From here.
We have a guy here in LA, Roger Mahony, who, according to the Church’s own documents was hip deep in enabling and covering up the kiddy diddlers. Yet it looks like he will get away scot free due to the limitation. We have solid evidence, that has not been lost, we have multiple witnesses, etc. How is this just? This dude needs to die in prison.
Even if you change the statue of limitations now, wouldn’t ex post facto protections still apply to this guy, specifically?
Also, at least in the United States, I’m pretty sure that murder never has a statute of limitations. So I don’t think it’s outrageous to apply it to other unlawful activity.
IANAL but sadly, probably so. 
A I understand it, the statute of limitations on child molestation, whether by clergy or anyone else, is seven years from the date the victim achieves his/her majority, i.e. prior to their 28th birthday. Whether that is sufficient time is arguable, but it’s not a short period. Assuming in the case of priestly molestations that the victims are between the ages of 8 and 16 at the time of the crime, this means that between 12 and 20 years elapse between the commission of the crime and the operration of the statute of limitations.
But, if I’m understanding things correctly, the guy in the OP is not charged with actually molesting any children himself, just covering for priests who did. So I imagine that whatever lesser crimes he could be charged with (obstruction of justice, maybe?) would have much shorter statutes of limitation.
In California, obstruction of justice is a misdemeanor (PC 148). The statute of limitations on misdemeanors is one year.
For whatever it’s worth, from what I understand of Mahoney’s conduct, I don’t believe obstruction of justice would apply.
In your much-more-informed-than-us opinion*, could you tell us what you think does apply, and the statute of limitations on that crime?
*that sounded snarky, but I mean it sincerely!
Are you implying that actively hiding a guilty party is direct involvement?
States vary. IIRC, the statute on crimes may run from such time as the prosecuting authorities become aware of it rather than the time the crime was committed–this is in either Ohio or New York, the only two states I know much about. Not sure, though.
My case occurred in Wisconsin. Cases were popping up everywhere, and there was a bill or something introduced to suspend the SoL in these cases. I believe some old cases were heard, but the Catholic Church got a judge to agree to a date before which no further cases could be brought. The judge set it shortly after my very well supported case, which theoretically could have cost the church big time. Funny that.
But anyway, a 7-year SoL isn’t set in stone.
I’m not really sure. I don’t know what California law says about duty to report crimes, especially sexual offenses, against minors, and more importantly what it said at the time.
Absent a specific crime that California created, unfortunately, I don’t see a violation of criminal law. The reason is that – surprising to many people – there is no general duty to report a crime. So if you became aware of a crime and fail to report it, you aren’t generally breaking the law.
Perhaps the most in-your-face, horrifying example of this was the sexual assault and murder of seven-year-old Sherrice Iverson by Jeremy Strohmeyer. Strohmeyer lured Sherrice into a casino restroom, molested her, and killed her. His friend David Cash witnessed the crime – actually saw Strohmeyer grabbing and fondling Sherrice in te restroom. Cash left; Strohmeyer followed twenty minutes later and confessed he had killed the girl. Cash did nothing.
After Strohmeyer was identified by casino cameras and arrested, there was an outcry for Cash to be punished in some way as well. After extensive investigaton, the authorities concluded that his conduct was simply not illegal.
The case did lead to the state passing a new law requiring that anyone with reasonable suspicion that a child younger than 18 is being sexually abused or violently treated must report it.
So Mahoney not reporting the crimes, and even continuing to reassign offenders to different parishes, is not a general criminal act. If there’s real interest, I’ll try to dig up California law, then and now, for more detail.
Actively hiding, meaning what? There’s no legal obligation to assist police. “Obstruction” typically refers to an active criminal case and direct, proximate steps taken to impede law enforcement in their attempts to effect an arrest or seize material evidence.
Bricker, in your opinion, if you had committed a crime but were past the statute of limitations for prosecution of that crime, and the legislature then went and changed the statute of limitations for that crime, would you be able to be legally prosecuted, or would the new statute of limitations only apply to crimes that were committed from the date that it was passed and onward?
Neither.
The rule is (at least in the federal system and most states – I don’t know if it’s universally true) that the legislature can extend the statute of limitations without violating the Ex Post Facto clause as long as the original period has not run.
In other words, let’s imagine the SOL for mopery is five years.
If I commit mopery on January 1st, 1990, then once January 1st, 1995 rolls around, I can’t be prosecuted.
Now let’s say the legislature acts. On March 15, 1995, they increase the SOL for mopery to ten years. I still cannot be prosecuted – the change came after the original SOL period had run out.
But: if the legislature acted on March 15, 1994 – while still within the original SOL period – and extended the SOL to ten years, then I’m out of luck; I can be prosecuted anytime up to January 1, 2000.
Not just my opinion, but the Supreme Court’s. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
And, presumably, if non-reporting were a crime, any statute of limitations would run not from when the underlying crime was committed, but from when Mahony became aware of it.
And you need to look in some detail at the terms of the law requiring reporting - if Mahony recieves an allegation that Fr So-and-so abused a child, does he have to report that? Or does he only have an obligation to report when he knows that Fr. So-and-so did in fact commit the alleged abuse? If the latter, then presumably the limitation period only runs from that date.
True, although pretty much every law that I’ve ever seen along these lines simply says, “…have reasonable suspicion that…” or something similar.
Thanks Bricker for the info.
Mahoney traded a several memos with other Church officials to strategize how to keep abusers out of court, including using his position to move priests out of the jurisdictions of police who were conducting investigations and ordered the people under him to not release relevant documents that the police wanted for their investigation.
I kinda doubt that rises to the level of legal obstruction, but its more substantial then simply “not reporting”* the abuse cases he was aware of. He actively tried to cover for his priests.
*(CA passed a reporting law for clergy in 1997. IIRC, the unreported abuse cases in CA were all pre-1990, so Mahoney is probably safe from prosecution on those grounds. Though I guess you could argue that while the abuse happened in the 80’s, Mahoney kept on not reporting it even after the law was passed).
In any case, I’m pretty sure there was already a Grand Jury that decided not to indict Mahony, so whatever the arguments that were against prosecuting him, they apparently worked.
You must have seen the documentary film Deliver us From Evil, right?
It chronicles Mahoney’s protection and moving around (from parish to parish ) a priest named O’Grady, who molested and raped kids for years. IANAL, but I would call that aiding and abetting in multiple crimes. How the hell did Mahoney get to be Archbishop of the L.A. diocese?
It’s not aiding and abetting.
In order to prove aiding and abetting, you generally have to show that the accused had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another, and had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense. In this instance, that means you would have to prove that Mahoney specifically intended that priests would molest, as opposed to simply wanting to protect the Church against disclosure.
So far as I am aware, there is no evidence of that.