A jury today acquitted a San Francisco man of felony charges that he beat up and abused the cleric he says brutally raped him decades ago.
The jury found Will Lynch not guilty of felony elder abuse and felony assault for a confrontation with Rev. Jerold Lindner. It also found Lynch not guilty of misdemeanor elder abuse, but deadlocked 8-4 in favor of a conviction on misdemeanor assault.
The verdict was a triumph for Lynch, now 44, and his supporters, who faithfully packed the Santa Clara County courtroom as the assault trial -- normally a brief event -- stretched over three weeks. From accusations of prosecutorial misconduct to a confrontation in the hallway between the priest and one of his alleged molestation victims, the trial was roiled by disruptions.
"I was wrong for doing what I did -- in doing that I perpetuated the cycle of violence," Lynch said outside the courtroom, referring to the two blows to the head he delivered to Lindner at the Sacred Heart retirement home in Los Gatos. "But if there is anything I want people to take away from this -- it is you can come forward, you can seek justice and you can find justice in many forms."
District Attorney Jeff Rosen said he was "disappointed" by the verdict. He said he'll carefully evaluate whether to retry Lynch on the misdemeanor assault charge.
Lynch's lead attorney, Pat Harris, called on Rosen to "live up to the promise of upholding the rule of law by prosecuting Lindner
for perjury." Lindner testified he didn't molest Lynch and his brother after the prosecutor said he would lie about that allegation.Lynch's supporters were overjoyed by the jury's decision.
"My heart leaps," said Will Lynch's younger sister Amanda Lynch of her reaction when she heard the verdict.
"After 35 years, justice has been served," said Kathleen Smith, 83, one of Lynch's supporters who helped organize the camping trips during which Lindner allegedly sexually molested Lynch and his brother more than 35 years ago.
The prosecution contended that on May 10, 2010, Lynch, then 42, beat up Lindner, who was 65, at the Jesuit center to avenge the priest's alleged molestation of him and his brother in the 1970s on a camping trip in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Lindner was never prosecuted for allegedly molesting the Lynch brothers and at least nine other children because the statute of limitations had run out by the time they reported the alleged crimes.
From the first, Lynch refused to negotiate a plea deal, a decision vindicated by the jury. Not only was he acquitted, but he also achieved his two other goals -- drawing national attention to the anguish of clergy sex-abuse survivors and pillorying Lindner, the victim of the beating, whom the Jesuits list as a child molester.
Prosecutor Vicki Gemetti had argued that while she believed Lindner molested the brothers, his repugnant act didn't justify Lynch's "vigilante" attack. The beating left the priest bruised and bloodied, with two cuts to his face and ear.
But Lynch's attorneys essentially told the jury of nine men and three women that the wrong man was on trial.
"The DA says no man is above the law, but there is one man who has been above the law, who sits in a vineyard, with medical care and cars," Harris said, referring to Lindner.
Lynch was charged with two felonies that together carried a maximum sentence of four years -- assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and elder abuse under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death.
The jury also had the option of finding Lynch guilty of the lesser-included crimes of simple assault and a less serious form of elder abuse -- both of which are misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail.
Lindner testified last month about what he called a "vicious" and painful attack. But Judge David A. Cena instructed the Santa Clara County jury to ignore Lindner's testimony, including his denial of the alleged molestation, after the Jesuit refused to answer any more questions on the grounds it might incriminate him.
The development disappointed Lynch and his supporters, who had hoped to watch Lindner squirm during what was certain to be a scathing cross-examination about his alledgedly checkered history.
Without acknowledging any wrongdoing, the Jesuits paid Lynch and his brother about $187,000 each after legal fees in 1998 to settle a lawsuit they filed claiming Lindner had raped Lynch and made him have oral sex with his 4-year-old brother. The order also paid another camper more than $1.5 million to settle her lawsuit. In 2007, one of Lindner's nieces sued the Jesuits for Lindner's alleged sexual abuse of her as a child and settled for $786,000.
But the molestation and lack of prosecution continued to eat away at Lynch. He testified he confronted Lindner in hopes he would sign a confession to sexually molesting him and 4-year-old brother on the camping trip organized by a religious group.
He said he began pummeling Lindner after the priest refused to sign a confession and "leered" at him the same way he did during the alleged molestation decades ago.
In her 45-minute closing argument, prosecutor Vicki Gemetti acknowledged the sympathy Lynch evoked, but she reminded jurors of a basic principle from their youth.
"This case is as simple as what we learned as small children from our mom, 'Two wrongs don't make a right,' " Gemetti said.
Pat Harris, Lynch's lead attorney, said the prosecution had a choice, but decided to "overcharge the case" by filing felonies stemming from an incident in which "the damage was less than a 10-second bar fight."
The prosecution also showed the jury a videotape of an exclusive interview Lynch gave to this newspaper, in which he gives a heartbreaking account of the alleged molestation and his emotional scars.
It became clear how the jury was leaning, when the panel took the highly unusual step of asking for the definition of nullification --when a jury acquits a defendant despite evidence of guilt because it believes a conviction would be unjust.
The question initially stunned the judge and lawyers but they supplied the definition, and deliberations continued.
Defense attorneys in California can't directly urge the jury to nullify, even though it is legal for the panel to essentially declare a law null and void when it comes to a particular case. But during closing arguments Harris managed to get his message across -- a strategy that appears to have worked.
"There is a defense to that "overzealous" decision by the prosecution, Harris had said -- "you," looking at the jurors.
Contact Tracey Kaplan at 408-278-3482.
The jury found Will Lynch not guilty of felony elder abuse and felony assault for a confrontation with Rev. Jerold Lindner. It also found Lynch not guilty of misdemeanor elder abuse, but deadlocked 8-4 in favor of a conviction on misdemeanor assault.
The verdict was a triumph for Lynch, now 44, and his supporters, who faithfully packed the Santa Clara County courtroom as the assault trial -- normally a brief event -- stretched over three weeks. From accusations of prosecutorial misconduct to a confrontation in the hallway between the priest and one of his alleged molestation victims, the trial was roiled by disruptions.
"I was wrong for doing what I did -- in doing that I perpetuated the cycle of violence," Lynch said outside the courtroom, referring to the two blows to the head he delivered to Lindner at the Sacred Heart retirement home in Los Gatos. "But if there is anything I want people to take away from this -- it is you can come forward, you can seek justice and you can find justice in many forms."
District Attorney Jeff Rosen said he was "disappointed" by the verdict. He said he'll carefully evaluate whether to retry Lynch on the misdemeanor assault charge.
Lynch's lead attorney, Pat Harris, called on Rosen to "live up to the promise of upholding the rule of law by prosecuting Lindner
for perjury." Lindner testified he didn't molest Lynch and his brother after the prosecutor said he would lie about that allegation.Lynch's supporters were overjoyed by the jury's decision.
"My heart leaps," said Will Lynch's younger sister Amanda Lynch of her reaction when she heard the verdict.
"After 35 years, justice has been served," said Kathleen Smith, 83, one of Lynch's supporters who helped organize the camping trips during which Lindner allegedly sexually molested Lynch and his brother more than 35 years ago.
The prosecution contended that on May 10, 2010, Lynch, then 42, beat up Lindner, who was 65, at the Jesuit center to avenge the priest's alleged molestation of him and his brother in the 1970s on a camping trip in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Lindner was never prosecuted for allegedly molesting the Lynch brothers and at least nine other children because the statute of limitations had run out by the time they reported the alleged crimes.
From the first, Lynch refused to negotiate a plea deal, a decision vindicated by the jury. Not only was he acquitted, but he also achieved his two other goals -- drawing national attention to the anguish of clergy sex-abuse survivors and pillorying Lindner, the victim of the beating, whom the Jesuits list as a child molester.
Prosecutor Vicki Gemetti had argued that while she believed Lindner molested the brothers, his repugnant act didn't justify Lynch's "vigilante" attack. The beating left the priest bruised and bloodied, with two cuts to his face and ear.
But Lynch's attorneys essentially told the jury of nine men and three women that the wrong man was on trial.
"The DA says no man is above the law, but there is one man who has been above the law, who sits in a vineyard, with medical care and cars," Harris said, referring to Lindner.
Lynch was charged with two felonies that together carried a maximum sentence of four years -- assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and elder abuse under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death.
The jury also had the option of finding Lynch guilty of the lesser-included crimes of simple assault and a less serious form of elder abuse -- both of which are misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail.
Lindner testified last month about what he called a "vicious" and painful attack. But Judge David A. Cena instructed the Santa Clara County jury to ignore Lindner's testimony, including his denial of the alleged molestation, after the Jesuit refused to answer any more questions on the grounds it might incriminate him.
The development disappointed Lynch and his supporters, who had hoped to watch Lindner squirm during what was certain to be a scathing cross-examination about his alledgedly checkered history.
Without acknowledging any wrongdoing, the Jesuits paid Lynch and his brother about $187,000 each after legal fees in 1998 to settle a lawsuit they filed claiming Lindner had raped Lynch and made him have oral sex with his 4-year-old brother. The order also paid another camper more than $1.5 million to settle her lawsuit. In 2007, one of Lindner's nieces sued the Jesuits for Lindner's alleged sexual abuse of her as a child and settled for $786,000.
But the molestation and lack of prosecution continued to eat away at Lynch. He testified he confronted Lindner in hopes he would sign a confession to sexually molesting him and 4-year-old brother on the camping trip organized by a religious group.
He said he began pummeling Lindner after the priest refused to sign a confession and "leered" at him the same way he did during the alleged molestation decades ago.
In her 45-minute closing argument, prosecutor Vicki Gemetti acknowledged the sympathy Lynch evoked, but she reminded jurors of a basic principle from their youth.
"This case is as simple as what we learned as small children from our mom, 'Two wrongs don't make a right,' " Gemetti said.
Pat Harris, Lynch's lead attorney, said the prosecution had a choice, but decided to "overcharge the case" by filing felonies stemming from an incident in which "the damage was less than a 10-second bar fight."
The prosecution also showed the jury a videotape of an exclusive interview Lynch gave to this newspaper, in which he gives a heartbreaking account of the alleged molestation and his emotional scars.
It became clear how the jury was leaning, when the panel took the highly unusual step of asking for the definition of nullification --when a jury acquits a defendant despite evidence of guilt because it believes a conviction would be unjust.
The question initially stunned the judge and lawyers but they supplied the definition, and deliberations continued.
Defense attorneys in California can't directly urge the jury to nullify, even though it is legal for the panel to essentially declare a law null and void when it comes to a particular case. But during closing arguments Harris managed to get his message across -- a strategy that appears to have worked.
"There is a defense to that "overzealous" decision by the prosecution, Harris had said -- "you," looking at the jurors.
Contact Tracey Kaplan at 408-278-3482.