One of Many Lessons of the Lynn Trial

    Last week was quite a week for child abuse cases. As MOJ readers know, I have been periodically blogging about the Monsignor Lynn trial in Philadelphia. After 11 weeks of testimony and 12 days of deliberation, a Philadelphia jury convicted Lynn of one count of child endangerment, and acquitted him of the remaining two counts of conspiracy and child endangerment. (The trial judge previously ruled against prosecutors on another conspiracy charge). Lynn, whose bail was revoked, awaits sentencing. The jury deadlocked on the child abuse charges against Lynn's co-defendant Rev. James Brennan and the District Attorney is considering whether to retry him. The third original defendant, former priest Edward Avery, pled guilty just prior to trial to abusing a child and is serving a jail sentence. Coverage of the verdict and commentary can be found here, here, and here.

    Many commentators and advocates have hailed the verdict as an unprecedented warning to those in bureaucratic positions that they must act to protect children. Indeed, a second important trial is pending in Missouri where Bishop Robert Finn is accused of violating mandatory reporting laws regarding his knowledge of a priest's possession of child pornography. Both cases arguably represent prosecutors' innovative utilization of child abuse laws to hold accountable, not only direct offenders, but those in positions of trust who enable abuse to occur.

    These cases likely will prove to be important in deterring indirect offenders from acting in ways that jeopardize children. Thus, this approach could be a useful tool in the fight against child sexual abuse by sending a clear message that sharp prosecutors and civil lawyers will respond to incidents of child abuse to ensure that innocent children are protected.

    Among the many lessons of these cases, there is at least one lesson for legal educators. Lawyers not only play an important role in responding to victimization; they also can play a critical role in preventing it. Jurors in the Lynn trial heard significant evidence of an institutional culture that was not conducive to protecting children. Such a culture is surely not limited to the Archdioceses of Philadelphia and Kansas City-St. Joseph. One need only consider the same-day conviction of Jerry Sandusky at Pennsylvania State University and the pending cases against Tim Curley and Gary Schultz to see the problem a climate of indifference can cause in any institution.

    Legal educators can take this opportunity to remind our students that lawyers can do more than react to victimization – they can work to prevent it. A young attorney need not seek out a career as a prosecutor to impact important social change. Imagine if in each of these situations there was an attorney present in the institution who was doing more than responding to the abuse of a child, but proactively creating an institutional climate conducive to protecting children. Such a lawyer would be involved in training people at all institutional levels about the realities of child sexual abuse, the strategies to prevent it, and the indicators of unhealthy and high risk situations. This lawyer would recognize the value of an atmosphere where employees feel safe in sharing their concerns and are not fired or accused of ecclesiastical disobedience when they voice alarms. Such a lawyer would contribute to a climate concerned first with child protection and second with protection of anything else. It would be a climate of prevention and protection, not reaction and preservation. It would be a climate consistent with our Catholic teaching that "dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society" and, therefore, certainly a solid foundation for any institution.