The defense rested without offering a single witness yesterday in the sexual molestation trial of former priest John Geoghan, but the jury will continue deliberating today on a verdict.
After the prosecution brought out its final two witnesses — Geoghan’s former supervisor in the church and his former psychiatrist — both sides gave their closing arguments, with the prosecution hoping to convince jurors Geoghan molested a 10-year-old boy at in 1991.
“When a grown man touches a 10-year-old’s buttocks, it is wrong,” said prosecutor Lynn Rooney. “We are not saying this is the most egregious act of sexual touching; there are far worse types of those things in the world. It doesn’t make it any less wrong.”
The alleged victim testified Wednesday Geoghan fondled his buttocks while in the swimming pool in the Waltham Boys and Girls Club.
Packard stressed discrepancies between the various testimonies offered by the prosecution.
“Lawyers like to say facts are stubborn things,” said defense attorney Geoffrey Packard. “Facts don’t change over time.”
While Packard focused mainly on the inaccuracies between the victim’s testimony and his mother’s testimony, Rooney said those details aren’t important.
“You know it, or you don’t,” she said. “He knew it when he felt it.”
The case was sent to the jury early yesterday afternoon. After more than four hours of deliberation, jurors were unable to render a verdict.
Earlier yesterday, New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Hughes, then vicar general of the archdiocese, told the court he had given Geoghan explicit instructions not to go to the Waltham Boys and Girls Club within 24 hours of the incident and that Geoghan consented.
Hughes said he made the order in response to allegations that Geoghan had been proselytizing, which defense attorney Geoffrey Packard defined as exerting pressure to make an individual give up his or her faith. In addition, Hughes said he feared Geoghan might engage in “conversation that could be interpreted as impurity of intent.”
“There were two concerns: one the proselytizing, and also conversation that could be open to misinterpretation,” Hughes said.
Also providing testimony for the Commonwealth was Geoghan’s former psychiatrist, Dr. Edward Messner. Messner told the jury Geoghan had indeed discussed his sexual feelings during session, indicating he was aroused by children — particularly boys. Those feelings predated the 1991 incident, Messner said.
“We discussed his ability to control his sexual fantasies and sexual feelings about women and boys,” he testified.
After the Commonwealth rested, Packard motioned to present before the jury a 1999 civil complaint filed by the alleged victim’s attorney against the archdiocese. That motion was denied.
Packard said Messner’s testimony was not specific to the 1991 incident, telling the jurors it offers no evidence as to the defendant’s behavior on the day in question.
“There weren’t talking about 1991 — they were talking in 1995 about current feelings,” he said. “What he remembers is the minimum this court requires.”
“This case is like a jigsaw puzzle, and you have to make a picture,” Rooney said about the different testimonies.
The jury asked Judge Sandra Hamlin for a written definition outlining the six points the prosecution must satisfy to get a conviction on indecent assault and battery charges on someone under 14 years of age. She was not able to give them a printed copy, but did read aloud the criteria:
* The alleged victim must be under 14 years of age.
* The defendant intended to engage in the touching.
* The defendant touched the victim, however slight.
* The touching was harmful or offensive.
* The touching was indecent (as judged on a scale of common understanding and practice).
* The touching came without justification or excuse.
Rooney said the most important thing to remember in the case was that a crime was committed — not that the plaintiff couldn’t remember what age he was when the alleged crime occurred.
Packard, however, said the case was reconstructed as an assault and battery trial after the victim spoke to an attorney about the priest’s earlier misconduct.
“How is it that we remember things?” Packard asked. “Is it how we relate things to other events? What he remembers is the minimum this court requires.”
Rooney said if the victim had different motives, such as to win money, he would have picked a clearer story.
“Think about it,” she said. “He’s a kid; he doesn’t remember.”
– Dave D’Onofrio contributed to this report.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
