BRIDGEPORT, Friday, May 22, 2009 — Upon
learning of today's decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court
regarding Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman
Catholic Diocesan Corp.,
the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport issued the following
statement:
Summary Statement of the Diocese of Bridgeport
(Full statement follows)
We are deeply disappointed that the Connecticut Supreme Court has
failed to uphold the Diocese’s right to a fair adjudication
of its claim by an impartial judge – a right that is
fundamental to any legal proceeding.
- Shortly after Judge Alander received this case, he was
appointed chairman of a Judicial Committee reviewing the
issue of press access to court records whose stated
purpose was to provide more accessibility to court records
and proceedings. Creating a further conflict, one
of the members of this committee who was collaborating with
Judge Alander was a reporter from the Hartford
Courant, who was a party in the case against the Diocese.
- As Justice William Sullivan notes in his dissenting opinion,
“A person of ordinary intelligence and experience would have reason
to question Judge Alander’s impartiality in the present case…”
Also lost in today’s decision is the fact that, during the litigation
claims of the 1990’s, the victims’ and their attorneys had access
to the records in question under seal. In 2001, the claims were
settled, and the court records, including documents under seal, were
set to follow the standard procedure for all claims settled before
trial and be destroyed.
- The majority rationale for the presumptive public access
to judicial documents is to “provide the public with a more
complete understanding of the judicial system and a better
perception of its fairness.” However, as Justice Sullivan
says in his dissent, the Hartford Courant and New
York Times had "…reported extensively on the underlying
cases from the time that the first action was brought in
early January 1993 through the date that they were settled,
that they knew about the sealing orders, and they never sought
to intervene in the cases for the purpose of challenging
the sealing orders while the cases were active …"
"This belies any suggestion that the intervenors are seeking
access to the sealed files in order to provide a more complete
understanding of the judicial process,” Justice Sullivan
concludes.
We are, therefore, currently reviewing our options in response to
this decision.
-30-
Full Statement of the Diocese of Bridgeport
We are deeply disappointed that the Connecticut Supreme Court
has failed to uphold the Diocese’s right to a fair adjudication
of its claim by an impartial judge – a right
that is fundamental to any legal proceeding.
Lost in today’s decision is the fact that, during the litigation
claims of the 1990’s, the victims’ and their attorneys had
access to the records in question under seal. In 2001, the
claims were settled, and the court records, including documents
under seal, were set to follow the standard procedure for all
claims settled before trial and be destroyed.
Background
Well after the legal time limit to challenge the initial sealing
of documents, the secular press intervened, demanding access
to the court files, including the sealed records. In a decision
replete with anti-Catholic Church rhetoric, the trial judge
actually invented an entirely new procedure to accommodate
this after-the-fact request from the press.
Very appropriately, in our view, the Appellate Court of Connecticut
overturned that trial decision. However, the Connecticut Supreme
Court reversed and remanded to a new trial judge.
Judge Alander
Coincidentally, that judge, Judge Alander, was at that very
time chairing a Judicial Committee reviewing the issue of press
access to court records whose stated purpose was to
provide more accessibility to court records and proceedings.
Creating a further conflict, one of the members of this committee
who was collaborating with Judge Alander was a reporter
from the Hartford Courant, who was a party in the
case against the Diocese.
As Justice Sullivan notes in his dissenting
opinion, "A person of ordinary intelligence and experience
would have reason to question Judge Alander’s impartiality
in the present case…"
The dissent also noted that two other judges, initially appointed
to the same Committee, stepped down from the committee because
they had before them cases involving similar issues of sealed
documents and public access.
Motion Denied
In response to these obvious conflicts, the Diocese presented
a motion requesting Judge Alander recuse himself in this matter,
but that motion was denied by the Judge himself.
It was not surprising, then, that Judge Alander ruled against
the Diocese’s claim to the privacy of its internal Church records.
The Diocese then appealed that decision to the State Supreme
Court.
Media Self-Interest
The majority rationale for the presumptive
public access to judicial documents is to "provide the public
with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and
a better perception of its fairness." However, as Justice
William Sullivan says in his dissent, the Hartford Courant and New
York Times had "…reported extensively on the underlying cases
from the time that the first action was brought in early January
1993 through the date that they were settled, that they knew
about the sealing orders, and they never sought to intervene
in the cases for the purpose of challenging the sealing orders
while the cases were active …"
"This belies any suggestion that the intervenors are seeking
access to the sealed files in order to provide a more complete
understanding of the judicial process," Justice Sullivan concludes.
Extraordinary Safeguards
Sadly, the history of this case has been about
access by the secular media to internal Church documents of
cases more than
30 years ago to suggest, unfairly, that nothing has changed.
This is despite the extraordinary measures the Catholic Church
has undertaken over the past several years to treat victims
with great compassion and dignity, and to put in safeguards
and educational programs to ensure that such a tragedy will
not happen again.
Deep Concerns Remain
From the anti-church rhetoric of the first
trial judge who proceeded to "invent" an entirely new procedure
to accommodate the press, to the lack of an impartial trial
judge to reconsider the case on remand from the Connecticut Supreme
Court, the history of this case raises issues that should be of concern
to all.
We are, therefore, currently reviewing
our options in response to this decision.
-30-
|
