Msgr. Lynn's Lawyers: D.A. Knowingly Put Liar On Stand

New D.A. Larry Krasner Scopes Out His Options In The Lynn Case

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

Lawyers for Msgr. William J. Lynn have accused the district attorney's office of dishonesty and cowardice, for attempting to escape the consequences of knowingly putting a lying witness on the stand.

The lying witness, of course, is "Billy Doe," AKA Danny Gallagher, the lying, scheming altar boy.

In a testy five-page reply brief filed yesterday in state Superior Court, Lynn's lawyers took issue with the D.A.'s contention that there was no so-called Brady violation that resulted from the testimony last year in Common Pleas Court of retired Detective Joe Walsh, who came forward to expose Gallagher for the fraud he is.

Walsh testified that when he prepped Gallagher for trial in 2012, the detective quizzed the former altar boy about the numerous factual discrepancies in his many imaginative and vastly differing tales of abuse. According to Walsh, Gallagher responded by claiming he was high on drugs, hanging his head and saying nothing, or telling some new stories.

None of Gallagher's evasive activities were reported to Lynn's lawyers, as required by Brady v. Maryland, the landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that held that prosecutors must turn over any evidence that might be beneficial to a defendant.

About the D.A.'s contention that there was no Brady violation, Lynn's lawyers wrote, "This is indeed an awkward -- if not dishonest -- position, since the trial court specifically found that there was a Brady violation."

The D.A.'s office under Progressive Larry Krasner "totally misses the point of this appeal," wrote attorneys Thomas A. Bergstrom, H. Marc Tepper and David A. Schumacher. "Its counsel has either not read the record below or ignored it."

The main issue in the case, Lynn's lawyers wrote, is whether the D.A.'s office under Rufus Seth Williams "put a witness on the stand it knew, or should have known, would lie."

They did.

The D.A.'s office, now under Progressive Larry Krasner, "cannot stick its head in the sand and run from the reality that it's chief and highly-distinguished detective informed [Assistant District Attorney Mariana] Sorensen that its only witness against [Lynn] was not being truthful," the defense lawyers wrote.

"Any reasonable and honest prosecutor would immediately know the impact of Walsh's statement," Lynn's lawyers wrote, which is why, according to Walsh, Sorensen responded,  "You're killing my case."

"Faced with Detective Walsh's damning and un-rebutted testimony, [the D.A.] instead retreats to the notion that Walsh is not credible and perhaps a perjurer, a cowardly position at best," Lynn's lawyers wrote. The DA "concealed this exchange" between Walsh and Gallagher "and put a witness on the stand whom it knew intended to lie, and should be held accountable for that misconduct."

The D.A. takes "the bold position" that Judge Bright found Sorensen's response of "You're killing my case" was not supported by the evidence, Lynn's lawyers wrote. "That is not at all what Judge Bright found." The judge found that the "evidence did not support a double jeopardy claim," but that the claim itself was "not frivolous," the lawyers wrote.

Judge Bright "absolutely did not find that Detective Walsh's unchallenged version of events did not happen as [the D.A.] now incorrectly implies," the lawyers wrote. "ADA Sorensen failed [perhaps refused] to testify at the hearing below on this issue and [the new D.A.] and this Court must accept the unchallenged testimony of Detective Walsh that she [ADA Sorensen] said, 'You're killing may case."

Lynn was convicted in a 2012 trial of one count of endangering the welfare of a child. He was sentenced to 3 to 6 years in jail and served 33 out of the 36 months of his minimum sentence. His case, however, was overturned twice on appeal by the same Superior Court that now sits in judgment on this third go-around.

In the latest appeal, the D.A.'s office is contesting Judge Bright's decision to admit as evidence only three supplemental cases of sex abuse, to show a pattern of cover ups in the archdiocese. The D.A. had asked that nine supplemental cases of sex abuse be admitted as evidence.

In response, Lynn's lawyers are trying to get the retrial tossed on grounds of double jeopardy, because of prosecutorial misconduct in the case.