Prosecutors dispute Bishop Finn’s motions to dismiss

Share Button

The Kansas City Star

09 March 2012

BY MARK MORRIS

Jackson County prosecutors urged a judge Friday to allow a trial in the misdemeanor criminal case against Bishop Robert Finn and the local Catholic diocese.

They filed their pleadings in response to motions to dismiss that Finn’s lawyers filed last month.

The indictment, returned in October, alleges that Finn failed to report suspicions of child abuse against the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, a priest in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, who is charged with possessing and producing child pornography.

In a motion filed in February, defense lawyers argued that the charge should be dismissed before trial because the bishop was not the legal “designated reporter” for the diocese, and thus had no legal duty to report such suspicions to state authorities. A response team headed by Vicar General Robert Murphy had that responsibility, defense lawyers argued.

Missouri’s reporting laws require a range of professionals, including ministers, to report child abuse suspicions within 24 hours. But the bishop’s lawyers have argued that because the diocese had a designated reporter, Finn’s responsibility to make the calls had been “extinguished.”

In her response filed Friday, Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker said that pre-trial dismissal was improper because a jury needed to decide the facts of whether Murphy was the designated reporter.

Baker revealed that Murphy said in grand jury testimony that he knew very little about such issues.

“Msgr. Murphy testified that he had not had any training or discussions about mandated reporting of suspected child abuse,” Baker wrote. “When asked if the diocese had a designated agent for mandated reporting of suspected child abuse, Murphy said, ‘Not that I’m aware of.’”

Baker also disputed Finn’s interpretation that his diocese’s ethics code established a designated reporter.

“The Code of Ethics cited by Finn does not designate one agent for suspicion of child abuse (reporting), let alone specifically designate the vicar general as the diocesan agent,” Baker wrote. “By its obvious terms it requires any number of persons, including all clergy such as Bishop Finn, to be mandated reporters of suspicion of child abuse.”

J.R. Hobbs, one of Finn’s lawyers, said he was studying the prosecutor’s responses.

“We plan to review the pleadings thoroughly and prepare for the hearing,” Hobbs said.

A Jackson County judge has scheduled a hearing later this month to hear lawyers’ arguments on the motions.

Finn is the highest-ranking Catholic official in the U.S. to face criminal prosecution related to the church’s sexual abuse scandal. Finn, who has been in Rome this week on a regular visit that bishops must make to the Vatican, has pleaded not guilty.

In statements issued since the Ratigan affair became public in May 2011, Finn has said he is cooperating with authorities and has worked to strengthen the protection of children in the diocese. Ratigan has pleaded not guilty in state and federal cases.

To contact Mark Morris, call 816-234-4310 or send email to mmorris@kcstar.com.

Posted on Fri, Mar. 09, 2012 07:35 PM

_________________________________

Trial Set for Local Catholic Bishop Accused of Silence

Fox 4  Kansas City

Posted on: 11:54 am, January 26, 2012  updated on: 12:26pm, January 26, 2012

by Michelle Pekarsky

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A September trial date was set Thursday morning in Jackson County Court for Bishop Robert Finn and the Catholic diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph on charges they failed to report suspected child sex abuse to authorities.

The next pre-trial conference is scheduled for March 27 and the trial is scheduled to go forward Sept. 24.

Finn and the diocese pleaded not guilty after a grand jury indicted them for failing to report alleged child pornography involving the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, 46, who faces federal and state charges of child pornography possession, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors say the diocese discovered child pornography on Ratigan’s computer in December but didn’t turn them over to police until May.

Bishop Finn has apologized for mishandling the case.

3 Responses to Prosecutors dispute Bishop Finn’s motions to dismiss

  1. Sylvia says:

    I had thought this was all over and done with last November with news of a deal in which Finn would agree to have his actions monitored to avoid criminal charges.

    But, it’s obviously far from over. A trial date was set, and now we’re into the Bishop trying to escape prosecution by throwing his diocesan staff under the bus!

  2. deeplybetrayed says:

    Why does this institution need a specific person to report abuse?
    In the real world, if we suspect that a child is being harmed, we have a duty to report it to social services or be questioned why we did not. How carefully concocted/constructed the protocols are in this situation. And these are shepherds of the flock. Makes me want to get off this train before it leaves the tracks.

  3. JG says:

    deeply betrayed,
    “Why does this institution need a specific person to report abuse?’…

    I don’t believe they did but now they do, because it probably came out in a “brainstorming session” with their lawyers, on how to cast a doubt…”How to proceed”!..
    Excuses are just waiting to be “invented” …
    In this one they also seem to be playing stupid…with a “B” movie performance.
    I can’t believe the legal system will fall or even stumble for such trickery!

    We may not realize it yet but the engine already went off the track…we have not felt the jolt in the “scenic car”…
    Hold on!
    jg

Leave a Reply