Thursday, December 26, 2013

Superior Court Reverses Msgr. Lynn's "Historic" Conviction

By Ralph Cipriano

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania today reversed the landmark conviction of Msgr. William J. Lynn on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

The court said the "plain language" of the state's 1972 child endangerment law required that Lynn had to be "a supervisor of an endangered child victim" in order to be convicted of the third-degree felony of endangering the welfare of a child. Lynn, however, never even met Billy Doe, the former 10-year-old altar boy who was the alleged victim in the case.

In a unanimous 43-page opinion by a panel of three judges, the Superior Court said Judge M. Teresa Sarmina's decision to allow the conviction of Lynn under the state's original child endangerment law was "fundamentally flawed."

"It's just absolutely wonderful," said Thomas A. Bergstrom, Lynn's defense lawyer. "This whole prosecution was totally dishonest from day one," Bergstrom said of District Attorney Seth Williams and his staff. "They had to know that that statute didn't apply to Lynn. And their attempt to justify it just doesn't wash."

"The tragedy of this is Lynn should have never been prosecuted," Bergstrom said. "He's been sitting in jail 18 months for a crime he couldn't possibly commit as a matter of law."

"Now, we're working on getting him [Lynn] out of jail," Bergstrom said. "We're looking for a judge to vacate the sentence. The warden needs more than just our assurances" to let the monsignor out of jail.

Msgr. Lynn, 62, is now serving a 3 to 6 year prison term after his June 22, 2012 conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child, namely Billy Doe.

Lynn's defense lawyers have long argued that the state's original child endangerment law didn't apply to the monsignor, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's former secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004. Despite the plain language of the law, however, and a 2005 grand jury report that specifically said the law didn't apply to Lynn, it's an argument that fell on deaf ears until today.

"This was the defense position from day one," said Alan J. Tauber, a member of Lynn's defense team. "It's a shame that Msgr. Lynn had to spend even a day in jail, much less a year and a half, before the defense argument was vindicated."

"This is a triumph for the rule of law," Tauber said. "It's a complete rejection of the district attorney's application of the law."

District Attorney Seth Williams, who does not talk to this blog, told Maryclaire Dale of the Associated Press that he strongly disagreed with the decision, and would most likely be appealing it.

For more than a year, Williams has stonewalled all questions regarding his self-described "historic" prosecution of the monsignor, three priests and a Catholic school teacher. Lynn was the first Catholic administrator in the country to be sent to jail for the sexual sins of the clergy, even though he never laid a hand on any child. His crime was not properly supervising abuser priests in the archdiocese, so that they wouldn't harm any more children.

On the eve of Lynn's trial, one accused priest, Father Edward V. Avery, implicated Lynn as an accomplice and pleaded guilty to sex abuse in order to receive a lesser sentence, but later recanted. At a second archdiocese trial that concluded Jan. 30th, another priest, Father Charles Engelhardt, and a school teacher, Bernard Avery, were convicted of sex abuse.

D.A. Williams' historic prosecution of the local Catholic archdiocese, however, was based on a faulty interpretation of the state child endangerment law as well as the dubious testimony of Billy Doe, the D.A.'s star witness.

Billy Doe is a former heroin junkie and thief who's been arrested six times, including one bust for possession with intent to distribute 56 bags of heroin. The D.A.'s star witness has been in and out of 23 drug rehabs; he also told authorities an unbelievable and constantly changing story.

Even people inside the D.A.'s office doubted Doe's credibility, but D.A. Williams said damn the torpedoes, let's go ahead with the case. D.A. Williams also presided over a fatally-flawed 2011 grand jury report that contained more than 20 factual errors that have never been corrected.

That grand jury report was based on a compromised investigation that rolled out the red carpet for the alleged victim, the son of a Philadelphia police sergeant. The D.A. waited two years before finally getting around to investigating any of Billy Doe's allegations. By that time, the defendants had been indicted and arrested, and tarred and feathered by the media, which trumpeted that faulty grand jury report as gospel.

When the D.A. finally investigated those allegations, what did he find? That nearly all the evidence in the case gathered by the district attorney's own detectives, including meticulous calendars kept by the alleged victim's own mother, contradicted nearly every aspect of Billy Doe's improbable story.

Now that Lynn's conviction has been reversed, the next question is whether Lynn gets out of jail.

"The short answer is he probably will get out but it may take a bail motion to get that accomplished," Tauber said. Before the Superior Court can free Lynn, Tauber said, the court will have to listen to any further appeal motions from the district attorney's office.

And although the law on child endangerment is clear, D.A. Williams probably isn't done grandstanding.

The state's 1972 child endangerment law 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."

For nearly 40 years in Pennsylvania, the law was applied to an adult who had a relationship with a child, such as a parent, guardian or teacher who "knowingly endangers the welfare of a child." Much of the Superior Court opinion reviews the appeal court's own previous rulings upholding those standards.

In 2005, then-District Attorney Lynne Abraham and a grand jury concluded that the 1972 child endangerment law did not apply to Msgr. Lynn, Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua, or any other high-ranking official of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The 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:

"As defined under the law," the 2005 grand jury wrote, in remarks quoted today by the Superior Court, "the offense of endangering the welfare of children is too narrow to support a successful prosecution of the decision-makers who were running the Archdiocese. The [1972 child endangerment] statute confines its coverage to parents, guardians, or other persons 'supervising the welfare of a child.' High-level Archdiocesan officials, however, were far removed from any direct contact with children."

In 2011, however, a new politically ambitious district attorney, Seth Williams, and another grand jury looked at the same 1972 child endangerment 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, along with other offenses.

Avery, Engelhardt and Shero are currently in jail as a result of Billy Doe's testimony and the D.A.'s historic prosecution. Father Brennan, who was accused by another victim, was acquitted on a hung jury, but is scheduled to be retried next year.

The Superior Court opinion pointed out that two years after he was appointed as the archdiocese's secretary for clergy, in 1994, Lynn conducted "a comprehensive review of the priests within the archdiocese," and "identified 35 priests who had been previously accused of sexual misconduct against minors."

Lynn's list of 35 priests covered three categories: pedophiles, priests guilty of sexual conduct with minors, and priests accused of sexual misconduct with minors with no conclusive evidence.

"The first name that appeared under the heading 'guilty of sexual conduct with minors' was that of Rev. Edward V. Avery," the Superior Court opinion noted.

Lynn's list of 35 priests was later ordered shredded by the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua. A copy, however, was found years later in a locked safe at archdiocese headquarters.

After the 2005 grand jury report came out, former District Attorney Abraham launched a state-wide crusade to amend the child endangerment law to include supervisors such as Lynn.

The amended 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." 

Bergstrom argued to the Superior Court, however, that Lynn was charged ex post facto," or after the fact, under the standards of the 2007 law that was amended to include supervisors.

"Lynn never supervised the child," Bergstrom told the appellate judges during oral arguments made last September. Instead, Lynn supervised  Father Avery, who pleaded guilty to raping Billy Doe.

The alleged rape of Billy Doe took place during the 1998-99 school year, but was not reported to the archdiocese until 2009. 

"He [Msgr. Lynn] had no knowledge of it," Bergstrom said, referring to the alleged rape.

The Superior Court agreed. The court ruled that Lynn "did not know or know of" Billy Doe, and "was not sufficiently aware of Avery's supervision of" Billy Doe, "nor did he have any specific information that Avery intended or was preparing to molest [Billy Doe] or any other child at St. Jerome's," where the alleged crime occurred.

The Superior Court, in an opinion written by President Judge John T. Bender, said Lynn wasn't blameless when it came to looking out for the welfare of children.

"We cannot dispute that the Commonwealth presented more than adequate evidence to sufficiently demonstrate that [Lynn] prioritized the Archdiocese's reputation over the safety of potential victims of sexually abusive priests and, by inference, that the same prioritization dominated [Lynn's] handling of Avery," the Superior Court opinion states.

"Nevertheless, we do not believe such a showing is sufficient to demonstrate intent to promote or facilitate an EWOC offense," the Superior Court opinion stated. "The question of whether [Lynn's] priorities were more with the reputation of the church, or, instead, with the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Archdiocese priests, is not at issue in this case. The relevant question is whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate [Lynn] intended to promote or facilitate Avery's endangerment of [Billy Doe] and other children at St. Jerome's."

And, the Superior Court concluded, Judge Sarmina was wrong when she concluded there was sufficient evidence to convict Lynn.

"In sum, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that [Msgr. Lynn] acted with the 'intent of promoting or facilitating" an offense of endangering the welfare of a child, the Superior Court opinion states.

"Having determined that the evidence was not sufficient to support [Msgr. Lynn's] conviction for EWOC [endangering the welfare of a child] either as a principal [actor] or an accomplice, we are compelled to reverse [Msgr. Lynn's] judgment of sentence," the opinion said. "And, as there are no other offenses for which he [Msgr. Lynn ]was convicted in this cased, [Msgr. Lynn] is ordered discharged forthwith."

The entire 43-page Superior Court opinion can be read here.


  1. Finally justice for this innocent man.

  2. Praise God! Anyone who read about this case could see it was a vendetta against the Church. It's time to fight back and hold those responsible, for this injustice, accountable.

  3. The malicious prosecution and wrongful convictions of the individuals mentioned above based on drug addict Danny Gallagher's testimony will hopefully unravel, starting with Monsignor Lynn's overturned conviction... It is time for common sense to prevail, common sense that as sorely lacking in the trial of Fr Engelhardt and Bernard Shero this past January.

    1. What's needed is an independent investigation of our corrupt DA. They should also look at Sarmina's conduct.

  4. Anonymous - agree wholeheartedly!

    We need to request an investigation by the PA Attorney General into this whole mess, starting with the 'indict before investigate' Grand Jury.

    Sarmina's conduct should likewise be scrutinized.....she herself was a candidate for the Superior Court and she delayed sending her opinion and trial records up to the Superior Court and - in fact - had to be 'compelled' to do so.

    A sterling example of American jurisprudence....NOT!

  5. Don't all jump up ad down and cheer. Mr. Lynn was set free by a loop-hole in the law and nothing less.

    He is still guilty of placing children within the reach of animals and protecting those animals.

    NO victim/survivor should look at this as a battle lost. He has spent time in prison to dwell on his inactions, and like us he will never get back a time in his life.

    ....and rest assured he will now fade into the past.

    Dennis Ecker

    1. Loophole? Law was changed in 2007. What loophole, it did not apply to him. Here's hoping he takes action as a member of society whose civil rights were violated and gets his justice just like all the false accusers have over the years.

    2. How could he be guilty if he didn't know the victim or if he even existed? Witchhunt if you ask me.

  6. Does anyone know who the three PA Superior Court Judges are?

  7. Just look to the wording in the statement released by his defense team: "the defense argument was vindicated", this is a "triumph of the law". Interestingly, no mention as to the criminality of his specific conduct.

    It is also worth mentioning that on appeal, the trial itself is not "re-litigated". Rather, the appellate court performs the limited function of reviewing the decision of the lower court for error. In this instance, it appears they have reversed the lower court on their interpretation of the wording of the 1972 statute, and its applicability to the defendant.

    After having reviewed some of the documents, read each daily account of the proceedings, and having sat in on a few days of the trial, I find it very difficult to agree with the assertion that Msgr. Lynn is an innocent man - he is far from that. The appellate court has found that he cannot be held liable under the relevant criminal statute, but I think the overwhelming evidence of his role in the cover-up gives us a clear view of his negligent actions.

    It will be interesting to watch the DA's next step. I think there are relevant arguments for over zealous prosecution in the most recent criminal case against Shero and Fr. Engelhardt. But Lynn's conviction sent a clear message to the hierarchy that no one is above the law. The one thing they can never say is that they haven't been warned.

  8. Prosecutors throughout the Country are out of control. They are mainly interested in getting sensational publicity and not at the truth. And most Trial Judges let them get away with Murder. Fr. Lynn was lucky that he drew a Good Panel of HONEST Judges. Many other Judges would not have had the Courage to do their duty and call this shot for the outrageous abusive violation of his Civil Rights that it was. He should now sue the DA and all involved PERSONALLY for violating his CIVIL RIGHTS. And send a message throughout the land to corrupt prosecutors, both Federal and State, that the Constitution is still sacred and those who intentionally violate it do so at their own peril. Bankrupt them and you will see how much better our society will become.

    1. Yes.... the DA should indeed be sued for violating the civil rights of Mon Lynn. The human mind weighs the risk. So these attacks will continue against our priests, as long as the bigoted opportunists perceive that there is very little risk, but heaps of loot and fame to be gained. This isn't rocket science, we just need to look at their motives and how attractive the opportunity they perceive. It has virtually become an industry, for some in the legal profession. It will only stop when they are confronted with the only thing they understand, the proper application of the law. And also the real risk of losing something valuable to them.... money and/or reputation.

  9. He is still guilty no matter what the 3 judges have decided.

  10. where is the full 43 page opinion ? No link herein (?)

    1. anonymous - you have to download it - google "pa superior court opinions".

  11. Even though he got off on a technicality, he still did a year and a half in prison for, basically, the head-slapping admissions he made to the Grand Jury. He constantly dropped the ball which resulted in predators going after Catholic children. He had a job he just didn't want to do. And children were brutalized because of it. His jail time may be over, but his admissions in court and to the Grand Jury live on. And it's good that Seth Williams got him out of his job even if it was the wrong case.

    1. Sarah- It is so annoying when you comment as you seem to know so little about the case. Read the ruling of the Superior Court judges. Read the commentary about the charge that never should have been brought in the first place. Msgr. Lynn did not get off on a technicality. And where did he say that he "constantly dropped the ball"? I was at the trial-recall that he said he did his best with the job he had. What "children were brutalized" because of Msgr Lynn being secretary of clergy from 1992-2004?-what case are you talking about? We all know that Danny Gallagher is a fraud-have you forgotten your own comments with regard to that case? As far as the Grand Jury, the endangerment charge could not be used in 2005 against anyone. DA Seth Williams was foolish to use it later. The conviction being reversed is not a surprise. How did Seth Williams get "him out of his job"? He was a pastor from 2004 to 2011. I don't think that any "children were brutalized" anywhere. Do you ever know what you are talking about?

    2. Okay, we get it that you think Lynn did absolutely nothing wrong. That's not what the ruling said. The ruling said he couldn't be charged under the amended statute. I accept that you think he did nothing wrong, and you'll have to accept that I and a whole bunch of other people think he utterly failed to protect children from the predators on his list. Fair enough.

  12. How many people reported abuse or suspected abuse to Lynn directly ?

  13. As proud catholic it still makes me put my head down in shame that this is even a problem that ever existed in our the catholic community and yet alone in any community. Him being releaved of the charges or not, I'm embarrassed and in pain for those children who had been assaulted by these animals. The acknowledgement of the cover up does not erase the memories of the suffering these children went threw. Their families put trust in these men to care for their children and instill Christian/catholic values but abuse that trust and abused those children for their sexual satisfaction. I'm so broken hearted for those families and the children who lost their childhood to those animals. I hope they find peace and the devil will have his do with them monsters..

    1. In response to 'proud catholic' and the 'shame felt' that 'children have been assaulted by these animals'. Well I think it is possible that you are speaking from a mindset that I once shared with you.... but I began to dig deeper. First and foremost the Holy Spirit should make us seek truth and justice. And in our western democracies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a very good starting point.. Clinging to these human rights will help. So am very surprised that you cannot see that catholic priests are being denied their human rights, due to a carefully planned and deliberate attack. For example the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Note that much of the media reports the story as though the priest is already guilty, simply on the unsupported word of some nameless and faceless accuser. Secondly we have the right to a good reputation. The reputation of the accused priest is shattered by the media report and hateful websites that publish his name and address. Thirdly we all have the right to a fair trial. But the accusing publicity will have so influenced the jury that they will be against him before the trial begins. So he is also denied the basic right of a fair trial. This cannot be justice. This is a derangement of the legal process. But what about the alleged victims...the children? The legal system provides them with the right to report any crime to the police. Their parents should have reported it to the police... the moment they saw the distress of the children and dragged the story out of them. That most of these claims were never reported by parents to police should make any thinking person doubtful. The clue to understanding most of these accusations is to imagine winning a truckload of money, just by telling a convincing story about a priest.

  14. Bottom line - use the right statute to obtain a conviction under your best efforts than to take a new statute and stretch it way beyond its boundaries to secure a conviction aided by a willing judge able to look away. That makes you a better lawyer than a hacker who take shortcuts to get where he or she wants to get.

    DA Seth will be taken to the coals for doing something a first year law student would never think of doing.

    Judge Sarmina will be forever known as a kangaroo court judge vice a judge who gave her best thought on the case.

    Now this DA is a headless clown running around to file an appeal which will be laughed out of court. And people see him as a candidate for Mayor?

    Time to fold the cards and take the medicine. A first year law student would get a royal chewing out for doing what Seth did.

  15. I would tell Mr. Lynn to pack slowly.

    LAST UPDATED: Thursday, December 26, 2013

    “Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said he will most likely appeal the Superior Court’s reversal Thursday of the conviction of Monsignor William Lynn.”

    1. Lawyers say Williams would be a fool as a professional to appeal. He will not file an appeal -bad political move.I guess you might as well keep that cheap champagne in your wine cellar.

    2. Lawyers say Williams would be a fool as a professional to appeal. He will not file an appeal -bad political move.I guess you might as well keep that cheap champagne in your wine cellar.

    3. And Seth has such tremendous credibility, as does Sarmina, that they will probably keep Lynn in jail, right? The jig's up, Denny.

    4. Do you believe everything you read in the paper?

      Keep up the good detective work and information alerts you are providing to this and every other site you post on.

  16. Every person has a right to have an opinion but facts are sacred. And what do facts tell us regarding the Catholic sex abuse crisis?. Bishops have protected child abusers, moving them around and allowing them to continue raping kids. That's a fact. As pedophile priests were protected for a long time by the power, money and prestige of the Church when their crimes came to light in too many cases it was way beyond the statute of limitations. That's a fact. No bishop has been disciplined by the Vatican for endangering kids whereas if they had suported women ordination they would have been excomunicated. That's a fact. People who have commited horrible crimes and who have covered for them hurting thousands of children in the process haven't faced the consequences of their actions. That's a fact. We all must protect the civil rights of all our citizens no matter how desplicably they have behaved. But impunity is not a civil right. That's an opinion, but based on all the previous facts, it seems to me a very reasonable opinion to have.

    1. So this poster suggests that it is reasonable to suggest a proposition based on facts... because facts are sacred. Really? So the proposition that 'Bishops have protected child abusers, moving them around and allowing them to continue raping kids" is based on established facts, is it? Only a bigot could swallow this hateful poison.. because a rational person knows that parents are naturally protective of
      their children. Catholic parents even more so! It defies logic and reason to suggest that their children have been raped and the parents neither notice the child's distress, nor report it to the police. This is nonsense now, and also was nonsense fifty years ago, because I was around at that time. Sexual abuse of children has always been a shocking offence. A Bishop would have had the police knocking on his door the next day. The anti-Catholic bigots are riding a wave of hatred that has nothing to do with any logic, reason, or facts. Their reasoning is so swamped by the witch-hunt that they even refuse to acknowledge the unanimous verdict of the appellant Superior Court. The accused man was convicted of a crime that he could not have possibly committed. Now that is a fact! But it doesn't suit your agenda, does it?

  17. DA Seth Williams is a close friend of mine. and I am getting very worried about his staff, especially holdovers from the previous administration. Most importantly, the DA's own detectives are running amok and acting with impunity on many levels and various cases. There professionalism is non existent and they take everything personal and act worse than criminals. I am afraid that as a practicing Roman Catholic Seth is overcompensating for bring Catholic STOP SETH! Do the right thing and live your faith and be the consummate professional your late great mentor, the Honorable Anthony J. De Fino always knew you were from the first day you practiced as an ADA in his courtroom.

  18. This looks like a staged "error". Staged by the corporate church, and the corporate church's best buddies, the mob(wise guys not the masses) God knows Philly has no mob connections (irony) But everyone knows the church does.

  19. Very unusual this was held for release December 26th vice before Christmas as they did not want to be seen cutting the Catholic Church a break, given the 3-0 score among the three appellate judges reviewing this case. Bergstrom is right, Seth Williams will make himself more of a clown by filing an appeal. Next thing to do is to find a judge to grant immediate bail from jail then work on shooting down the unfounded appeal.

  20. Where is Retired Detective Joseph Walsh of the DA's office? He knows the facts of these cases and was forced into retirement by Seth Williams because he knows that Dan Gallagher's stories are BS. The FBI needs to get involved and make him testify. He knows the truth that Fr Engelhardt and Bernard Shero are INNOCENT. Don't be afraid to lose your bar stool at the FOP lodge Detective Walsh. The truth will set you free. Innocent men are in jail because you have gone silent.

    1. Chippy: don't forget the DA's move to forbid a supoened detective in his own office from being a character witness for Fr. Engelhardt last January under threat of punishment of being sent packing to a new assignment in the badlands . The DA was smart, they coerced Avery into pleading to an assault against Danny gallagher that never happened (in exchange for his 2 and a half to five year sweetheart deal & a promise of no additional prosecutions for other potential cases) knowing those alleged assaults at St Jerome's were bogus in order to put this Monsignor/administrator in jail, in this "historic trial"....Fr Engelhardt and Bernard Shero are just collateral damage....Chippy, the code of silence of these individuals associated with the DA"s office that know the truth about this case is sickening......

    2. You speak of Detective Hunter. He had Father Engelhardt as a teacher at North Catholic High School and knew him as a priest/teacher/moderator. Seth Williams did not allow him to testify because it was not in favor of the Commonwealth. Absolute disgrace! I do not know how these people sleep at night. Catholic or not, everyone has a conscience.

    3. anonymous are absolutely correct, it's a travesty that the District Attorney in this city can be allowed to use his position as DA to violate Fr Engelhardt's right to a fair and impartial trial by using intimidation and threats against his own employee who was willing to testify to Father Engelhardt's excellent reputation and good character.. But this is just one of many tactics used by the DA's office in it's maliciious prosecution of these innocent men.

    4. Does Williams' prevention of Det. Hunter's good character testimony rise to the level of failing to disclose exculpatory evidence?

    5. no but it is witness intimidation

  21. Read the Superior Court opinion, they sure do not give Mr. Lynn anything to feel good about.

    The Court states outright that Father Lynn clearly put the interests of the Archdiocese ahead of the victims.

    1. Read the story above [if you did] and you'll discover the same thing.

    2. So you will go on record and agree with the above statement ?

    3. All Lynn is guilty of is not doing more to protect children during his time as secretary of the PAD. It is those who were above him who should be judged and prosecuted. Unfortunately, both are not around anymore and they have taken everything with them to the grave.

    4. They've taken everything but money; power and the wrecked lives of their underage victims and our families to the grave. The corporate church's machinations and influence live on.

  22. The conviction was reversed and the priest was ORDERED released.
    End of story.

    Paraphrasing NPR

    "A Catholic Church official CLEARED of child endangerment as part of a priest abuse [fiasco?]
    will be released from prison soon. An appeals court overturned his conviction and a
    Philadelphia judge [who denied bail to the innocent man] ordered Monsignor William Lynn [would not be]
    released [immediately as ordered}

    (Order- "Having determined that the evidence was not sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for EWOC either as a principal or as an accomplice, we are compelled to reverse Appellant's judgment of sentence. And, as there are no other offenses for which he was convicted in this case, Appellant is ordered discharged forthwith."‎ forth·with (fôrth-w , -w th , f rth-). adv. At once; immediately.)

    [but instead imposed the condition of release] on $250,000 bail. Prosecutors vow to [ignore the actual court decision] and restore the conviction.

    "The Superior Court has said he [Lynn] should be discharged forthwith, so I don’t think that requires any interpretation," Bergstrom said. "Seems to me she [Judge Sarmina] has to do exactly what they’ve ordered,"


Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.


Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2016

Privacy Policy: does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.