On St. Patrick's Day the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Toledo, Ohio heard oral arguments in the appeal of Father Gerald Robinson's murder conviction. I wasn't going to miss it, and I didn't. But I left with a sinking feeling.
The small courtroom was standing-room-only by the time the judges entered; about thirty people were there to hear arguments on that one case, which in my experience is quite an unusually large crowd.
The three-judge panel, consisting of men who between them have 67 years of experience on the bench - Judges Peter M. Handwork, Mark L. Pietrykowski, and William J. Skow - allowed fifteen minutes per side for argument, as is customary, but which wasn't much time for this factually complex case. They asked only two questions, both directed to defense counsel.
The subject of the exculpatory DNA evidence did not come up - per se. But the prosecutor did make what I thought was a stunning admission in that regard.
During the defense attorney's argument, it was posited that another priest - Father Jerome Swiatecki - may have murdered Sister Margaret Ann Pahl. In rebuttal, the prosecutor pointed out that that the State was able to secure tissue from the late Father Swiatecki. They did a comparison to the DNA (the prosecutor dismisses it as "cellular material") found on the murder victim's clothing, and, stated the prosecutor today, "he was excluded."
It was hard to bite my tongue. If the State of Ohio excluded Father Swiatecki as the murderer because he did not match the DNA, then why wasn't Father Robinson, who also did not match the DNA, also excluded!?
Needless to say the prosecutor swiftly changed the subject. I don't think we'll ever get a straight answer to the question that has bothered me for two years now. Unfortunately the panel asked no questions about DNA. Later, the prosecutor remarked that the "cellular material" "probably" came from one of the men who bagged the victim's body for removal.
But that doesn't explain how the same male DNA profile came to be found underneath the fingernails of both of her hands as well.
And if it were true - if the DNA evidence came from an innocent third party - then how could it exclude Father Swiatecki? The prosecutor tied himself into a knot trying to explain away this DNA.
Judge Skow asked if the errors made by the trial lawyers for Father Robinson weren't "invited" errors. It was quite disheartening to hear this question; will the Court of Appeals actually rule that Father Robinson's trial wasn't fair, but he won't get a new one because his own lawyers were the ones who hopelessly messed up the case?
The only other question posed was again aimed at defense counsel. Judge Handwork asked: What does the defense make of the evidence that the letter-opener owned by Father Robinson fit neatly into a "defect" or hole in the victim's mandible bone? It was a good question reflecting preparation on the judge's part. Unfortunately, the panel may begin deliberations while laboring under the impression that this was objective and irrefutible evidence, rather than the opinion of an expert who "could not exclude" the letter opener as the object that made the hole. As defense counsel pointed out, "If 'it could not be excluded' could be a basis for guilt, God help us all."
I hope that the appellate court will not discount the only truly objective evidence in the case: the unknown male DNA profile recovered from the victim's underwear and fingernails.
"All the evidence is entirely consistent with Robinson being the killer," the prosecutor concluded.
Except, of course, for that pesky DNA.
A woman who accused Father Gerald Robinson of satanic sexual abuse filed suit against him and many others in 2005. That suit was dismissed on statute of limit
ations grounds, since she alleged "clerical ritual and sexual abuse" that supposedly took place decades ago. In an opinion issued a few days ago, the Court of Appeals for Ohio reversed that decision and sent the case back to the trial court to be fully litigated.
Then, in my opinion, the civil case will be revealed for what it really is: a hoax perpetrated by a mentally ill woman who is really fifteen years too late with this claim.
Ritual abuse claims were popular for a while in the 1980s and early 1990s. But the Federal Bureau of Investigation undertook a comprehensive investigation of the phenomenon in 1992 - and didn't find diddly squat to support it. Many legal scholars have expressly and resoundingly rejected these claims. Police officers who have investigated alleged ritual murders have rejected it, most notably Terry L. Kern, who wrote this thoughtful article about a satanic abuse case he investigated.
The Toledo Blade wrote a piece on the reinstatement of the civil suit written by David Yonke, author of Sin, Shame, And Secrets. Meanwhile Fred Rosen's take on the case comes out this week. It's 
Not when the DNA tests revealed that the man who was convicted of the murder was not the same man who managed to leave his DNA in the left-hand fingernail scrapings, right-hand fingernail scrapings, and on the underwear of Sister Pahl. In the Robinson case, an outrageously sensationalized prosecution coupled with milquetoast defense lawyers (and the despicable cover-ups in the Catholic church in general) led, in my opinion, to a wrongful conviction in this case.
The appeals court's decision in the civil case is purely procedural. The appellate judges were required by law to assume that everything Jane Doe pleaded in her complaint is true. They determined that the "discovery rule" trumped the statute of limitations - that the plaintiff must be excused for not suing twenty years ago because she did not know then whom to sue.
What she pleaded, per the opinion, is this:
Survivor Doe specifically alleges that the crimes began to occur while she was attending St. Adalbert from 1968 through 1972. She was kidnapped against her will and "held either against her will or by beguilement in the basement of St. Adalbert's." While being held there, she was used in elaborate, ritualistic ceremonies. The people perpetrating the crimes were dressed in nun habits and referred to themselves with the first name of a woman and then their own name. Robinson called himself "Mary Jerry" and Mazuchowski called himself "Carrie Jerry." Appellant has recalled suppressed memories of another yet unknown man who was referred to as Sue.
After appellant left St. Adalbert school, the abuse continued in a wooded area. Her mother, who also participated in the ceremonies, took her to them. [Jane Doe] was intimidated from disclosing the events of all the satanic ceremonies at the time they occurred because the perpetrators threatened to kill her if she told, caused her to believe that she was Satan's child, and demoralized her.
That is, if media accounts are accurate, only the tip of a satanic iceberg.
The reversal of the dismissal is in my opinion a good turn of events for Father Robinson and the Church. These allegations will now receive a full airing when Jane Doe is questioned under oath and her attorneys are required to support these allegations with evidence.
More importantly, unless the Catholic church settles the case - which seems unlikely, since they've said from day one that her claim is without merit - and also assuming that a decent set of lawyers is hired to defend Robinson this time (unlike the unprepared schmucks who phoned it in during his criminal case), it all might come out in the wash.
(A note: Generally I am not one to seek out and take up the cause of the wrongfully convicted. That is not where my primary interests or talents lie. Last year, I could not help but follow the coverage of a revived cold murder case in Toledo, since, if the allegations were true, it would have been a case of international, historic proportion. But the evidence and conviction left me quite unsettled; ergo, I write of it, at the risk of being labeled or stereotyped, though I am proud that I do not lack the courage it takes to advocate for a convicted murderer. Many people have corresponded with me to bring my attention to a particular cause. While I thank you for your letters and kind words, unfortunately, I do not have the time and resources to explore other cases.)
At long last, Father Gerald Robinson - the Roman Catholic priest who was convicted of a 1980 murder last spring - a conviction that was wrongful in this observer's opinion - has filed his appeal brief with the Ohio Court of Appeals.
After a delay of more than a year, attributable to a sleepy turtle of a court reporter, his new appellate attorneys have filed a brief that runs in excess of a hundred pages, as the Toledo Blade is reporting this morning.
The Blade quotes the defense brief on the "Satanism" theory presented to the jury: it was "inherently unreliable, was of minimal probative value, lacked foundation, impermissibly stereotyped [Robinson] as the anti-Christ, invited the jury to speculate on the issue of guilt, and sensationalized the entire proceeding.”
Well, it was enough to get Father Robinson's case on national television, so the sensationalism charge seems to me to be irrefutible. Many media outlets gave generous coverage to the real life Da Vinci Code murder.
The press never convinced me of his guilt, and the DNA evidence did the opposite. But the coverage did convince me of one thing: if I ever had the misfortune to represent a defendant whose trial was being nationally televised with play-by-play commentary by Nancy Grace and others of her ilk, I'd go on a hunger strike until they removed the camera.
Having watched the trial on Court TV, having taken the time to run a search of the word "satanism" in the subscription legal databases (i.e. Loislaw and Westlaw), I am fairly certain that the Ohio Court of Appeals will not make Father Robinson's case the first in the country where the use of this sort of evidence will be endorsed by appellate judges.
For this sort of evidence - rather, the attempted use of this sort of evidence - is nothing new. There is no new thing under the sun.
In dozens of instances in recent decades, defense attorneys (trying to make their clients look crazy and thus less culpable) and prosecutors (trying to paint a defendant as evil incarnate) have attempted to inject "ritual" evidence into a murder case. Appellate courts have not looked kindly on this, no matter which side offers it.
Even in cases where there was absolute, cut and dry evidence of "witchcraft," "rituals," and/or "upside down crosses," etc., appeals courts across the country have specifically rejected it for exactly the reasons cited by Robinson's appellate lawyers now. I'd guess the brief ran to 100+ pages in part to prove that point.
And how does the prosecutor defend this? What is their argument as to why "bastardized rituals" and "upside down crosses" and "bastardized Last Rites" should have been allowed in Father Robinson's case, despite the general prohibition? What is the nail they hang their hat on to argue that this case is unique? Is there any authority or precedent for it? Is there a case I missed in my "satanism" searches?
Well, the prosecutor doesn't defend it. Instead, he keeps up a farcical pretense that it never happened.
From the Blade, quoting the prosecutor:
“From what I’m reading in their brief, they didn’t spend enough time learning what the evidence was in the case, because much of what they are charging in their brief did not take place during the trial,” he said.
***Mr. Mandros said his office would read the trial transcript thoroughly to disprove the defense’s contention that Satanism was a key component of evidence.
“It appears that there is a concerted effort to make the Court of Appeals think something happened that didn’t,” he said, adding that the response to the appeal would “take more time than they did.”
Those remarks are so disingenuous, they are dishonest. This prosecutor apparently has the gall to stand before the three appellate judges and argue that because he was careful not to let the magical four syllables contained in that single word "Satanism" cross his lips that he can somehow avoid censure or consequence for his reliance at trial on the evidence of alleged ritual aspects of the murder and the theory that the murder of Sister Margaret Ann Pahl involved a "bastardized version of the Last Rites" - his words exactly.
I have half a mind to attend the oral argument in Toledo so I can see this prosecutor make this outrageous argument with my own two eyes, and to see for myself what the appellate judges say.
It would be laughable on its face - if only a man hadn't been condemned to die in prison in no small part because of it.
Hang in there, Father Robinson.
**
PS Thanks to my anonymous and faithful correspondent for keeping me updated.
In the 20th century, whenever an awful murder case involved a member of the Roman Catholic clergy, our national media indulged in paroxysms of a religious and delusional nature.
Okay, maybe it's unfair to draw sweeping conclusions with only two examples.
When Sister Pahl was murdered in Toledo in 1980, and Father Robinson arrested in 2004, the media accounts almost universally said that her body was surrounded by burning candles, implying some bizarre ritual / Satanic slaying, some sort of sacrifice to evil. Well, that turned out to be wrong.
But I won't write another rant about the wrongful conviction of Father Gerald Robinson today.... rather, I want to tell you about Father Schmidt.
Hans Schmidt was too handsome to be a priest. But he was ordained anyway. Perhaps not surprisingly, he broke his vows and got a young woman pregnant. (Photos from the Anaconda Standard, via NewspaperArchive.com.)
As sometimes happens to young women who get pregnant, in or out of wedlock, her paramour was displeased, and she ended up in pieces.
But I don't have to write a summary of the story. One of the greatest legal writers of the 20th century, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, whose opinions were so cleverly crafted and so tightly written that they appear in many law school textbooks even today, wrote the appellate opinion confirming Father Schmidt's conviction. In that opinion, he crisply summarized the case:
In September, 1913, the dismembered body of Anna Aumuller was found in the Hudson river. Suspicion pointed to the defendant. He was arrested, and confessed that he had killed the woman by cutting her throat with a knife.
He repeated this confession again and again. He attempted, however, to escape the penalty for murder by the plea that he was insane. He told the physicians who examined him that he had heard the voice of God calling upon him to kill the woman as a sacrifice and atonement. He confessed to a life of unspeakable excesses and hideous crimes, broken, he said, by spells of religious ecstacy and exaltation.
In one of these moments, believing himself, he tells us, in the visible presence of God, he committed this fearful crime. Two physicians of experience, accepting as true his statement that he was overpowered by this delusion, expressed the opinion that he was insane.
Other physicians of experience held the view that his delusion was feigned, and his insanity a sham.
But before it was pointed out that Father Schmidt was a Satanic fraud, the newspapers of America fell in love with the story. Some of the banner headlines even went above the masthead --
True crime author Mark Gado recently wrote a book that explores the murder of Anna Aumuller in detail. It's Killer Priest: The Crimes, Trial, and Execution of Father Hans Schmidt.
Fortunately, the jury and the many appellate judges who reviewed the case were satisfied that neither God nor the Devil made him do it. Father Schmidt was executed as the cruel and perfectly sane girlfriend-killer that he was. Which isn't to say he didn't receive a warm reception in the lowest pits of you-know-where. And I can't help but remark, I can't help but point out how the Satanic/ritual malarkey failed the smell test nearly a century ago, while a much more "modern" jury of today accepted this hokum in Father Robinson's case.
Recent Comments