Back to Boston.com homepage Arts | Entertainment Boston Globe Online Cars.com BostonWorks Real Estate Boston.com Sports digitalMass Travel The Boston Globe Spotlight Investigation Boston.com Abuse in the Catholic Church
HomePredator priestsScandal and coverupThe victimsThe financial costOpinion
Cardinal Law and the laityThe church's responseThe clergyInvestigations and lawsuits
Interactive2002 scandal overviewParish mapExtrasArchivesDocumentsAbout this site
 Latest coverage

October 25
Victims could now collect

October 2
Geoghan's sister hits guards

October 1
Geoghan's sister to speak

September 27
Conviction erasure protested
Druce is hospitalized again
Guard ad seeks understanding

September 24
Inquiry: Druce beaten as child

September 20
Druce pleads not guilty in slay
Geoghan claims guard assault

September 14
Report says Druce in a rage

September 13
Letter: Druce abused as a boy

September 12
Geoghan bore guards' abuse
Lawyer: Mail deluges accused

September 11
Expanded panel is sought

September 8
Druce is returned from hospital

September 5
Geoghan consultant ties eyed

September 4
Conflict raised on consultant

September 3
Bias concerns raised in probe

September 2
No new panel members seen

August 31
Geoghan panel to expand

Earlier stories

Search for:
Time period:

Spotlight Report

Judge reinstates 2 Geoghan charges

Question on statute of limitations to be decided by a jury

By Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff, 8/31/2002

A judge who reinstated two charges of child rape against defrocked priest John J. Geoghan this week reversed her earlier decision because she believed a jury, not a judge, should decide whether prosecutors waited too long to indict Geoghan.

Judge Margaret Hinkle ruled Wednesday that the charges should be reinstated, but her written decision was not released until yesterday. Hinkle had dismissed the two charges in March, ruling that the statute of limitations had expired.

But in her latest decision, Hinkle said it would be possible for a jury to decide that Geoghan was indicted before the statute of limitations ran out. The technical calculation about the statute hinges on whether the alleged victim was correct when he testified earlier this year that he told officers in 1986 that Geoghan had orally raped him, placing Geoghan's 1999 indictment outside the statute of limitations.

Other witnesses testified, and prosecutors argued, that the alleged victim didn't report the rape until 1989, meaning that Geoghan was indicted before the statute of limitations expired.

Yesterday, the mother of the alleged victim said she was gratified by Hinkle's decision.

''I feel that maybe now my son can finally tell what happened to him by Geoghan and be able to start putting his life back together,'' she said. ''At least now we might be able to get justice.''

Also yesterday, lawyers who argued before Judge Constance M. Sweeney earlier this month about whether they had reached an agreement to settle the scores of civil suits filed against Geoghan and the Archdiocese of Boston filed court papers recapping their arguments.

Lawyers for 86 alleged Geoghan victims argued that they had reached a binding agreement with archdiocese officials in early March.

Lawyers for the church officials say the agreement was only a tentative first step that they had to abandon because it was too expensive.

Kathleen Burge can be reached by e - mail at kburge@globe.com.

This story ran on page B3 of the Boston Globe on 8/31/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Advertise | Contact us | Privacy policy