Bricker, what’s your take on my analysis of the accessory after the fact statute? I interpret it to mean that it is a crime to take active steps to prevent the apprehension of a felon - hiding them, getting them across state lines, etc. You agree?
Sorry, I don’t see this anywhere. Even moving the priests to other parishes was not an active step to prevent information from coming to light. Your definition of “active steps” is overbroad.
From a legal point of view, both the parents and the cardinal are in the same position - they have knowledge of a felony and don’t come forward. (To be sure, they are in very different moral situations). Whether or not the cardinal moves the priest to another parish doesn’t affect that in any way. Nothing about moving the priest suppresses the information. It gives further incentive to the parents not to come forward - the priest isn’t going to be near their child again, but that’s not the same as suppressing information.
In any event, barring additional criminal activity - bribery, extortion, etc. - even taking active steps to present the dessemination of information about criminal activity, so long as there is not an active police investigation, is not a crime.
Sua