The cardinal, 78, who was once an adviser to Pope Francis, had been sentenced to six years in prison in March.The story continues,“He will continue to serve his sentence,” said Chief Justice Anne Ferguson of the Supreme Court of the state of Victoria in Melbourne, who presided over the appeals case with two other top judges.
Cardinal Pell was found guilty in December of molesting two 13-year-old choirboys after a Sunday Mass in 1996 at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, and groping one of them again months later. A gag order meant the verdict was not unsealed until February, after a second trial involving Cardinal Pell was canceled.
The primary argument made by Cardinal Pell’s legal team was that it was impossible for the jury to be satisfied of the cardinal’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.” The lawyers pointed to what they said was evidence that contradicted the account of the former choirboy — testimony that the case hinged on.I've served as a juror in two criminal trials. During the voir dire process in which jurors are chosen by the opposing sides, counsel and the judge place continuing stress on the need for, and ability of, jurors to evaluate testimony based on their life experience and ordinary common sense. An interesting part of the experience was to see the unspoken criteria for automatic deselection from the candidate pool: anyone who gave their occupation as "_____ at UCLA" pretty much got a "dismissed -- thank you".“Nobody apart from the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator were present in the room,” said Bret Walker, the lawyer representing Cardinal Pell at the appeal. Activities after the Sunday Mass, Mr. Walker added, would have made it either “impossible” or “so unlikely” as to leave no realistic possibility for Cardinal Pell to molest them.
But two of the three judges said Wednesday that the standard had been met for the jury to determine the cardinal’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“We did not experience a doubt,” Justice Ferguson said. “The complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of truth,” she added.
But a result of my experience as a juror was a great respect for the jury process. When I first heard of the verdict against Pell, this was the first thing that came to mind. On the other hand, I can take no exception to the Vatican's public announcement following the decision:
The Vatican, in a statement, said that “as the proceedings continue to develop, the Holy See recalls that the cardinal has always maintained his innocence throughout the judicial process and that it is his right to appeal to the High Court.”The CDF is conducting its own investigation of the case. There are still issues here that concern me -- the events in the case occurred in 1996. Why did it take so long for the matter to come to trial? And what is the Church continuing to do to screen candidates for holy orders? There are men in the North American ordimariate who, as far as I can see from the evidence that's come to light, should not have been ordained in the first place; two have already been removed from active ministry, but there are clearly others.
I still have a concern that there isn't full seriousness about this issue in the Church.
