From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: Asylum (sanctuary)
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:38:03 GMT

In article <9212141642.AA07344@enet-gw.pa.dec.com>,         "John R. Covert 14-Dec-1992 1127" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:

|> I can't find a recent article, but an article published at the
|> beginning of the trial names two priests, The Rev. R. Thomas Carleton,
|> 46, of Arlington, and The Rev. Francis O. Hagerty, 76, of Boston.

A few days ago, Fr Tom Carleton was sentenced to 2 1/2 years imprisonment,
with 2 years suspended.  Since he will not promise to stop protecting unborn
children, he is likely to serve the whole sentence.  A fellow defendant (a
layman whose name I forget), was acquitted.

Fr Hagerty, SJ, was not on trial in this proceeding.

|> The earlier article appeared at a time when the State prosecutors had
|> filed a motion to prevent the priests from wearing any clothing which
|> would identify them as priests and which would enjoin attorneys and
|> witnesses from referring to them as "Father" during the trial.
|> 
|> The State withdrew the motion after major protests were scheduled.
|> It's obvious that the prosecutor's office was in some disarray over
|> this; news articles quoted State Attorney General Harshbarger as
|> saying that the motion was withdrawn because the Church and Operation
|> Rescue were going to start a sideshow that would detract from the
|> actual prosecution, but then a few days later he said that he was
|> going to dismiss the prosecutors who had file the motion.

Even the liberal Boston Globe's columnist Mike Barnicle raked Harshbarger
over the coals for trying to suppress the identity of the two priests.

At the request of the defense attorney, the judge did specifically rule that
all persons in the case should be addressed by their titles.  The prosecutor,
however, persisted in addressing Fr. Carleton as "Mr."

There is a possibility of appeal, on several grounds.

The defendants were not allowed to use the "necessity" defense: that is, to
say that they blocked the abortion facility to prevent an imminent loss of
life.

When the defense attorney asked Fr Carleton why he had blocked the doors, the
prosecutor objected, and the judge had Fr Carleton answer the question while
the jury was out of the room.  He said, "I always admired the "White Rose
Resistance" -- the German students who were put to death by the Nazis.... 
When I was growing up, the big question was: where was everybody when the Jews
were being killed?  I have to be ready to answer the question myself: where
was I when the babies were being killed?" 

The judge, after hearing the answer, forbade the question from being posed
again when the jury returned.  

The defense was also not allowed to inform the jury of its right ("jury
nullification") to judge the law as well as the facts, and to acquit the
defendant if they should find the law to be unjust.  The judge, in her
instructions to the jury, specifically said that *she* ruled on questions of
law, and the jury only on questions of fact.

---
Richard Chonak, norris@athena.mit.edu,                                    INTP
I have very exclusive and nuanced opinions.  License info available on request.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic