[Bumped from 2007 for rather obvious reasons.  Here’s what Matt Kennedy had to say earlier in summary about this case: “The Diocese of Central New York had more pressing concerns than the status of Good Shepherd. The wheels were starting to come off of the diocese’s contrived, trumped up, and ultimately failed case against Fr. Bollinger, former Rector of St. Paul’s, Owego who had openly questioned the dioceses’ failure to pursue accusations of sexual abuse against one of his predecessors.”  Ah yes . . . what a rich and typical example of a TEC bishop.]

Central New York Defends Its Defiance of Court Order

...In an interview with The Living Church, Canon Lewis described the case as complex with numerous rulings and motions prior to the start. She said it was regrettable that during the trial the court refused to consider any of the more than 1,000 pages of documentary evidence against Fr. Bollinger that the church attorney had prepared. She defended the diocese’s decision to withhold what became known as the Shafer Report from the court, describing it as a “privileged piece of attorney-client work product.”

The Shafer Report is identified with the last name of a previous church attorney retained by the diocese after Fr. Bollinger accused the former financial controller for the diocese of improperly gaining access to his personal financial records. In a letter to clergy after completion of the investigation, the diocese quoted a paragraph from the report, but the report itself has not been made public and there are no plans to do so, Canon Lewis said.

...more

They dig themselves further into a hole.

They go after a fellow re-appraiser for turning in a suspected child abuser who preceded him,it backfires on them and bites them in the bewtox(sorry Forrest),they continue to obfuscate(nice,shiny new word I learned on SF).
DioCNewYork,repeat after me;Bennison,Bennison,Bennison…...

Hmmm.  In this case, it seems they’re is saying that the evidence they presented late should have been considered, as it’s lateness was a technallity that did not detract from the evidence itself.  But in another recent case they said that rules are rules, and being late was enough to keep a Fr. Lawrence from becoming Bishop even thoug the consents were there.

When it works for them, it’s OK.  When it doesn’t….......

The pertinent fact in all this is that the diocese refused to hand over evidence to the defense team even though the court ordered them to do so.  If there are any evidence concerns it should be with Fr. Bollinger; the court rightfully was in no way sympathetic to the prosecution since they willfully violated the due process rights of Fr. Bollinger.

Re: She defended the diocese’s decision to withhold what became known as the Shafer Report from the court, describing it as a “privileged piece of attorney-client work product.”

This is garbled.  There are two kinds of privilege:  (i)attorney-client communications made for the purpose of giving legal advice and (ii) attorney work product, which is investigation and research by the attorney (or someone assisting him) for the purpose of preparation for litigation.  The first kind is absolutely privileged; the second has only a qualified privilege that can be lifted by a court in the interest of fairness.  Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “attorney-client work product.”  She is mixing the two privileges up.

If this document was privileged at all (most documents in a lawyer’s files are not privileged in any way) it is work product.  The court is clearly entitled to disallow this type of privilege in the interest of justice.  In any event, it is always careless to disclose part of a document that you want to claim is privileged.

“The court is clearly entitled to disallow this type of privilege in the interest of justice”—-Mark McCall

And all the more so when the diocese’sattorney created the work product in connection the diocese’s prosecution of a priest in a church court.

The interest of justice would become overwhelming insofar as the attorney work product contains exculpatory factual evidence not otherwise provided to the priest.

linked page currently at: http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2007/7/25/central-new-york-defends-its-defiance-of-court-order

So, you have to ask yourself - why wouldn’t they provide the requested evidence to the defense as ordered by the court?