioceses of Manchester. This accuser,
who had a long history of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as involvement in the
juvenile criminal justice system, had a long history of opportunistic and
manipulative lying. Years later after
the verdict it was discovered that Father MacRae’s accuser would brag to
friends and family members how he manipulated the criminal justice system and
the dioceses. The entire prosecution of
Father MacRae hinged upon the inconsistent, contradictory, and incredulous
testimony of this one accuser. Being a
young priest, Father Gordon only mistake was trying to help this young man who
had no family support and was heading down the path to destruction.
In the early 1990’s it was common knowledge in New
Hampshire, like all of the dioceses in the United States, that the Diocese of
New Hampshire was paying huge sums of money to any young man claiming to have
been abused by their priests. Further,
that the Diocese was making these payments without conducting any
investigations to determine the validity of the claims. In short, it was a windfall for predatory civil
personal injury attorneys making money off the backs of faithful parishioners,
and a dream come true for scammers and fraudsters looking to cash in. Such was the person of Tom Grover, a
foster-child of the Grover’s, who sought the help of Father Gordon to counsel
and help their child. Grover’s parents
without any recourse struggled with their son who suffered from alcohol and
drug abuse as well as mental health problems and frequent run-ins with the
law. Many years later when Grover became
aware of the large amounts of money that the Diocese was paying out, Grover, saw
his opportunity to make a large amount of money, by thanking Father Gordon for
all the that he had done for him by weaving a string of lies which would be impossible
for Father Gordon to refute.
Notwithstanding that there was not a single witness
accept Grover, and Grover’s story bordered on the absurd, since he claimed that
he was assaulted by Father Gordon in non-private areas, the New Hampshire
Diocese paid him nearly $200,000.00.
Based on
legal papers submitted in federal court, credible witnesses have now been
located and have come forwarded willing to testify that Grover admitted
committing perjury at trial, and bragging about how he scammed the diocese and
the criminal justice system. Grover’s
former wife, and step-son, have admitted that Grover was a “compulsive liar”,
“manipulator”, “drama queen” and “hustler”, who has a long history of lying to
get what he wanted. When confronted with
his lies, Gover “would lose his temper”, and admit himself into the psychiatric
unit at the Elliott Hospital. While seek “help”, Gover would accuse others
of molesting him as well. Grover accused
other clergyman, his foster father and baby sitters when he was a child. In addition to Grover’s psychological and
alcohol and drug addition, Grover had an extensive criminal history prior to
making his false allegations against Father Gordon. Grover was arrested and convicted for two
burglary, two forgery, and two thefts. theft by deception, assault on a police
officer, and aggravated assault on his former wife, when he broke her nose
during one of many beatings that he administered to her. Lastly, his former
wife considered him a sexual predator, and never left her two daughters from
another relationship alone with him while they were living together because of
the way he would constantly eye and grope them.
In April of
2005, when the lead detective James McLaughlin was confronted with these
sobering facts about Grover in the Wall Street Journal article about the unjust
conviction of Father Gordon. In response
to his botched and incompetent investigation of Father Gordon, McLaughlin made
himself a self-appointed psychologist and responded remarkably by saying. “So we had all these elevated activities
with our male victims, so in a sense, when you have a victim present that has
this baggage, it's corroborative of their victimization," “Story
of Jailed Priest Retold”, The Union Leader (Manchester NH)
April 28, 2005
At trial Grover lied and told the jury that he needed money from his law suit from the Diocese for therapy because of the “abuse.” However, after his $200,000.00, payday and after the trial was over, Grover did not attend one therapy session but took his former wife to Arizona, where he blew it all on alcohol, drugs, cars, pornography and gambling. In fact on that trip he lost about $70,000.00 on a Las Vegas gambling junket. In addition, he stiffed the casino another $50.000.00 on a credit line which he fraudulently applied for by providing false information about his job and income. The casino eventually attempted to collect with a collection action which was unsuccessful. His wife finally left him in 1998 when the money was gone, and Grover was caught in bed with her biological sister.
At trial Grover’s testimony did not
boarder on the absurd it was absurd. His
shifty testimony was fantastic, nonsensical and contradictory. When he was spoon-fed by the direct
questioning by the prosecutor he was able recite his rehearsed testimony. However, on cross-examination it was far
different. Every time he was trapped in
a lie or inconsistent statement he fell back on his rehearsed line, by saying the question: “overloads
my mind and.... leaves me more or less in shock for days after....” When
Grover was confronted as to why he did not report the abuse for 10-years, and
until he spoke to his civil attorneys, he claimed that he repressed the abuse,
and it was “difficult to talk [about it] in front of people”
The fundamental question must be asked about our
criminal justice system; how could any reasonable jury, who has the sworn duty to acquit Father Gordon, find him
guilty under this type of incredulous testimony. The State had the burden of proving beyond
any reasonable doubt of Father Gordon’s guilt.
How could they have gotten it so wrong?
In other words, before a jury could find him guilty they would have to
have found Grover’s testimony completely credible. Under our criminal justice
system no competent and reasonable jury should have found this type of
testimony sufficient to convict a Catholic Priest who had previous to these
series of false allegations had never been convicted of anything but a traffic
moving violation.
Not unlike other unjust conviction, the law
enforcement investigation of Father Gordon was not only overzealous but was intentionally
unfair. The lead detective McLaughlin was not interested in a fair and
impartial investigation but rather was only interested in creating and spinning the
facts to support his and eventually the prosecutions theory of the case. In addition, McLaughlin also suppressed any facts
which clearly pointed out that Father Gordon was innocent of the false
allegations made by the accuser. McLaughlin engaged in investigating this
matter in a way that was patently unfair and used his power as a law
enforcement officer to suppress witnesses who were willing to testify for
Father Gordon.
To make matter worst Father Gordon’s bishop at the
time of his trial did not support Father Gordon but in fact allowed his office
to issue a press release prior to trial which literally condemned Father
Gordon. This misstatement by the bishop
did two things; first, the bishop caved into public pressure, and help fuel the
media hysteria, and second, it unquestionably tainted the potential jury pool,
insuring the prosecution of a conviction.
The bishop did not stand up for one of his priest’s with courage, but
rather retreated to bureaucratic-clericalism, more worried about pleasing his
civil lawyers, insurance carrier and the potential civil liability of the
diocese. Hence, the bishop either
negligently or intentionally treated Father Gordon as an expendable temporary
employee. This abandonment by the
diocese has continued 21-years later. The bishop’s technique accomplished
nothing because the diocese paid out, without conducting any independent
investigation, monetary awards to Father Gordon accuser. The greater cost of course for the diocese
and its bishop was its betrayal of filial and fraternal trust to Father Gordon
which under canon law he was obligated to maintain at the minimum,
pre-verdict. Not only was Father Gordon
not able to count on his bishop for support, but the bishop, negligently or
intentionally acted in such a way as to give the message to the public that
Father Gordon was guilty. Whether or not
Father Gordon was sacrificed by the bishop on the altar of insurance
considerations and their lawyers only the bishop could answer that
question. To date it is conservatively
estimated that the Church in the United
States has paid 2.5 billion in claims because
of the sexual abuse scandal. How many of
these claims were outright false which the United
States dioceses paid out is only a guess. In any case, at the behest of the insurance
carrier, or out of the lack of any compassion for one of his own, the bishop
distances himself from Father MacRae and left him on his own.
If the cards were not already stacked against Father
Gordon his criminal defense attorney at
trial was no help. At trial Father
Gordon was represented by a New Mexico criminal
attorney, Ron Koch, who became deceased in the year 2000, at the age of
49. Although this attorney did his best
to defend Father Gordon, he nevertheless made critical trial errors which hurt
Father Gordon’s defense and opened the door for the prosecutor to introduce
prejudicial evidence which the trial judge had already ruled was inadmissible
and not relevant. Mr. Koch was forced to
split his time between his active criminal practice in New Mexico and preparing
for Father’s Gordon’s trial, which Mr. Koch was unable to do. Accordingly, unable to do both, Mr. Koch failed
to conduct important pretrial discovery and adequate preparation of the case
for trial. Accordingly, it is without
dispute that Father Gordon’s trial counsel was unprepared and out matched, and
under these facts Father Gordon’s trial counsel was constitutionally
ineffective, and accordingly Father Gordon’s constitutional rights to
procedural due process and a fair trial were eviscerated. Mr. Koch failed to interview critical
witnesses for the defense, failed to subpoena critical witnesses for the
defense, failed to go to the scene in which Grove alleged that he had been
touched, and lastly, preserve attorney-client privileged documents which Koch
turned over to the prosecution.
Many people unfamiliar with the criminal justice
system in the United
States believe that the criminal justice
eventually corrects an unjust conviction.
This sadly is the exception and not the rule. Under our judicial system the jury verdict is
final, and most appeals, regardless as to the justice of the verdict are
denied. Father Gordon is going on his
22-years of imprisonment. Every appeal
has been rejected, every judge hearing his case has turned their back on his
pleas for justice. On March 17, 2015, a federal
district court judge who many had high hopes would grant Father MacRae’s writ of habeas
corpus, instead granted the State of New Hampshire’s motion to dismiss on the pleadings. The judge did not even
grant Father Gordon an evidential hearing on Father Gordon's claim of innocence.
Father’s Gordon appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals is
tenuous at best. Aside from a miracle or
pardon from the Governor of New Hampshire or the President of the United
States, it is most likely that Father Gordon will die a martyr’s death in
prison, or if lucky, be release a very old man.
The Catholic Church cannot bring the fullness of the
truth without its priests. Every priest
in the Church, good, bad, or indifferent, has been selected by God for this
mission. The Church has no alternative but to pursue and fight for authentic
justice, and it must start with Father Gordon.
No pope, cardinal, bishop, priest, and faithful laity can sit by and
permit this injustice to continue. Diabolic
advocacy and persecution of the Church has and will continue. Satin knows its enemy, and his enemy is the Holy
Roman Catholic Church, and in particular its clergy. Satin’s relentless pursuit
against the only game in town, the only institutional defender of natural law
in the entire world, from the moment of conception to the natural death is the
Church.
St. John Vianney, the patron of parish priests, understood this all to well, who also was subjected to outrageous lies about his character, when he made the profound statement over 150 years ago: “When people wish to destroy religion, they begin by attacking the priest, because where there is no longer any priest, there is no sacrifice, and where there is no longer any sacrifice, there is no religion.”
At the end of our brief temporal life all of us will be judged for what we “did and failed to do”; did we all do what is “right and just?”
Vincent James Sanzone, Jr., Esq., is a lover of his Catholic faith, a practicing criminal defense attorney in New Jersey for the last 25-years. Attorney Sanzone is a member of the New Jersey Bar Association, National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, and the Legal Center for Defense of Life. He is admitted to the bar in the State of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Federal Appeals Courts for the Third and Fourth Circuits. In addition, he has been admitted to practice pro hac vice in Southern District of New York, and Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Attorney Sanzone has argued successfully before the New Jersey Supreme Court, and has tried hundreds of criminal trials in his 25-year as a criminal defense attorney. Many of his clients were minority young men and women whom were acquitted of all the charges at trial and went on to live exemplary lives.
“... for the ones with great difficulty and no clear evidence of success plot away at the task of awakening in just a few men, a small spark of faith, of hope, and of charity.” Karl Rahner, S.J.
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207
(908) 354-7006
YourCivilRights@gmail.com
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
No comments:
Post a Comment