As it looks now, ex-communicated Monsignor Dale Fushek will be getting his way. It seems he will be able to take on his accusers of sexual misconduct one at a time. The five males bringing complaints won’t be ganging up to give “critical mass” to their cases and, together, try to show a pattern of actions by the clergyman.
It has been more than a year since San Tan Justice of the Peace Sam Goodman rejected the Maricopa County prosecutors’ arguments for one trial, but Prosecutor Barbara Marshall appealed that ruling, arguing the five men’s stories and account needed to be shared in a single trial to prove Fushek’s pattern of sexual motivation. A Maricopa County District Court judge upheld that, and an appeal was filed. Marshall voiced publicly that Goodman’s decision, if upheld, meant “our case has been cut off at the knees. Late in September, Marshall and her team were informed the Court of Appeals had denied the requested reviews.
So the case goes back to Goodman’s court. Fushek, who had ascended to be the second most powerful clergymen in the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, as vicar general under former Bishop Thomas O’Brien, will be tried before separate juries. In 2007, he successfully won an Arizona Supreme Court ruling that allowed him to have jury trials, not trials before a judge. Goodman had previously ruled the trials would take place in front of his bench with his ruling on Fushek’s guilt or innocence. But Fushek successfully pressed for his own trials, noting that he could be labeled a sex offender if convicted in a judge-ruled case. And that could doom his ministry to families and children.
Fushek was first accused almost five years ago, but the long litany of rules, appeals and motions has stretched out disposition of the cases. On Feb. 5, 2009, the Maricopa County Superior Court upheld Fushek’s case for five trials to resolve the seven misdemeanor churges, brought by men who were teens in alleged incidents between 1984 and 1993.
Together, they represent one count of assault, one of indecent exposure and five counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Maricopa Judge Joseph Kreamer ruled that the series of incidents were separate and that it would be unfair to bundle them together as if they were all related. “The court does not believe that the alleged offenses are based on the same conduct , or are otherwie connected in their commission,” he had determined. Kreamer said the incidents took place across the expanse of almost a decade, in various settings and were not related close enough.
That jibed with Goodman’s original decision. Goodman had decided the five trials would be booked from the oldest incidents to the newest. Each trial would follow the other “as soon as practical following the conclusion” of each previous trial.
The first is contributing to the delinquency of a minor complaint by Carl Mawhinney, who accuses Fushek of “numerous sexually related discussions” about his sex life betwen 1984 and 1988. It would be followed by a trial, on charges of assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor between 1985 and 1987, brought by Marc Tropio. The third trial would involve charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and indecent exposure, between 1987 and 1990, brought by Marc Olson. The fourth trial would involve contributing to the delinquency of a minor between 1989 and 1991 where Doug Cordano contends Fushek discussed his sexual activities. The final trial would focus on a count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor between 1991 and 1993 brought by Russell Swingle. Should the first case end in acquittal, motions to dismiss the remander are almost certain. Will it be a case of “separate and conquer”?
Fushek was one of the highest ranked officials charged in the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. In late 2007, Fushek, while on a paid leave of absence pending resolution of the charges, started a non-denominatinal church, the Praise and Worship Center in Mesa, with another former, now married, priest, Mark Dippre. It was in defiance of orders of Bishop Thomas Olmsted who had ordered Fushek to sit out ministry pending resolution of his cases. Olmsted subsequently excommunicated both priests.
Goodman has scheduled a hearing for 9 a.m. Nov. 6 for the sides to come together to move forward on laying out terms for the trials.
The Arizona Court of Appeals has decided not to review special
[...] rest is here: Appeal denied, Fushek will face accusers one at a time – Spiritual … Share and [...]
Dale appears to have “9 lives.” There is obviously a pattern of behavior with this man over many years with boys. Thankfully, the current Diocese appears supporting of all victims involved.
I would like to comment on the issue of adults who sexually abuse children. I make this comment based on almost 30 years of clinical practice as a clinical psychologist, most of which was spent working with clergymen whose pattern of behavior was similar to Reverend Fushek.
It is rare that the grooming behavior, which seems to be reflected in some of the charges, is not followed by more overt acts of sexual behavior–also reflected in some of the charges. I would anticipate that in light of Father Fushek’s history the Diocese probably has an extensive clinical file, including professional assessments, complaints from parishioners, superiors, etc.; these documents will need to be obtained to demonstrate if there is a pattern of behavior, which I suspect is reflected in the allegations.
I am surprised that the Judge in question does not seem to understand the behavioral profile reflected in the charges. Nor does the Judge in question seem to understand how the church responds to men carrying the accusations made against clergymen like Reverend Fushek.
The key for legal authorities is that the man was removed from ministry. If he was also subject to the extreme measure of excommunication then this almost certainly validates the existence of a large array of evidence on file, from which the church needs to take distance in order to protect itself against future civil action.
If the judge and prosecutor were on the same page subpoenas would have been issued to the diocese in order to obtain the personnel folder, which could contain the clinical material to which I refer. Bear in mind, however, that such files are often placed under the canonical protection of secret archives, or given to the Papal Delegate, for removal to Rome, thus protected by diplomatic immunity
Finally, let me add that separate trials may make sense legally, but make absolutely no sense to me as a clinical psychologist. There is far too much clinical research validating the pattern of behavior reflected in the history of consecutive allegations against Reverend Fushek. I emphasize the word “reflected,” as opposed to “inferred.”
When there is a demonstrated pattern of behavior, which I think is most likely the case, treating each allegation as a separate reality places the entire community at risk. Moreover, I think it incumbent on the Prosecutor to determine if such a pattern of behavior exists. And it is incumbent on the Judge to insure the safety of the community as well as a fair trial for the defendant.
If I were a parent in this community I would not rest easy with how this case is being handled.
Fushek will eventually be held accountable for his actions in a much higher court.
As a survivor of clergy abuse myself, it is disheartening to continue to read about this case, having recently gone thru mediation and settlement with a group of other survivors of Clergy abuse, I can speak first hand on how we are treated by the legal system, the laws are locked down by religious lobbies to ensure Clergy survivors are literally branded, more so even than the accused, like Fushek, and yes a Perp can literally wrap a cloak of invincibility made up of legal motions, which are meant to weaken the victim into going away.
It takes so much to come forward and confront the abuser, the personal cost of going public and puting yourself thru the process of being interviewed by church lawyers and having your whole life open to be judged by those who represent the abuser..is horrible..let me tell you..just horrible..Pediophiles, they don’t stop with just one, given the access, and the ability to scare or shame their victims into silence..they all use a weapon…Clergy abusers use God..can you even imagine it..God..I hope the survivors find justice and support..Sure looks like Fushek has..
Thank you Dr. Tyrrell….very well said. I completely agree!
These comments are excellent and right on…. Fushek knows exactly what he is doing.
Why is there not an outcry of parents who are wanting justice for these brave victims? It takes sooooooooooo much courage to speak up and let the world know that you were sexually abused by a priest. But, the healing starts to begin, as soon as you do.
Anyone who has ever been harmed by this priest, please contact law enforcement. You just might save another child.
Judy Jones, SNAP Ohio Valley Regional Director,
636-433-2511
snapsteubenville@gmail.com
http://www.snapnetwork.org/
Dale has another thing coming. This guy needs to face the choir and a jury with these poor people all at once. How does this Dale seem to push the system??
He can run, but he can’t hide forever. He will receive justice, just not as quickly as we all would have hoped. And even should the judges of this world be fooled, the Judge to come will not. Pray for justice. And repentance and mercy.