The Philadelphia grand jury investigation into priest abuse ended after three years of outrage and horror without any criminal charges brought against the accused priests. The fact that no charges of priest abuse were brought against any of the 169 priests accused of sexually abusing children in the last four decades, does not mean that there was not enough evidence to indict them. Most of the victims who came forward with horrific and devastating stories of priest abuse from their childhoods tell stories of abuse that occurred years and decades ago. In legal terms, this means that the crime took place beyond the statute of limitations.
A statute of limitations, which can apply to any legal case(civil and criminal), is the restriction of time between the criminal act and the indictment (filing charges). As a general rule, after a statute of limitations is up, a legal case cannot be filed against the accused. The other major difficulty prosecutors faced throughout this devastating investigation was their inability to charge the archdiocese. Because the archdiocese is an unincorporated association, rather than a corporation, the organization responsible for concealing decades of harrowing abuse cannot be prosecuted. At one point, the frustrated prosecutors believed the archdiocese would plead guilty to charges of “endangering the welfare of children.” The archdiocese hired top criminal defense lawyers and the plea bargaining ended.
The official grand jury investigation into priest abuse was initiated by Philadelphia District Attorney, Lynne M. Abraham, in April 2002, around the same time priest sex abuse investigations were underway in New York and Boston. The Philadelphia investigation developed over three years of outrage and frustration. One of the biggest discoveries made by prosecutors was the archdiocese’s secret archives; numerous files only available to the higher echelons of the priesthood.
These uncovered documents describe, in gruesome detail, numerous assaults on children committed by members of the church. Among the 45,000 relevant documents uncovered by the prosecutors, many included medical and psychiatric records of abused children. This long paper-trail tells of forty years of macabre priest abuse and the massive archdiocese cover-up effort. Many abusive priests had been relocated to other areas, free from reproach or consequence for their crimes.
The investigation looked into the role of two archbishop-- the late John Krol who headed the archdiocese from 1961 to 1988 and 82-year-old Anthony Bevilacqua– both of whom allegedly spent years covering up cases of priest abuse. Bevilacqua, also a lawyer, testified ten times before the grand jury for a total of 27 hours. Still the cardinal could not be prosecuted. Dozens of other priests were called to testify- some in wheelchairs or near-deaf. Nearly forty accused members of the church invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify, thus, avoiding self-incrimination.
Without the ability to indict the allegedly guilty clergy, the prosecution instead published a 418 page report about the grand jury’s findings in this atrocious clergy abuse scandal. The report was not your typical legal brief—it contains graphic descriptions of clergy sex abuse and puts blame on Bevilacqua with a tone of understandable fury.
Many victims of priest sexual abuse testified before the grand jury, some understood the inability to file charges after so many years. Instead, they asked only that the grand jury request changes in the law so that other children will not be abused as these survivors once were. The grand jury honored this request.
While criminal charges could not be filed due to the confines of law, the results of the investigation do not necessarily bar abused survivors from filing a civil lawsuit against the responsible clergy member(s). In a criminal case, the state’s prosecutors determine, by way of a grand jury, whether or not they can produce enough evidence to formally indict the accused. In order to do so, the case must also not toll the statute of limitations. In a civil case, however, a private party (priest abuse survivor) can sue the responsible party for damages suffered as a result of the abuse. Civil cases have their own statute of limitations.
Under current Pennsylvania law, effective August 2002, the statute of limitations in a clergy abuse civil case is twelve years from the survivor’s age of majority (age eighteen). This statute cannot be used to revive an action barred by an existing statute of limitations on the effective on the date of the act. This means that if a victim previously filed a suit and was denied action, they do not have a second opportunity for action under the new law. Pennsylvania does not toll (extend) the statute of limitations in cases of repressed memory, as some states do.
If you or a loved one has survived sexual abuse committed by a clergy member, you may be eligible to seek relief for your losses and suffering. Clergy abuse victims across the nation have been successful in litigating against their abusers. If you would like to learn more about your rights and legal options in a clergy abuse case, please contact us. The Law Firm of Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. would like the opportunity to help you.
