Jailed priest’s prosecutors defend their case

 

By Matt C. Abbott

 

 

The following is the text of a brief (which, as you can see, isn’t exactly brief) filed by prosecutors last month in the case of Father Gerald Robinson, who “was convicted in May, 2006, for the 1980 murder of Sister Margaret Ann Pahl, a 71-year-old Catholic nun who was strangled nearly to death, then stabbed 31 times,” according to a Dec. 15, 2007 article in the Toledo Blade by religion editor David Yonke.

 

The brief, “filed with Ohio's 6th District Court of Appeals, makes point-by-point rebuttals to arguments Robinson's attorneys made in August claiming the 69-year-old Catholic cleric did not receive a fair trial.”

 

(Several days ago, I e-mailed one of Father Robinson’s attorneys to request a copy of their appeal brief, filed in August, 2007, but I have yet to receive it. Incidentally, David Yonke’s book on the case – Sin, Shame, and Secrets – contains a very disturbing report that the Toledo Catholic diocese kept documents indicating diocesan officials had paid for certain abortions. I covered said report in previous columns.)

 

 

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

                                                        SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

 STATE OF OHIO                                       *           C.A.  No.  L-06-1182

 

Plaintiff‑Appellee,                                        *           C.P.  No.  CR04-1915

 

‑vs‑                                                                        *

 

GERALD ROBINSON                                              *

 

Defendant‑Appellant.                                   *

 

*

                                  __________________________________________________

 

                                                     BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF‑APPELLEE

                                  __________________________________________________

 

 

JULIA R. BATES, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY                                                           LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

 

By:       John J. Weglian (0020674)

Dean P. Mandross (0016641)

Lawrence J. Kiroff (0019347)

Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys

Lucas County Courthouse

Toledo, Ohio 43624

Telephone: (419) 213‑4700

Facsimile:  (419) 213-4595

 

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF‑APPELLEE

Richard M. Kerger (0015864)

Kerger & Associates

33 South Michigan Street, Suite 100

Toledo, Ohio 43604

Telephone: 419.255.5990

Facsimile: 419.255.5997

 

John P. Donahue (0022745)

119 W. Second Street, P.O. Box 526

Perrysburg, Ohio 43552

Telephone: 419.874.4604

Facsimile: 419.874.2399

 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT‑APPELLANT

                                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

                                                                                                                                                   PAGE

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................................... i

 

INTRODUCTORY NOTE...................................................................................................................... vi

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS..................................................................................... 1

 

Assignment of Error Number 4............................................................................................................ 14

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS NOT AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 14

 

Assignment of Error Number 1............................................................................................................ 25

 

THE PERIOD OF PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY DID NOT CAUSE THE APPELLANT SUBSTANTIAL ACTUAL PREJUDICE.  THE APPELLANT FAILED TO RAISE THIS ISSUE AT TRIAL AND THUS WAIVED IT................ 25

 

A.       The appellant cannot sustain his burden of demonstrating actual, substantial

prejudice................................................................................................................ 27

 

B.       Even if the appellant sustained his burden to demonstrate actual, substantial .................                         prejudice, the delay in initiating prosecution was justified.......................................................... 38

 

C.       The appellant did not raise his due process claim or provide evidence in support of it prior to or during trial, and, therefore, the claim is waived or forfeited................................................................... 43

 

D.       A finding that the appellant waived or forfeited the delay issue does not constitute plain error.         44

 

Assignment of Error Number 2............................................................................................................ 45

 

THE APPELLANT'S TEAM OF DEFENSE LAWYERS COMPETENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED THE APPELLANT THROUGHOUT THE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEEDINGS................................ 45

 

Assignment of Error Number 3............................................................................................................ 52

 

THE USE OF AN EXPERT WITNESS IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS   TO TESTIFY ABOUT RELIGIOUS RITUALS AND PRACTICES AND RELATE THEM TO A CRIME SCENE DOES NOT VIOLATE A DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. ................................................................................................................................. 52

 

 

Assignment of Error Number 5............................................................................................................ 57

 

THE APPELLANT'S TEAM OF DEFENSE LAWYERS COMPETENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED THE APPELLANT THROUGHOUT THE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEEDINGS................................ 57

 

Assignment of Error No.  6................................................................................................................. 67

 

THE PROSECUTION’S CLOSING ARGUMENT DID NOT CONTAIN REMARKS WHICH CONSTITUTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR, I.E., REMARKS SO EGREGIOUS THAT IT IS CLEAR BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ABSENT THE PROSECUTOR’S COMMENTS, THE JURY WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND APPELLANT GUILTY.  67

 

Assignment of Error Number 7............................................................................................................ 73

 

THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS 2004 STATEMENTS    73

 

Assignment of Error Number  8........................................................................................................... 76

 

DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO REVERSAL BASED UPON CUMULATIVE ERROR............ 76

 

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................... 79

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................................................. 80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES1TABLE OF AUTHORITIES01TABLE OF AUTHORITIES001TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

 

CASES                                                                                                                                        PAGE

 

Beckwith v. United States (1976), 425 U.S. 341................................................................................... 74

 

 

Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), 468 U.S. 420.......................................................................................... 74

 

 

Daubert  v.  Merrel Don Pharms Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579................................................................ 53, 58

 

 

Dunlap v. United States (1897), 165 U.S. 486...................................................................................... 72

 

 

Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420............................................................................................ 73

 

 

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.......................................................................................... 73‑76

 

 

Missouri v. Seibert (2004), 542 U.S. 600.............................................................................................. 75

 

 

Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S.  492........................................................................................... 73

 

 

Shelton v. State (1921), 102 Ohio St. 376............................................................................................ 68

 

 

Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134; 2000 Ala. Crim. App.LEXIS 98. ................................................ 55, 58

 

 

Smith v. Phillips (1982), 455 U.S. 209, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78................................................... 67

 

 

Stansbury v. California (1994), 511 U.S. 318........................................................................................ 74

 

 

State v. Abner, 2nd Dist.  No. 20661, 2006-Ohio-4510 ........................................................................... 76

 

 

State v. Alexander, 11th Dist. No. 93-T-4948, 1996 Ohio App Lexis 5418................................................. 20

 

 

State v. Awan (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 120............................................................................................ 43

 

 

State v. Baker, 7th Dist. No. 03 CO 24, 2003 Ohio 7008....................................................................... 66

 

 

State v. Ball, 6th Dist. No.  E-02-024, 2004-Ohio-2455.......................................................................... 76

 

 

State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 2002‑Ohio‑68, 759 N.E.2d 1240....................................................... 44

 

 

State v. Benge (1995), 75 Ohio St.3d 136................................................................................. 67, 68, 73

 

 

State v. Bradley(1989), 42 Ohio St. 3d 136.......................................................................................... 50

 

State v. Bridgeman (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 261..................................................................................... 65

 

 

State v. Brown  2000 Ohio App Lexis 1203.......................................................................................... 36

 

 

State v. Bruce, 5th Dist.  No.  02 CA 40, 2003‑Ohio‑1714................................................................ 37, 39

 

 

State v. Burnell (Apr. 28, 1989), 11th Dist. No. 1948, 1989 Ohio App Lexis 1545. .............................. 45, 46

 

 

State v. Castile, 6th Dist. No. E-02-012, 2005 Ohio 133................................................................... 48, 50

 

 

State v. Catlett (July 24, 1981), 6th Dist. No. L-80-312, 1981 Ohio App. LEXIS 10257. ............................ 65

 

 

State v. Christman, 7th Dist.  No.  786, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2486...................................................... 41

 

 

State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230.......................................................................................... 15

 

 

State v. DeMarco (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 191, 509 N.E.2d 1256.............................................................. 76

 

 

State v. DeNicola (1955), 163 Ohio St. 140.......................................................................................... 67

 

 

State v. Dixon (2004), 101 Ohio St. 3d 328..................................................................................... 59, 62

 

 

State v. Dixon, 101 Ohio St. 3d 328, 2004 Ohio 1585...................................................................... 46, 66

 

 

State v. Estes, 12th Dist.  No.  CA2005-02-001, 2005-Ohio-5478............................................................ 76

 

 

State v. Frazier (1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d 323.......................................................................................... 67

 

 

State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180, 1998-Ohio-533................................................................................ 15

 

 

State v. Gulley, 12th  Dist.  No.  CA99‑02‑004, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 6091........................................... 38

 

 

State v. Hamilton (February 11, 2002), 12th Dist. No. CA2001-04-044, 2002 Ohio 560............................. 47

 

 

State v. Hardison, 9th Dist. No. 23050, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 330.......................................................... 20

 

 

State v. Harrison (June 30, 1988), 12th Dist. CA87-11-151, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 2765 ......................... 48

 

 

State v. Hoffner, 102 Ohio St.3d 358, 2004-Ohio-3430, 811 N.E.2d 48................................................... 75

 

 

State v. Ishmail (1978) 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500................................................................... 44

 

 

State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 259...................................................................................... 14, 60

 

State v. Johnson (December 22, 1989), 6th Dist. No. S-89-1, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 4789....................... 47

 

 

State v. Jones (2000) 80 Ohio St.3d 403............................................................................................. 67

 

 

State v. Keenan (1993), 66 Ohio St. 3d 402......................................................................................... 68

 

 

State v. Kerr, 6th Dist. No. WD-05-080, 2006 Ohio 6058............................................. 46‑48, 51, 59, 60, 66

 

 

State v. Killen (2007), 958 So.2d 172.................................................................................................. 39

 

 

State v. Lane (1998), 48 Ohio App. 3d 172........................................................................................... 77

 

 

State v. Leach, 150 Ohio App.3d 567, 2002-Ohio-6654 ........................................................................ 76

 

 

State v. Loomer, 8th Dist.  No.  68103, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 4357...................................................... 38

 

 

State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 160.......................................................................................... 47, 70

 

 

State v. Luck (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 150.................................................................. 25, 27, 36, 38, 42, 43

 

 

State v. Madrigal (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 2000-Ohio-448, 721 N.E.2d 52. ......................................... 76

 

 

State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172.................................................................................... 14, 25

 

 

State v. Mason, 6th Dist.  No.  L-02-1211, L-02-1189, 2003-Ohio-5974................................................... 76

 

 

State v. McDermott, 6th Dist. No. L-03-1110, 2005-Ohio-2095............................................................... 15

 

 

State v. Moritz (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 150........................................................................................... 67

 

 

State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St. 3d 44, 2002 Ohio 7044.............................................................................. 59

 

 

State v. Papp (1978), 64 Ohio App. 2d 203.......................................................................................... 67

 

 

State v. Payne, (2007) 114 Ohio St.3d 502. ................................................................................... 43, 45

 

 

State v. Peoples, 10