Jury clears man who shot priest he accused of abuse

Jeslek

Jeslek

Banned
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/16/priest.shot.trial.ap/

BALTIMORE, Maryland (AP) -- A sympathetic jury cleared a man of most charges in the shooting of a priest who he said abused him as a teenager. Jurors also asked for leniency when the former altar boy is sentenced on minor gun charges.

Dontee Stokes, 26, admitted that he shot and wounded the Rev. Maurice Blackwell in front of his Baltimore home when he tried to confront the priest about the alleged sexual abuse.

The May 13 shooting came amid mounting allegations of sexual misconduct by priests that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. Baltimore Cardinal William Keeler told jurors Thursday he regretted reinstating Blackwell after investigating the claims in 1993.

The jury acquitted Stokes of attempted murder, which carries a maximum life sentence, and assault but convicted him of three gun charges. After delivering the verdicts, the jury recommended a lenient sentence in a note to the judge.

Stokes' mother, Tamara Stokes, closed her eyes and prayed as the verdicts were read. Her sisters clasped hands, holding their children on their laps. Tamara Stokes said the verdict would help other victims of clergy abuse.

"I'm not saying this is the way to go, but for victims coming forward, there is some light," she said.

During the trial, defense attorney Warren Brown said Stokes was pushed over the edge by the abuse when he was a teenage altar boy and Blackwell's refusal to apologize. He said Stokes was suffering a mental disorder from the abuse and experienced a "psychotic episode" during the shooting.

The jury also acquitted Stokes of using a handgun to commit a violent crime.

"God is with me," Stokes said after the verdict. "I thank God for everything he's done; all the glory goes to God."

The jury will decide Tuesday if Stokes can be held criminally responsible for the three weapons convictions.

Two of the convictions carry a maximum sentence of three years each, but his attorney said Stokes won't likely serve time.

"He was found not guilty of anything that would send him jail," Brown said. "We're going to come back tomorrow and get rid of this case and let Dontee get on with his life."

Prosecutor Sylvester Cox had told jurors that Stokes' abuse allegation didn't justify the attack.

During deliberations, jurors reviewed a videotape of testimony from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Spodak, who said Stokes was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder when he shot Blackwell.

Stokes testified that he didn't intend to harm Blackwell when he confronted him. But he said that when Blackwell brushed him off, memories of abuse flooded back.

Stokes said his vision flickered and he had the sensation "that his soul was trying to get a hold of his body" before he shot Blackwell, who was wounded in the hand and hip.

Blackwell, 56, was called to the stand during the trial but invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions. Stokes' abuse allegations are under investigation; no charges have been filed.

Keeler, who was the bishop in charge of Blackwell at the time of the 1993 allegations, said he decided to send the priest back to St. Edward Roman Catholic Church under certain restrictions after Blackwell spent three months undergoing psychiatric evaluation.

Blackwell's attorney, Kenneth Ravenell, did not return a call from The Associated Press late Monday.

The Archdiocese of Baltimore released a statement Monday night saying the jury's verdict closes "one sad chapter" and could leave Baltimore with a "greater measure of reconciliation and peace."

A statement released late Monday by Martin Menton, director of the Baltimore chapter of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said the organization was gratified by the decision.

"It has been a tough and unfortunate situation for everyone. Although SNAP in no way condones violence, we think the jury made the correct decision," the statement read.
Click to expand...
This is good. Very good. Hopefully future rulings will be based on this one.
 
i hope so too but what i heard was he did get convicted or that he had to serve jail time. but i can understand him being let out on either insanity or the fact that the priest isnt above the law and had no right to do what he did.
 
Not condoning the actions of the priest, who should've turned himself in to the police when the crimes happened, but shooting him because he didn't fess up is just as evil.
 
not to me gato. i can understand the guy who shot him and would not convict him. the pain of being molested never goes away. though it is a life, its better to think he wont hurt anyone else like that ever again.
 
according to the article no charges have been brought against the priest and the accusations are merely that - accusations. if he did molest the man when he was a teenager then throw the book at him but it is the law's job to punish the priest, not the individual.

to leave the man unpunished for an act of violence makes a mockery of the law and leaves the door open to other vigilante actions when it suits people.
 
If the man is mentally ill and not fully responsible for his actions because of what this priest did to him, locking him up serves no useful purpose as it's unlikely that he is a danger to anyone else. Making sure he gets the treatment he so obviously needs that will prevent any repetition should be the priority.

Unfortunately where there is no corroberative evidence, which there rarely is in these cases, police cannot prosecute, it's his word against that of the priest. I know this from experience. For every one case that gets to court there are large numbers that never do.
 
ris said:
according to the article no charges have been brought against the priest and the accusations are merely that - accusations. if he did molest the man when he was a teenager then throw the book at him but it is the law's job to punish the priest, not the individual.

to leave the man unpunished for an act of violence makes a mockery of the law and leaves the door open to other vigilante actions when it suits people.
Click to expand...

as i said before the pain doesnt go away. thats why i say not guilty. i dont see it as vigilantism when its him getting the cause of his pain and depression. if as auntie said he did this under temporary insanity then he may not be a threat.
 
if he is pleading a case of mental instability then fine, treat him. otherwise he appears guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

the crimes against him do not warrant his actions. it is the job of the law to punish, not the individual. i can sympathise with the man and understand the frustrations and anger he feels but his actions are outside the law and unless proven mentally unstable and treated accordingly he should be prosecuted as anyone else.
 
ris said:
if he is pleading a case of mental instability then fine, treat him. otherwise he appears guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

the crimes against him do not warrant his actions. it is the job of the law to punish, not the individual. i can sympathise with the man and understand the frustrations and anger he feels but his actions are outside the law and unless proven mentally unstable and treated accordingly he should be prosecuted as anyone else.
Click to expand...

The jury have the full facts of the case, we only have a brief outline, if they cleared him of the more serious charges then I'm sure they had sufficient evidence to support that verdict. To my knowledge American juries are not known for their leniency, rather the opposite is true.
 
indeed, my comments are more for those who appear to prefer vigilalante action over the law.
 
If you want to prosecute everyone to the fullest extent of the law, a judge will do that for you. There is a REASON why we have a jury.... Juries are NOT always bound by law because they CAN dismiss a charge if they want to. Juries are there to represent society and so that law will never supercede what society needs and wants.

In that case of a man stabbing an intruder 12 times (in the UK), a jury panel here would never sentence him to life imprisonment for defending his family (unless maybe in California). Juries are there to be fair, not obey the law in a very strict sense. Thats what judges are for, and why the Supreme Court has 9 judges, not a jury.
 
the case you are referring to the man was convicted of manslaughter on a majority verdict and was given 5years, not life imprisonment as you have said.

comparisons such as that are somewhat inaccurate - it uses the threat of the other person as justification for the action. [the difference between the uk and the us in this regard is the amount self defence that can be used].

again, without knowing the full story of this case [as aunty very kindly pointed out], but i do not see anywhere in the story posted that the priest was threatening the man.

my disagreement with the case is that the man appears to have acted in revenge of something he claims happened previously. it is simply that i do not condone, or think we shold condone, actions of individual justice [to whit read revenge] on other people in this way.
 
ris said:
my disagreement with the case is that the man appears to have acted in revenge of something he claims happened previously. it is simply that i do not condone, or think we shold condone, actions of individual justice [to whit read revenge] on other people in this way.
Click to expand...

I think it's dependent on his mental state at the time of the offense. I do not believe that the law should punish someone for being mentally ill or for their actions whilst in a deranged state - society does that already by shunning sufferers and making normal life very difficult for them. But I do believe that treatment should be compulsory. Prisons do not have the resources to provide proper treatment, at least not in this country, so you can end up with someone in a far worse state when they are released, and there is also a greater risk of suicide or self harm.
 
i agree entirely, if his mental state is such that he cannot be deemed responsible or capable of being responsible for his actions then he should be treated accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top