STATE OF MINNESOTA comm in. .1 com os 95m; .7 JUDICIAL DISTRICT - 0 795-02183 vs . SIMMONS .. .. Plaintiff. ROBERT KPOUN, Personally, and THE CATHOLIC ARCHEIOCESE of ST. PAUL and MINNEAPOLIS, Defsndants . YOUR ARE HEREBY and required to answer the complaint of the Plaintiff in tha above--entitled actiBn, a copy oi which is hex-etc attached and herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy at you: Answer to said Complaint or the undersigned subscribers at their office as hereinbafoxe set forth in the City of Minneapolis, county at Hennapin, stats of Minnesota. within twenty (20) days after the service of this complaint upon you, exclusiva of the day at such service; and if you fail ta answer to the laid Complaint within the time aforesaid, the Plaintiff 1n thla action will apply to the Court to: the [Eliaf -- in the Complaint . 3001 Hennepin Avenu south Suite 3093 Minneapolis, MN 55 (612) 825-2331 Attorney Reg. lie. 193653 Attorney for Plaintiit Tm STATE or rm COURT 'l'H JUDICIAL DISTRICT 95-02183 VB . COHPMINT comm! or KENNEPIN 95 AH Plointl f, ROBERT KPOUN, Personally, and THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE of ST. PAUL and mmuous, Defendants . Plaintiff, for his cause of action states and alleges the following: PARTIES 1. a resident of Hennepin County Minneloto, at all time: relevant hereto, waa a minor, and a member of St. Kevina Catholic Church, Riohfield, Minnesota. 2. M: all tines relevant hereto, Robert Kponn, Defendant heroin, hereinafter referred to as "the Priest", was an ordained Catholic priest and assigned priest at St. Kevins Catholic Church, hichfieid, Hennepin County, Minnesota. on information and ballet he is now a Catholic Priest in New Prague, Minnesota. 3. At all times relevant hereto that the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul, Minnesota was and continuea to be a non--profit organization which directed and supervised Defendant Priest and did control Defendant Priest. FACTS 1. From approximately 1966 through 1969, Plaintiff and his family were members of the parish known as St. Kevins Catholic Church, Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. Through his membership and his participation in the Parish of St. Kevins Church, and through his work as an altar boy, and as a student at St. Kevins elementary school, Plaintiff came to know, admire, trust, revere and respect Defendant Priest. 3. During the period of 1966 through 1969, at locations in Hennepin County and sterns county Minnesota, Defendant Priest seduced, and persuaded and forced the minor Plaintiff to engage in penetrative sexual contact on a repeated basis. 4. As a direct result of the sexual abuse by the Defendant Priest, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self esteem, disgrace, humiliation, loss of the enjoyment of life, caused emotional problems resulting in Plaintiff's divorce, emotional problems preventing Plaintiff from having a stable relationship with females, and is prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing his normal dai1y_activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of love and life; Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy and counseling. 5. That during all relevant times hereto, Defendant Church, on information and belief, did know or should have reasonably known that Defendant Priest was engaging in sexual exploitation of Plaintiff. COUNT I Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one through five of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 6. From 1966 through 1969, Defendant Priest, used his position of trust and authority as a Roman Catholic Priest and inflicted harmful offensive sexual contact/battery upon the Plaintiff when Plaintiff was a minor. 7. As a direct and proximate cause Defendant Priest's illegal conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages as previously described herein. COUNT II Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one through seven of the complaint as if fully set forth herein. 8. at all times relevant hereto Defendant Priest was employed as a Roman Catholic Priest by Defendant Archdiocese and was under Defendant Archdiocese direct supervision and control when said Defendant Priest committed the wrongful and negligent acts as alleged herein. Defendant Archdiocese is therefore liable for the wrongful conduct of Defendant Priest under the doctrine of the respondent superior. COUNT Plaintiff incorporated paragraphs one through eight of the complaint as if fully set forth herein: 9. Defendant Archdiocese by and through its agents knew or should have reasonably known of Defendant Priest's dangerous exploitative tendencies as a child sexual abuser and/or an unfit agent, and despite such knowledge, Defendant Archdiocese negligently hired and/or continued to employee Defendant Priest in a position of trust and authority as a Priest where he was able to commit wrongful and negligent acts against Plaintiff. Defendant archdiocese further failed to provide reasonable supervision of Defendant Priest and failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff. 10. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant archdiocese's negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages previously described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants individually, jointly and separately in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs disbursements and what other relief the court deems just. Da RIAN TT HUCING 3001 Henn pin avrnue South Suite 3093 Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 825-2331 Attorney Reg. No. 193653 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO MINN. SECT. 549.21 The parties acknowledge that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties if the party or attorney against whom the costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney and witness fees are charged acted in bad faith, a claim or defense that is frivilous and is costly to the other party; asserted an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of the proceedings or to harass; or committed a fraud upon the Court. An award under Minn. stat. 549.21 shall be without prejudice and as an alternative to any claim for sanction that may be asserted under the rules of civil procedure. Nothing herein shall authorize the award of costs, disbursement, or fees against a party or attorney advancing a claim or defense unwarranted under existing law if it supported by a good faith argument for extension, modif "r reversal fl an Bennett Hulifif' VERIFICATION The undersigned ie the Plaintiff and the annexed complaint. The undersigned has had an opportunity to read the entire complaint and further states that the infumation contained in said complaint 1: true tn the beat of the undersigned belief and knowledge and for those things that are based on an information and belief it is the undersigned information of belief that those things are also true to the beat of the undersigned knowledga' UT 3/ - STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9502183 NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT vs. OF SERVICE BY HAIL naintus, ROBERT KPOUII, personally, and THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIDCESE of ST. PAUL and MINNEAPOLIS, Defendants. To: FATHER ROBERT ILR. 1, Box 218. New Prague, MN 56011 and ARCHEISHOP JOHN ROME, Chancery, 226 Summit St. Paul. MN 55102: The enclosed summons and complaint are served pursuant to Rule 4.05 of the Minnesota Rules of civil Procedure. You must complete the acknowledgment part of this form return one copy of the completed form to the sender within 20 days. signing this Acknowledgment of service is only an admission that you have received the Summons and complaint, and does not valve any other defenses. You must sign and date the Acknowledgment. It you are served on behalf of a corporation, unincorporated association (including partnership) or other entity, you must indicate under your signature your relationship to that entity. If you are served on behalf of another person and you are authorized to receive process, you must indicate under your signature your authority. if you do not complete and return the form to the sender within 20 days, you (or the party on whose behalf you ere being a 0 served) may be required to pay any expenses incurred in serving a summons and complaint in any other manner permitted by law. If you do complete and return this form, you (or the party on whose behalf you are being served) must answer the complaint within 20 days. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that this Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt of sumons and complaint was mailed on June 23, 1994. BENNET HULI Attorney for Plain iff Calhoun Square, Suite 3093 3001 Hennepin Avenue South Minneapolis, 55408 (612) 825-2331 Attorney ID No. 193653 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUHMONS AND PETITION I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I received a copy of the Summons and Complaint in the above~captioned matter at R.R. 1, Box 218, New Prague, Minnesota 56071. Dated: STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPXN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Plaintiff, NOTICE MID ACKNOWLEDGMENT VII. OF SERVICE BY NAIL ROBERT KPOUN. personally, and THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE of ST. PAUL and MINNEAPOLIS, Defendants. T0: FATHER ROBERT KPOUN. ILR. 1, Box 213, New Prague, MN "56011 and ARCHEISHOP JOHN ROACH, Chancery, 226 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102: The enclosed summons and Complaint are served pursuant to Rule 4.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. You must complete the acknowledgment part of this form and return one copy of the completed rum to the sender within 20 days. Signing this Acknowledgment of Service is only an admission that you have received the Summons and Complaint, and does not waive any other defenses. You must sign and date the Acknowledgment. If you are served on behalt of a corporation, unincorporated association (including partnership), or other entity, you must indicate under your signature your relationship to that; entity. If you are served on behalf of another person and you are authorized to receive process. you must indicate under your signature your authority. It you do not complete and return the form to the sender within 20 days, you (or the party on whose behalf you are being 0 served) may be required to pay any expenses incurred in serving a summons and complaint in any other manner permitted by law. If you do complete and return this form, you (or the party on whose behalf you are being served) must answer the Complaint within 20 days. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that this Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt of Summons and Complaint was mailed on June 23, 1994. ;_*BRffiN "Attorney for Plaintigf calgeun Square, suit 3093 300I'Hennepifi Avenue South Minneapolis, 55408 Attorney ID No. 193653' ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUMMONS AND PETITION I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I received a copy of the Sumons and Complaint in the above--captioned matter at Chancery, 226 Summit Avenue, st. Paul, Minnesota 55102. Dated, tfirubtj STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HIENNEPDI FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT v. Robert Kapoun, Personally, and The Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Wnneap'oljs, FHLED MAY 26 "fig Court Filo No.1 Pl 95-2183 Plai AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID S. BURLFSON Defendants. STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. David S. Burleson, first being duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows: COUNTY OF RAMSEY 1. I am one of the attorneys representing Plaintiff in the above captiorml anion and I make this Affidavit in support of 913mm: Opposition to The Ara:de of St, Paul and Minneapolis' Motion for Summary Judgment, 2, Much"! hemto as Exhibit 1 is a true and oonoct copy of portions of Ruben szmm's deposition, taken on July 25, 1989. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a Lme and correct copy of portions of- -deposih'on, am on March 17, 1995. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of portions of Robert Kapoun's deposition, taken on March 7, 1995. 43775 5. Amber! herein as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy 0f Plainfifl's Complaint. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibits is a true and correct wpy of Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogmries dated Scplember 25, 1994. 7. Attached harem as Exhibit 6 are true and correct copies of letters from the Servants of the Par-idem: Dim of Fall River regarding James Porwxr 8. Amalied hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct my of Defendant Kapuun's Answer Io Inmogalories, No. 13. 9. Attached herein as Exhibit 8 is a true and curred copy of pcrfions of Monsignor Smec's deposition, alum on July 7. 1989. 10. marched hereto as Exhibit 9 is a we and cancel copy of the Affidavit of Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, OVP. 11. Amm hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and meet copy mm Affidavit or- 12, Anached herein as Exhlhit 11 are true and correct wpies of Transcripts of Legislative Pruwcdings, Hearings on Senate File No. 315, 2-17--81 13. Attached herein as Exhibit 12 are me and correct copies 0' of Legislative Proowdings, Hearings on Senate File No. 315, 240-89 Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 are true and copies of Tnmripu of Ingislalive Pmmedings, Hmise Judiciary Committee, 2-28-89. 15. Amched hereto as Exhibit 14 is Mr": and scrim! wpy of a a1, File No. "9340635, November 4, 1994 (Decision of the Honorable Gary Larsun, Fourth Judicial District). 43775 43775 16' Attached lemmas 15 is a true and mrrect copy ufO DA. Magus gm 9L4, File Nu. 92003468, Faunh Judicial Distinct, Nwember 10, 1993 (Dacision of the Honorable Richard B. Solnm, Amended Findings of Fan and Conclusions of 11w, and Orde: far I 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and wine: wpy OHM File No1 91~210'73, Fourth Judicial District, October 12, 1993 (Decision of the Homable Stephen D. Swanson, 'Rulings on Mofions'). Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a'true and when! copy of the Affidavit of- Attached heretoasExhihil 18 isalrueand coneczcopy Gillie 191 Minn. laws. ch. 232, 5. 20. Manned hereto as Exhibit 19 is a tune and correct copy W, File No. 91-23829, Fonnh Judicial 131st, November I, 1993 (Decisian of the Runnable Peter I . Lindberg; Quiet and Memorandum). FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT. David Burleson, Esq. Subscribed and sworn lo before me this Many MM, 1995. "High STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Plaintiff. VS. IN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT File No. FATHER ROBERT KAPOUN, CHURCH OF ST. RAPHAEL in Minnesota. and THE ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. AND MINNEAPOLIS. Defendants. PAUL Deposition of FATHER ROBERT KAPOUN, taken pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition. and taken before Gary W. Hermes. a Notary Public in and for the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. of July, 1989. at E-1400 First National Bank St. Paul. Minnesota. commencing at approximately 9:10 o'clock a.m. AFFILIATED COURT REPORTERS 743 NORWEST BANK MIDLAND MINNEAPOLIS. MN 338-4348 on the 25th day 0 mg>> Q. K. unAnd his name? Alois. A<<1--o-iws? Right. Before Good Shepard you were at St. Raphael? Yes. And you were assigned to St. Raphael on what date, Father? It was the summer of 1971. And you served as associate there? Yes. And the pastor was Monsignor Srnec? Right. Before St. Raphael? St. Kevin's. For how long? Four years. Associate? Yes. who was the pastor? Father Robert Vashro. Can you spell that? any other associates besides yourself? No. Then before that? Montgomery, Minnesota. Holy Redeemer. And how long were you at Holy Redeemer? 1964 to 1967. So that would have been your first assignment after ordination? That's right. where did you go to seminary? Nazareth Hall Seminary. For how many years? Two years} And where before that? To Cretin High School. And graduated from Cretin then in 19 -- '56 . Where did you grow up? St. Paul. Any brothers or sisters? One sister. Delores. Last name? Stone. where does she live? Champlin. the way home. had you yourself ever had any 60 homosexual experiences? What do you mean by homosexual experiences? Same sex experiences. Yes. How many? One. when was that? MR. BROWN: well, I'm going to object on the basis of relevancy. I don't see that that's going to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence. If you can tell me how, you know. I can MR. ANDERSON: well. I think the sexual history. prior acts. be they homosexual or otherwise. is relevant to the whole issue that we're in the process of litigating. Fritz. MR. BROWN: well. there's no at this point denial that there was some contact. MR. ANDERSON: well, I will tell you so that you know for the record, that the breadth 0f the experience reported by Father Kapoun differs in some substance from that that is reported by D.M. while there's some consistency, there's also some lack of agreement on the extent of the actual sexual contact. so it is an issue in this suit. MR. BROWN: 61 Well. I'm going to maintain my objection, except insofar as it might relate to minors. MR. ANDERSON: Well. then I'll lay some foundation on that and see. (By Mr. Anderson} when you had that experience, how old were you? Now we're talking about this -- Earlier experience that -- earlier experiencet Maybe around 30. How old was the other individual? Around 17. And you say "around 17." You don't know exactly how old? No, I don't. He was not out of high school? To the best of my knowledge. Is that the person you've identified in your answers to interrogatories as Yes. And did that happen on one occasion or more than one? One occasion. Now, you say he was around 17. On what do you base that estimate of age? I was at St. Kevin's Parish and he was in high school the time. 62 How did you come to know him? I taught school there. was he a student? Yes. What grade? Eighth when I arrived" And then what contact,_sexua1 contact. if any. did you have with that youth} MR. BROWN: well. I'm going to object again on relevancy. but I'm not going to instruct him not to answer. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. And you can have a continuing objection on relevancy if you want. MR. BROWN: That's fine. (By Mr. Anderson) What happened with him? one evening we were wrestling around before we went to bed and at one point I put my penis to his. In other words. your penis made Contact with his penis as you wrestled? That's right -- no. This was after wrestling.' were you in bed? Yes. Unclothed? At the time of contact. yes. 1 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT 3 COUNTY OF KENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 4 5 6 7 a 9 Plaintiff, 1.0 vs. 11 Robert Kapoun, personally and the Catholic Archdiocese of' 12 St. Paul and Minneapolis, 13 DefendantNotice of Taking Deposition, and taken before Daniel w. 2). McMahon, a Notary Public in and for the County of Eennepin, 22 State of Minnesota, on the 17th day of March, 1995, at the 23 law offices of GISLASON, MARTIN 5: 7600 Patklawn 24 Avenue South, Suite 444, Edina, Minnesota 55435, commencing 25 at: approximately 9:15 o'clock a.Metropolitan Court Reportezs, Inc. INIOcan remember that resulted in suspensions, probations, any disciplinary action? MR. WENDORF: Jim, you're talking about eighth grade now?' MR. MARTIN: Yeah, up through the eighth grade. No. Do you remember who your teacher was for the eighth grade? It was a male. No. It was a male teacher. Do you remember the name of the principal of the school at the time? No. How far did you live from St. Kevin's? About two miles. _How did you get to and from school? Bus. Now, how is it that you went to Cretin High School in the first place? Father Kapoun. I believe he went through Cretin. Tell me what the connection is between him going to Cretin and the fact that you went there. Well, my parents were good friends of him and we had cabins next door up in Cold Spring. And they wanted me to become a priest, too. And I believe that he went through Cretin. Did he encourage you to go to Cretin? Veq- Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. I-4 is.) (.0 I0 -5 INHad you ruled out being a priest at least as early as the eighth grade and never were open to that possibility again? Yes, at that time. And the reason that you ruled it out was because of what had happened between you and Kapoun, right? Yes. When did you first meet Father Kapoun? I believe that he became a pastor in, or was brought into St. Kevin's sometime in the spring of '67. At that time you would have been a sixth grader? Yes. I don't want to put words in your mouth, that's my quick Well -- Take as much time as you want to figure that out. I think we figured out you graduated high school in -- '73. '73. I believe I graduated in '69 from St. Kevin's. So that would be eighth grade. So '69, '68, would be seventh grade, '67 would he sixth grade. MR. WENDORF: Figure it out so you know. MR. EISENZIMMER: If he graduated in '73, which was 12th grade, working backwards it looks to me like he would have been in the seventh grade from '67 to '68. MR- think right. Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. Ix.) l\J DJ l\J Ib- ts(.MR. EISENZIMMER: He said he repeated first grade. MR. WENDORF: But -- So the first time you knew Kapoun was when you were a seventh grader? Sixth grade. So you knew him in '66-'67? In '67, yes. Now, you said that he was a friend of your parents, is that correct? Yes. When do you recollect that he was ever in your home for a social visit or for professional reasons? He was over there on a period of off and on as friends with my parents for a period of years. Beginning in what time frame? '66, '67. So they came to know him for the first time because of his assignment to St. Kevin's, is that your understanding? Yes. At that point in time did he have a cabin that was next to yours up at Cold Spring? We didn't have a cabin up there at that time, he did. So that I will have a better understanding of just how close the relationship was, how frequently, as you look back on it, would he actually be at your parent's home '61 the t_i_1m=' that you gni' n'F Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. DJ uh U1 Ch 3.0 INhigh school? Once or twice a month. Now, apart from that was there also interaction between your parents and him up at the lake? Yes. My parents were friends of his parents. when is it that you, your family obtained the cabin at Cold Spring? A After the first summer I was up there with him at his cabin. The following summer I believe that they started building a cabin. And it was built in roughly '68. When you say the first summer that you were up there at his cabin, do you mean the summer between your sixth and seventh grades? A Yes. Now, did your parents know his parents before '66-'67? A No. So starting in the summer of '67-'68 your folks began building the cabin? Yes, they had it built. And then after that there would be weekend trips up to the lake? A Yes. .And on those trips would Father Kapoun often be at your folks' cabin and they at his? A Yes. How frequently, for instance, talking now the summers beginning in the year '69 through the time you graduated, how frequently would there be that kind of interaction? A my parents were up at the r-shin every Metropolitan dourt Reporters, Inc. la) nib 03 _u I0 C) IVmore specific in terms of which month it was? I would probably say July, August. Where did the incident that you have in mind take place? At my parent's house. Where in your parent's house? In my bed. What time of the day in July did it occur? At night. What day of the week? Middle of the week. I really couldn't tell you that. Who was in the house at the time of this incident? My mom and dad. Where were they at the time? Sleeping. Describe what happened. Well, my parents and him had a pretty good relationship and he was, according to them, like an older brother for me. So he would spend evenings, more than one, at our- house. And the first incident is we were sleeping together and he was touching me and feeling me. Had you slept with him before that incident occurred when nothing happened that you know about? No. So the time that you are now describing was also the first time that he was ever in your bed with you? Yes. How old was he at that time? Forty, 38. How many times had you ever had any kind of contacts with him at this incident in_Jn1y nf '53? Tu Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. other words, times when you saw him because he was just visiting, times when you were at mass serving and he was the priest, or any kind of contact? A lot. Quite a few. Because I was an alter boy and we would do funerals and church participation. Is it correct up until the time of the incident that you are describing right now there hadn't been any conduct on his part that you felt was inappropriate or out of line? No. Now, at the time that you are describing, I guess it sounds like it's in the middle of the night? Yes. Exactly what is it that he did? Ejaculated me and him. Had you ever had the experience of an erection and ejaculation before that time? No. Did he touch your genitals? Yes. Did he cause your penis to become erect? Yes. And then you had an ejaculation? Yes. Did he himself become aroused, do you know? Yes. How do you know that? Just his breathing, his sweating. Did you touch his genitals? Yes- Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. 52 1 In connection with that incidentthe time that it occurred, how did you feel? 4 A Guilty, dirty, ashamed. 5 Did you know what masturbation was as of that time? 6 A No. 7 Did your attitude towards him change after that incident 8 occurred? 9 A No. 10 What was your attitude before the incidentlife or --: 12 Anything. 13 A Had a good attitude. 14 Well, did you like him is what I'm getting at, for 15 example? 15 A Yes, I did like him. 17 What did you like about him? 18 We.use to water-ski and go to the movies. And I liked' 19 to water-ski and go to the movies and stuff. 20 Did you ever go to him before this incident had occurred 21 to get spiritual help of any kind that you can remember? 22 A I confessed my sins to him, yes. 23 Did you ever go to him with any complaints about things 24 going on in your home, your mom treating you the way she 25 was? I 26 A 'No. 27 Did you ever go to him because of any problems you were 28 having with your friends? 29 A No. I 30 Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. 54 1 In terms of anything more specific than that, you 2 wouldn't be able to say it was later in July or sometime 3 in August, is that right? 4 No. 5 But you're positive there was another episode before the 6 start of your seventh grade? 7 A Between the seventh and the eighth grades. To the best 8 of my knowledge that I can recall. Between the period 9 of time frame. 10 Well, I think we are working on the premises that the 11 first incident occurred_in 1967, July of '67, right? 12 Right. 13 And at that time you are between your sixth and seventh 14 grade years? 15 Yes. 16 Okay. And so my question was are you reasonably sure 17 that the second episode occurred before you had actually 18 started the seventh grade? 19 Yes. 20 Okay. Where did it occur? 21 A At my parent's house. At my parent's house. He was 22 spending a night there on occasions one night a week or 23 one every two weeks. 24 What happened on the occasion of the second incident? 25 A It was about the same thing as the first. 26 Everything is the same? 27 A Yes. We ejaculated. 28 At the time of the second incident, do you remember 'Ag 29 being awakened by Father Kapoun? Do you remember in 30 the jnef the Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. IxIs.) OJ all IO 03 Istouching started? Yeah. Just I was scared. Because this was the second time, I still didn't know whether this was normal or right. were you still feeling dirty at that point? Xes. It felt good when he did it. But after you felt kind of dirty or used. Were you still having feelings of guilt as of the time of the second incident? Yeah. Then you said that, I assume you didn't feel fear or you weren't scared before the first incident because you didn't, you didn't have a history of it happening before, you didn't know what was coming, is that right? Right. On the occasion of the second incident, as he started to do something you became scared? Yes. Because you had the benefit now of a prior episode and you knew what was coming? Right. Did you say anything to him in the way of don't want to do this, this isn't right? Do you remember saying anything? No. So was there mutual touching of the genitals on this occasion? MR. WENDORF: Object to the form of the question as an to Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. (1Okay. Did he touch your genitals? Yes. Did he cause you to have an erection and ejaculation? Yes. Did you touch his genitals? Yes. Did he have an erection and ejaculation? Yes. Was there any words said in connection with thatyou, no, this is perfectly okay, this is natural, this is the way men are suppose to react with each other, anything like that? Not that I can recall. no you recall on either of those two episodes that he had been drinking? Yes. Tell me what you remember about that. My parents had him over and they were all having a few cocktails, few drinks. Do you now say that he was drunk at the time? Or would you say you don't know one way or the other? I don't know one way or the other. The same duration of time that was described before? Yes. Was there any other episode like that before you started the seventh grade? There was. On occasions we use to go up to his cabin For wn+pr--qkiing fhaf And wnu1d_ Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. ILA.) 0 . . 57 spend in the middle of the week. And spend one night up there a week with him. These incidents that occurred then at the cabin, again are we still during the sumer of 1967 before you became a seventh-grader? Yes. And you have a clear memory of that, do you? Because he fell down water-skiing and he, as I recall, he did something to is back. Water-skiing behind his pontoon that they had up at the cabin and he, I believe he did have an operation that fall or later sometime. My purpose in asking the question is, and I want to be certain that we are in the right time frame here, are you certain that the very first episode of sexual abuse occurred at your parent's home in Minneapolis during July of 1967? No, I couldn't swear to that. Well, you did a little while agoback. I asked you to describe the very first incident and you said it was approximately July of 1967. I said it was in the summer. Well, I thought we pushed it further and that you came up with July. If I, if that's not right, then I want to hear about it. Sometime in the summer. I could not tell you an exact day or month to be exact. Are you sure, whenever it occurred, that Father Kapoun was than working at St. Kevin's church? Yes. And do For sure whether your parents knew Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. IKapoun before he started working at St. Kevin's? A No, they did not. So you're sure the only time that they ever knew him for the first time was after he started working at St. Kevin's? A Yes. As far as the exact month, date, I could not tell you that. Okay. And I can understand that. But I want to now make certain that I heard you right. This first episode, whether it occurred in June, July or August of '67, did occur at your home in Minneapolis, is that correct? A That's correct. No question in your mind about that, right? A Right. And every time you have been asked that question by anybody your answer has been that the first abuse episode occurred in the Minneapolis home in the summer of '67? A Right. And the second episode occurred in the same time frame and at the very same place, is that also true? A Yes. Now, this is before you have ever gone up to the cabin and had anything happen to you at the cabin? Yes. Now, the first time that you were at the cabin when he did anything sexual to you was when? A Probably the third time up there. Did fhaf incidsnr nn ncnasinn nf your third visit fn Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. . the cabin, would that be the third separate incident of sexual abuse? Yes. And again we won't hold you to whether it was June, July or August, but it definitely followed after the other episodes that had already taken place in your bed in your home in Minneapolis? Yes. What was the third episode? Where did it occur? At his cabin. Where at his cabin? 'Cold Spring. Where within -- In his bedroom. Who was present? Nobody. Describe what happened. We went water-skiing that day and then towards the end. of the day we went to bed. We had oral sex. Ejaculated. He laid on top of me, testicles touched. When you say that you had oral sex, did you put his penis into your mouth or did he put his penis into your mouth? For a brief moment, yes. Anal sex, too. Did he put your penis into his mouth? Just for a brief moment, yes. Did he ejaculate while his penis was in your mouth? No, he didn't. Did he have an erection? Yes- Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. mummamnp 'sn 05050 0 050:4 audio!>> Did you ejaculate in his mouth? I believe so, yes. how long did these events take? Probably an hour. Did you xealize sometime during the day that he would attempt to do some of the same sorts of things that he had done in Minneapolis? No. Had you and he had any discussions ever up until that time about what had gone on in Minneapolis? No. I Had you talked about it with anybody else? ND. Bad any at your friends described to you any conduct of Kapoun that they thought was weird or strange? Yes. who had talked to you about that? when did talk to you about Kagoun doing something strange or weird: .t if .- No, I asked when. When. Roughly the eighth grade. Eighth grade. Well, we are still between your sixth and seventh grade in terms of our discussions here. 50 up until that time is what I was asking. Had you had any discussions with any of your friends about Kapoun being weird or doing had things? new that we had a oahin next to him, he asked . . 51 MR, wmmonr: Do you understand the question? He is asking you prior to the first incident, 1 think he is asking prior to the first incident at the cabin had anybody talked to you about Kapoun? A No. The canvezsatinn you are telling me about occurred for the first time when you were in eighth grade? 10 A Right. 11 As long as you brought it up, we'll just cover it tight 12 now. -asked you whether Kapoun had ever done 13 anything to you7 14 A Yes. 15 what did you sayBecause it was shameful, or didn't want to feel guilty 19 or be labeled as a gay or queer. 20 Did-imply to you that he,- believed that 21 Kapoun probably had done something to you? 22 A No. 23 Was that the first time that you had ever spoken to- 24 about the possibility that Kapoun was a homosexual? 25 yes. 25 So you would deny that the subject of whether he was 27 home or gay or queez had not been discussed amongst the 23 guys before thenI'm aware. - 30W Metropolitan Cnurt Reporters, Inc. -- the priesthood? That's true. That was your attitude an the way through high school and beyond, is that right? Yes. And did you also tell- that you have had a negative attitude towards the Catholic church ever since the events with Kapuun? Yes. And is the reason for the negtive attitude towards the Catholic church again what Kapoun had done? Part of it, yes. what othex reasons did ynu have a negative attitude towards thve Church about fol: other than what Kapoun had done? That be the whole thing, yes. was religion important to yau as an elementary school kid? Yes. That would be manifested in the fact that you were an alter boy, for example? Yes. Did you go to Holy Communion and confession on a weekly basis during those days? Yes. Basically, after what Kapoun did did you quit going to Communion? Yes. And quit going to confession? Vs- Metropolitan Court Reporter, Inc. l\J IN.) LaLn.) 0 0 .5 Is it correct that you didn't like him by the time you got to the eighth grade, which would be after the summer of '68? Yes. And the reason you didn't like him is what he had done to you? A Feeling the guilt and anger towards him. For what he had done? A Right. And you didn't like him through your high school years for the same reasons? A I never seen him really in my high school years. - Probably one of the only times I have seen him. What is it that prompted you to bring up his name or the incidents that had occurred when you were counseling with Sporer? A At that particular time in my life I had a mental breakdown and I crawled into Carl Sporers' office and 'that's the first thing that came out. I don't know why it did but it did. Do you remember talking about the fact that your mom had beat you up coming out at the same time? A Probably not really, because I was crying and I was in a full blown state of depression. That's really the first thing that came out. Were you experiencing flashbacks about the incidents between you and Father Kapoun when you went to see Sporer? A After it came out, yes. 13 am not Metropolitan Court Reporters, Inc. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS, and FATHER ROBERT E. KAPOUN, Defendants." Plaintiff, vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS, CHURCH OF ST. RAPHAEL in Minnesota and FATHER ROBERT E. KAPOUN, Defendants. Plaintiff, vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS, ST. CATHOLIC CHURCH, and FATHER ROBERT E. KAPOUN, Defendants. Deposition_of FATHER ROBERT E. KAPOUN, taken pursuant to Notice, and taken before Gary W. Hermes, a Notary Public in and for the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, on the 7th day of March, 1995, at E--1000 First National Bank, St. Paul, Minnesota, commencing at approximately 9:00 o'clock a.m. AFFILIATED COURT 741 NORWEST BANK MIDLAND MINNEAPOLIS, MN 33a~434e RY And what was the reason for that request? It was hard getting along with the pastor. To your knowledge, did it have anything to do with inappropriate relationship to any of the youth in the parish? Na. During that period of time, did you engage in mm 5mm and abuse MR. STOCCO: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the name. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. (By Mr. Andarsonhigh school, approximately, when I was there. In his teens] but you're not certain how old exactly? That's right" And yuu came to know him how? As a server. And Came to know his family? Y254 And brought him to the cabin? Yes. Slept in the same bed with him? 0* STATE OF DI STRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Plaintif VB . COMPLAINT ROBERT Personally, and THE CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Of ST. PAUL and MINNEAPOLIS, Defendants. Plaintiff, to: his cause of action states and alleges the following: i. Plaintiff--a resident of Hennepin County' Minnesota, at all times relevant hereto, was a minor, and a member of St. Kevins Catholic Church, Richfield, Minnesota. 2. At an times relevant hereto, Robert Kpoun, Defendant herein, hereinafter referred to as "the Priest", was an ordained Catholic priest and assigned priest at st. Kevina catholic church, Richtield, Hennepin County, Minnesota. on information and belief he is now a catholic Priest in New Prague, Minnesota. 3. At all times reievant hereto that the Catholic Archdiocese at St. Paul, Minnesota was and continues to be a non--profit organization which directed and supervised Defendant Frisst and . I did control Defendant Priest. FACTS 1. From approximately 1966 through 1969, Plaintiff and his .family were members of the parish known as St. Kevins Catholic Church, Richfield, fiennepin county, Minnesota. 2. Through his membership and his participation in the Parish of St. Kevins Church, and through his work as an altar boy, and as a student at st. Kevins elementary school, Plaintiff came to know, admire, trust, revere and respect Defendant Priest. 3. During the period of 1966 through 1969, at locations in Hennepin County and sterns County Minnesota, Defendant Priest seduced, and persuaded and forced the minor Plaintiff to engage in penetrative sexual contact on a repeated basis. 4. As a direct result of the sexual abuse by the Defendant Priest, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of.sel? esteem, disgrace, humiliation, loss of the enjoyment of life, caused emotional problems resulting in Plaintiff's divorce, emotional problems preventing Plaintiff from having a stable relationship with females, and is prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing his normal daily activities and obtaining the full'enjoyment of love and life; Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to incur expenses for medical and treatment, therapy and counseling. 5. That during all relevant times hereto, Defendant Church, on information and belief, did know or should have reasonably known that Defendant Priest was engaging in sexual exploitation of Plaintiff. COUNT I Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one through_five of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. From 1966 through 1969, Defendant Priest, used his position of trust and authority as a Roman Catholic Priest and inflicted harmful offensive sexual contact/battery upon the Plaintiff when Plaintiff was a minor. 7. As a direct and proximate cause Defendant Priest's illegal conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages as previously described herein. COUNT 11 Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs one through seven of the complaint as if fully set forth herein. 8. At all times relevant hereto Defendant Priest was employed as a Roman Catholic Priest by Defendant Archdiocese and 1' - u' - _s was under Defendant Archdiocese direct supervision and control when said Defendant Priest committed the wrongful and negligent acts as alleged herein. Defendant Archdiocese is therefore liable for the wrongful conduct of Defendant Priest under the doctrine of the respondent superior; COUNT Plaintiff incorporated paragraphs one through eight of the complaint as if fully set forth herein: 9. Defendant Archdiocese by and through its agents knew or should have reasonably known of Defendant Priest's dangerous exploitative tendencies as a child sexual abuser and/or an unfit agent, and despite such knowledge, Defendant Archdiocese negligently hired and/or continued to employee Defendant Priest in a position of trust and authority as a Priest where he was able to commit wrongful and negligent acts against Plaintiff. Defendant Archdiocese further failed-to provide reasonable supervision of Defendant Priest and failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff. 10. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Archdiocese's negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages previously described herein. A I . wnsasroau, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants 1fld1V1du311Y: jointly end separately in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus costs disbursements and what other relief the court deems just.. Da RIAN TT HUSING 3001 Benn pin Avanue South Suite 3093 Minneapolis, MN 155408 (612) 825~2331 Attorney Reg. No. 193653 Attorney for Plaintiff .,fl . . -.1 .I CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO STAT. SECT. 549.21 The parties acknowledge that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties if the party or attorney against whom the costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney and witness fees are charged acted in bad faith, a claim or defense that is frivilous and is costly to the other party; asserted an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of the proceedings or to harass; or committed a fraud upon the Court. An award under Minn. Stat. 549.21 shall be without prejudice and as an alternative to :any claim for sanction that may be asserted under the rules of civil procedure. Nothing herein shall authorize the award of costs, disbursement, or fees against a party or attorney advancing a claim or defense unwarranted under existing law if it supported by a good faith argument for extension, modific on, "r reversal of the existing law. Erian Bennett Hulifi VERIFICATION The undersigned is the Plaintiff and the annexed complaint. The undersigned has had an opportunity to read the entire complaint and further states that the information contained in seld complaint is true to the best of the undersigned belief and knowledge and for those that are based on an information and belief it is the undersigned Information of belief that those things are also true to the best of the underalgned knowledge. -- STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. ANSWERS TO INTERRDGATORIES ., Robert Knpnun', personally and The Catholic Archdiocese of st. Paul and Minneapolis, Defendant. Plaintiff for his answers to Defendant's Interrogatories after being duly sworn: . 1. state you campiete name, age, date of birth, height, weight, present residential address, martial status, and social security number. 1 2. state your business, occupation, or vocation on the date of the incidents involved herein. Identify the employer and A the date you started and Laminated such employment. Answer: was a minor attending grade school at the time of the sexual abuse. 3. State your current business, occupation, or vacation. Identity your pxesent employer, the date you started this employment, and describe in detail the type of work that. you doi Answer: 4A Please describe in reasonable detail such incident of sexual Contact alleged to have occurred between you and Father Kaponn inciuuing: As accurately as possible, the date of such incident; Where each incident occurred; A description of the circumstances or events leading up to each incident; Whether any physical Contact occurred, and if so, a description of same. 1965-1969 Answer- 43 Plaintiff's bedroom,-- Answar: 4C: Parent's invited Detendant to stay overnight; Defendant behaved like a sibling. Answer: 41') Oral and Anal Sex Prior to the incidents described previously herein, did you have any evidence, awareness, knowledge, or suspicion of a propensity or tendency on the part of Father Kapoun to engage in sexual contact with persons of either sex? If so, please describe the basis for your awareness, knowledge, or suspicion, and identify all persons who provided such information to you, or otherwise were a source of said infomati on . Answer N0 6. Was alcohol or drugs used or consumed by you of Father Kapoun prior to or in connection with, any of the incidents described previously herein? It so, please describe. Answer: No 7. Identify all persons with whom you have discussed, either generally or in detail, the sexual incidents involving Father Kapoun previously described herein, from the date of the first incident to the present data, including an approximation at the date and place of each such conversation. Answer: Carl Spore, Family Counselor, 1992; -- Farmer Wife; David Xneffilcamp, certified polygraph forensic scientist; 9. Identify all other persons, including the parties to this action, as well as their employees or representatives, whom you claim or allege have or had information from whatever source, that Father Kapoun had made inappropriate sexual contact with any other persons, either before the incidents described by you herein, or after. sexually abused by pennant. - 9. Please describe the nature and extend of each and every injury you clam to have sustained as a result of the incidents involved herein. Answer: The sexual abuse caused Plaintiff to have difficulty establishing relationships with females; the abuse caused emotional problems which ultimately led to Plaintiff's divorce; Plaintiff needed family therapy for issues relating to Plaintiff's divorce. Plaintiff's divorce has caused strained relationships with Plaintiff's two (2) children. Plaintiff will supplement information on additional damages. 10. Please indicated and describe any and all permanent injuries you claim you have sustained as a result of the incidents involved herein. Answer: See answer to Interrogatory number 9. Plaintiff will supplement additional information. 11. Please identify each and every hospital, doctor, counsellor, or other healthcare professional or facility who has examined or treated you for the injuries or damages alleged in the Complaint, including the dates of each examination or treatment, and the inclusive dates of any hospitalization. Answer: Carl Spore, 1992 12. Please itemize the medical, hospital, and healthcare expense that you claim to have sustained as a result of the -. -. . I - ,7 incidents. Please attach copies of all bills or statements to support the claimed medical expenses. Answer: None 13. If you claim that you have lost any time from work as a result for you injuries, and if you claim that you have suffered wage loss or income loss because of your injuries, please state: The name and address of your employer; All dates you were off work; Your wage rate at that time; The total amount of wages or income loss claimed by you, and how you compute same. Answer: For each of A-D None. 14; Set forth the names, addresses, and occupations of any experts that you intend to call as a witness at the time of trial and with respect to each such expert, set forth the following: A Summary of the opinions and conclusions to which such expert is to testify; A detailed statement of the factual bases for all such opinions and conclusions; Whether you have received a written report from such expert and, if so, attach a copy of such report to your answers to these Interrogatories. Answer: None at this time will supplement. 15' state whether you have been arrested or convicted of any crimes or misdemeanor. If so, state: The county of each such arrest and conviction; The date of each such arrest and conviction; The name under which you were charged; The nature of the crime of which you were charged or convicted. Answer -- 16. At any time prior to the date or dates of the incidents involved herein, had you been treated by a doctor, counsellor, or other healthcare professional or facility? If so: counsellor, or other healthcare professional or facility Identify each doctor, where you were treated or by whom you were treated; treatment received; The nature of the injury, or other reason for the Identify all doctors or professionals or facilities who have treated you for such aggravated ccndit i on . Answer: No 11. Identity by name, address, and dates of enrollment all schools that you have attended, and also: believe that you had in class during each year of school: Identify by name, address, and grade all teachers you (by Describe all school records or dccuments you possess or attach copies of all such school records or documents. Answer: Answer: 173 None 18. List the names, address, and dates of attendance of all churches, synagogues, or places of worship which you have regularly attended, have been a member at, or are a member, and: Identify the head pastor, priest, rabbi, etc., of each such plaza of worship' The time period in which you were a member at regularly attended such place of worship. Answer: 13 Saint Kevin's Catholic Church, Minnesota, Father Kaponn, Pastor, worshiped at said church until age 2), is. List all activities Sunday school, youth group, altar service, Bible study. religious schooling 0: training, etc.) in which you have participated at the place identified Ln Interrogatory ND. 18, and identify the church, the date of involvement, the nature of involvement, and the church staff member or volunteer who supervised such activity. Answer: Altar Boy 5th-Bth grade, at St. Kevin's Catholic Church, volunteer unknown, Richileld Minneautn. 20. Describe in detail all social, religious, 0: educational contact you he had with Father Kapoun: Prior to any of the alleged incidents or sexual abuse; During the time period of the alleged sexual abuse; After the last act of alleged sexual abuse. Answer: 20A Defendant took Plaintiff to movies, Plaintiff serve mass with Defendant and Defendant was a friend of Plaintiff's Answer: ZOE See 20A Answer: 20C See 20A 21. Describe the nature and extent of religious training and counselling provided by Father human to Flaintiff, along with dates of such training and cnunselling. Answer: Defendant was Plaintiff's parish priest. 22. Identify all schools or community social clubs, service clubs, or athletic organizations in which you participated or were a member from grade school. up until the present time . 23. Identify each person that you, your agents, representatives, or attorneys have :nntacced, or have been contacted by, wha have provided information almut alleged inappropriate sexual Answer: 24. ADBWBI: 25. contact or behavior by Father Kapoun; either before the dates of the incidents involved herein, or since. As to each such person, state the substance of the facts or information obtained. None State whether you, your agents, representatives, or attorneys have obtained statements form any person or persons concerning alleged inappropriate sexual contact or behavior on the part of Father Kapoun or relating to any other issues which are the subject of this litigation. If so, please state: obtained; (13) (C) such statement or a copy thereof. the name of each person form whom a statement has been The name of the person obtaining such statement; The date of such statement; The name of the person currently having possession of N038 ldentify all persons that you have reason to believe are sexual abuse victims of Father Kapoun, including: each such victim and his/her guardian; The last known name, address, and telephone number of The approximate dates on which each such victim was allegedly abused; The places at which each such victim was allegedly abused; The name and address of each known witness to such alleged abuse . Answer: 25. State the name and address of all persons known to you or your attorneys who have either reported sexual abuse or have received direct reports of sexual abuse by Father Kapcun including: Name, address, and telephone number of each such persons and his/her guardian; The dates on which each such information was reported or received' The places in which the sexual abuse allegedly The dates of which the sexual abuse allegedly occurred; occurred; The nature of each sexual abuse alleged. Answer: None 27. state in chronological crder all addresses where you have 28. Answer 25. Answer Answer Answer Answer 30. Answer 0/ Describe by date, location, and the persons involved, all instruction direction received (prior to enduring the time period of the alleged sexual abuse) from family, church, school, or friends on reproduction, sexual. activity, or sexual intercourse. None Describe the extent or nature of all sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, and whether initiated by yourself or someone else, you have experienced: any alleged sexual abuse by Father Kapoun; (C) Kapoun; ptesent . Priur to any social cuntact; with Father Kapoun; After being acquainted with Father Knpeun, but 5:210: to During the time period of sexual abuse by Father After the alleged sexual abuse by Father Kapuun to the 2511 none 29)! none 29:: none set forth in detail an itanized list of all payments related to the injury or disability in question made to the Plaintiff, or on the Plaintiff's behalf by at pursuant to any health insurance or disability insurance carrier. None . 31. with regard to the payments referred'to in your answers to the preceding Interrogatory, set forth a list of all such payments for which a subrogation right has been asserted32. Identify each and every exhibit which you intend to introduce at the time of trial. Answer: None at this time, will supplement. 33. Have you previously made claims against any other persons in which you have alleged that you were sexually or physically abused or exploited? If so, set forth the following: Whether such claims were included in any lawsuit and, if so, the venue of such action, the names of the parties to such action, and the date of commencement of such action and the names and addresses of the attorneys representing all parties in said action and the outcome of such action. Answer: No 34. Describe your employment history from the time which you last attended high school or college up through the present and, in connection with each such employment position, state the following: The period of employment; The name and address of the employer; {cl The name and address of your supervisor; The reason or reasons for terminating such employment. The following image(s) may be of poor quality due to the poor quality of the original. Fro Cz':r:'m 0 1* I Auunutxnuc Puomz: Cont. 505 629-29-ll OF THE OF THE 529-293! Olueli All "possible izuzz Swuxcs. $7025 Host Rev. James L. Connolly. D.D. Bishop of Fall River Chancery Office Fall River, Eass. Host Reverend and dear Bishop Connolly. I wish herewith <>- verdict proceedings. Without waiving this objection Plaintiff states he is without this information at this time. With regard to the payments referred to in your answer to Interrogatory No. 33 above, . set forth a list of all such payment for which a subrogation right has been asserted. ANSWER: 37. Objection, vague and ambiguous. This Interrogatory does not correlate with Interrogatory No. 33. Without waiving -said objection, please see Answer to Interrogatory No. 35. With regard to the payments referred to in your answer to Interrogatory No. 33 above, set forth a specific and detailed list of all amounts that have been paid, contributed, or forfeited by, or on behalf of, the plaintiff or member of the plaintiffs immediate family for the two year period immediately before the date of the accident to secure the right to any such benefits that the plaintiff is receiving as a result of loss of cause by the occurrence in questions. ANSWER: 38. Please see Answer to Interrogatory No. 36. Describe in detail, not in summary fashion, all facts which support your claim in Paragraph No. 18 of plaintiff's Complaint that defendant Archdiocese knew . . . of defendant Father Kapoun's dangerous and exploitive propensities as a child sexual an unfit agent" prior to the occurrence of the alleged sexual conduct between Father Kapoun and plaintiff. ANSWER: P1aintiff's Complaint alleges that "Defendant Archdiocese by and through its agents, servants and employees knew or should reasonably have known of Defendant Father Kapoun's dangerous and exploitive propensities." 29240 . Plaintiff is aware of another sexual abuse victim of Father Kapoun, while he was serving St. Raphael's Parish in Minnesota. This other victim was sexually abused prior to the abuse of the Plaintiff- (Sw. This case is venued in Hennepin County District Court, however not yet filed, and Defendant possesses information regarding this matter. Additionally, deposition testimony reveals that in approximately August of 1973, a woman parishioner of St. Raphaels Parish reported the sexual molestation to Monsignor Since, then pastor of St. Raphael's Parish. Within approximately one month after having received this report, Monsignor Srnec met with Archbishop Roach, then Bishop Roach, head of personnel for the Defendant Archdiocese. At this meeting, Monsignor Srnec informed Roach of Father Kapoun's sexual molestation of a minor parishioner. Roach then made the comment "well, it might be true and then again maybe it isn't." Instead of reporting Defendant Father Kapoun's criminal misconduct to local law enforcement authorities, commencing laicization proceedings or canonically removing Father Kapoun's faculties to operate as a Roman Catholic priest, the Defendant Archdiocese permitted Father Kapoun to remain in his capacity as a priest at St. Raphael's Parish. Because Father Kapoun's conduct constituted compulsive sexual misconduct, and due to his position of authority and access over many parish boys, research indicates there was likely many other victims, yet undiscovered. Furthermore, Plaintiff has learned through the deposition testimony of diocesan officials, in other unrelated yet factually similar cases, that the Archdiocese failed to conduct reasonable testing, assessment and evaluation of candidates ordinated into the priesthood nor did the Archdiocese's Seminary Officiais properly train candidates for the priesthood in dealing with celibacy and interaction with parish youth with whom they were counseling. The type of conduct perpetrated by Father Kapoun as alleged in Plaintiffs complaint amounts to a compulsive disorder which should have been discovered had the Archdiocese conducted reasonable testing and assessment as mentioned above, or could have been prevented by proper training. Father Kapoun was a Roman Catholic priest, educated, trained, ordained, and employed by and under the direct supervision and control of Defendant Archdiocese. At all times, Father Kapoun's employment duties with the Archdiocese included providing for spiritual and emotional needs, religious instruction for parishioners and providing proper training and supervision of altar boys entrusted to his care. Father Kapoun sexually molested the then minor Plaintiff during extracurricular activities in which Father Kapoun supervised. Discovery is continuing. 29240 39. 3 9 Describe in detail, not in summary fashion, all facts which support your claim in Paragraph No. 18 of plaintiffs Complaint that "defendant Archdiocese . . . should reasonably have known of defendant Father Kapoun's dangerous and exploitive propensities as a child sexual abuser, and/or an unfit agent" prior to the occurrence of the alleged sexual conduct between Father Kapoun and plaintiff. ANSWER: 40. Please see Answer to Interrogatory No. 38. Describe in detail, and not summary fashion, all facts which support your allegation set forth in Paragraph No. 6 of plaintiffs Complaint. ANSWER: 41. Defendant possesses information contained in the pending lawsuit of rc di LP 1 dlvfinnea 1'1 Ch ch Ra halin Minn . Defendant also has the deposition testimony of Monsignor Srnec. Describe in detail, and not in summary fashion, all facts which support your claim that defendant Father Robert Kapoun was under the direct employment and supervision of the Archdiocese at the time of the alleged sexual misconduct. ANSWER: 42. Please see Answer to Interrogatory No. 38. Describe in detail, and not in summary fashion, all facts which support your claim that such alleged sexual misconduct was in the course and scope of Father Kapoun's duties as a priest within the Archdiocese. ANSWER: 43. Please see Answer to Interrogatory No. 38. Describe in detail, and not in summary fashion, all facts which support your claim in Paragraph No. 18 of plaintiff' Complaint that defendant Archdiocese negligently hired, failed to provide reasonable supervision, and failed to properly warn plaintiff. ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory so far as it inquires into the negligent hiring of 29240 Defendant Kapoun. Plaintiff did not allege that the Archdiocese negligently hired Father Kap-oun. Notwithstanding said objection, and in response to the the remainder of this Interrogatory, please see Answer to Interrogatory No. 38. Additionally, the Defendant held Father Kapoun out to the public as a competent and trustworthy priest even after having learned information regarding Father Kapoun's conduct toward Plaintiff. This information in connection with the fact that there existed a prior victim of Father Kapoun leads Plaintiff to believe that Defendant failed to provide reasonable supervision over Father Kapoun and failed to properly warn the Plainfiff of his propensities prior to and after the sexual abuse. 45. Identify the witnesses who will testify in support of your answers to lnterrogatory Nosproviding, the names, addresses and telephone numbers of these witnesses. ANSWER: Please see Answer to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 38. Witnesses have not yet been determined. Discovery is continuing. 46. Describe any documents which support your answers to Interrogatory Nosproviding a summary of the contents of such documents. ANSWER: Please see Answer to Interrogatory No. 43. Other than the pleadings in this case, none at this time. Discovery is continuing. and sworn to before me dany Maw/Aux; ,1991 Dated: 3 By: Ieffrey An arson, #2057 Wk A. Wendorf, #173484 [hvid Burlcson, #215776 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5-1400 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Mimlsofa Sweet St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (611) 227-9990 29240 EXHIBIT .0 1 IE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTI5. JUDICIAL DISTRICT 45 5 D.M.. 6: Plaintiff. 7; vs. File No. FATHER ROBERT CHURCH op ST. 9: in Minnesota. and the OF 10? ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS, 11? Defendants. 12} mi 14: Deposition of MONSIGNOP. STANLEY J. SRNEC. 15% taken pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition, and 16! taken before Gary W. Hermes. a Notary Public in and 17: for the County of Ramsey, State of MinnesotaJuly. 1999. at a--14oo First National Bank. 19i St. Paul. Minnesota. commencing at approximately 9:40 20: o'clock a.m. 21 22 24 COURT REPORTERS 743 NORWEST BANK MIDLAND . 25 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 338-43.48 2., Could you tell me in your own words what happened when you went there? I presented him with this transcript, he read it and said, nwell. it might be true and then maybe again it isn't." And I felt I had done my work, I didn't pursue the matter any farther. Did you tell Bishop Roach that in fact you had known or had had some contact with this T.M. before you took the statement? Oh, I don't remember that coing up and I don't think that I said that. Did Bishop Roach ask you it you believed T.M. or not? I No. he did not. Did Bishop Roach ask you if you had any other information of a similar nature regarding Father Kapoun? No. he did not. Monsignor. when Bishop Roach said, "This may be true or it may not be" after reading the statenent. did he ask you any other questions about the circumstance or the statement? I don't remember his asking any questions about it. Monsignor. before you went to Bishop Roach with this information and this statement. do you have any recollection of telling T.M. that you intended to go the Chancery with it? 21 I don't have any recollection of what I told him. I'd have to conjecture that I probably said very little about that because I felt he was a boy and that wouldn't_be the kind of person to say that to. But that's conjecture now, I don't remember saying it. At the time that you brought this to Bishop Roach and had the meeting with him in his office in the Chancery. did he ask you if T.M. was having any problems because of this? No. Bishop Roach never asked any question like that. Did Bishop Roach during that meeting and as a result of the information you gave him, give you some instruction as to what to do? He gave me no instructions. Did he give you any information that he intended to do anything? He didn't indicate anything. Did you feel that once you had brought this information to the proper authority: that being then Bishop Roach, that it was then the chancery's and his responsibility to take further action? I felt that I had done my part and when he said. Yes. "Maybe it isn't true." that made me feel that maybe I was ready ta dismiss it. 1 1" had been mistaken in giving this much credibility to 3 0' That last part you said was ready tc dismiss it,' 41 does that mean that raised awe question: in you: 5' and that you had not had before about the I 6 truthfulness of this claim? 7' A. He. It meant that I w" ready ta dismiu the accusation and I Sued this away and never brought it up to anybody after. 10: 0. Until xecently7 111 A. well, until the matter came up. yes. 12' 0. when you met with then Bishop Roach. was anybody else 13| present? 14! A. Nabody else was there. 15 Q. ma you discuss with Bump Roach cm: mating any 16 other matter nat related to the 1214. accusation 17 regarding Father Kapoun? ml A. I have no recollectiun DZ discussing anything else but this. 20' o. Ycu certainly didn't go there (or any other reason? 21' A. No. Just for this. 22' Q. Did you have any conversatlan with 23! the time that you first talked with he: that yau've 24; al:endy mentsoned and the time you went to Bishop 2 5' Roach? . . . 1 A. I did not. 25 2 0. After you brought this statement incidentally. 3 Monsignor, did you give Bishop Roach a copy of 4 Exhibit 1. the statment? 5 A. I don't remember. 6 Q. Do you remember bringing it back with you, a copy? 7 A. I had the original copy. I probably brought him a 8 xerox or thermofax copy and if he gave it back to me. 9 I brought it with me. If he kept it. I'm not sure. i 10 Q. And what did you do with it? 11 A. I filed the original just in the event that some day 12 something might come up in which connection I might 13 want to know what had been said. 14 Q. Where did you file it? 15 A. In my file. 16 Q. It was a file that you had regarding Father Kapoun or 17 it was juat a personal filer what kind of file did have a file in which I keep pertinent material 20 about priests that I have on my staff. Now with the 21 job evaluations. I file those in the same file. At 22 that time I wasn't doing a job evaluation. so I 23? probably had his letter of appointment in that file. 24 Q. was this a file that you maintained for particularly 25* sensitive information or just any kind of 19information? No. No. Any kind of information. I was not privy to all kinds of sensitive information. You would consider this to be sensitive. however? This I considered sensitive. I probably put a note on the file saying confidential. Do you have any knowledge whether or not any of your secretaries or staff either read this or learned of its contents? I have no suspicion at all that anybody goes through my files. Yeah. that was my next question. I mean. it was your file. right? It's my personal file. It was not at least made available by you to anybody else? Not made available to anybody else. After your meeting with Bishop Roach having received this information contained in Exhibit 1. did you in any way restrict then the activities or duties or responsibilities of Father Kapoun? No. I did not. Did you believe at that time that if such a' restriction or if a restriction was appropriate. it would be the province and the duty of the Bishop or he EXHIBIT 0 1 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT 2 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3 4 can --ID --I-- was -I-I-- 1- 5 D.M.. 5 Plaintiff: 7 vs. File No. 8 FATHER ROBERT KAPOUN. CHURCH OF ST. RAPHAEL in Minnesota. 9 and THE ARCHDOICESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS. 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 14 Deposition of ARCHBISHOP JOHN R. ROACH, taken 15 pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition. and taken 16 before Gary W. Hermes. a Notary Public in and for the 17 County of Ramsey. State of Minnesota. on the 24th day 18 of July. 1939. at 8-1400 First National Bank. St. 19 Paul. Minnesota, commencing at approximately 9:20 20 o'clock a.m. 21 22 23 24 AFFILIATED comm REPORTERS 743 NORWEST BANK MIDLAND 25 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 338-4348 very well. And you've known him for many years? I do. I have. How have you come to know him? we were in the seminary together. he was about three years ahead of me in the seminary. I've known him over the years ?or 45 years in several of the capacities in which he's served in the Archdiocese and in which I've served. And I understand that he received his appointment as Monsignor many years ago. so you would not have been the one who made that appointment, were you? I was not, no. He has testified that in or about early September of 1973, he came to the Chancery on sumit to report some information directly to you then as personnel director. Do you recall him coming to you at the Chancery to report some information to you? I can recall a conversation with him. and this is in his review of the documentation. I do not recall seeing me with the memo. with the hand-written memo which I have since seen. were you in September of 1973 or late August of 1973 then the personnel director? I was. something we weren't able to get at as to the reason for his inability to perform. and he was not a Performer. Perform in the priesthood. in the parish? Perform in the priesthood. that's right. Monsignor Srnec was complaining about his lack of performance. I would talk to him and all I would get from Father Kapoun was a fairly mysterious list of physical complaints. And I would urge that there would be some kind of physical evaluation of that. And in the meantime, as I say. my being upset with him came firom the fact that I would see billboards of the Polka Padre out with his accordion and here's a guy who wasn't performing. when you say not performing. specifically what are you referring to? what is it he wasn't doing that he was supposed to? well. he wasn't able physically to do. according to him. just to do the normal work o? a parish. And Father -- Monsignor Srnec was upset about that and that was the ultimate reason'Eor the transfer. what would have been the normal work of the parish that he wasn't able to do. at least as far as you knew? Well. you know. I'm talking about a normal ten-hour all the things that would be involved in a 25 parish: visitation of sick. some teaching in the school, sick calls. counseling, that kind of thing. How did the difficulties with Father Kapoun come to your attention? well. my recollection is that Monsignor Srnec indicated.either to me or to someone in the personnel n. boara that he was unhappy with-Father Kapoun. Father Kapoun also came in to see me. whether that was at his request or mine, I really don't know. there's no evidence in the files of that, an? I talked to him about his health at some length. Did your meeting with Father Kapoun predate his assignment out of St. Raphael? ?es. And can you give me an estimate. Archbishop. of how long it did predate his actual assignment out of St. Raphael? well. I don't know that. but I would guess. once again. that it probably would be a matter o?'a month or two. And was that meeting at your request? I don't know that. That's what I don't remember. And the files don't indicate whether it was at his request or my request. was there more than one meeting with him? 26 It was at least one and possibly two, but I'm not sure of the second one. would that have been at the Chancery itself? It would have been at the Chancery. To your recollection. you never went to the st. Raphael parish to meet specifically with Father Kapoun at any time? No, I didn't. How many meetings in number were there with Monsignor Srnec where the subject of Father Kapoun was discussed? My recollection is that there was only one meeting at my office. I'm sure you understand that he was relatively active in the Presbytery and so was I. so I might see aim at other occasions and I would inquire, but I can only recall one meeting formally in which we discussed Father Kapoun. Do you recall who initiated that meeting with Monsignor Srnec? . I do not. no. Howl you'd indicated that Father Kapoun was claiming that he was unable to perform some of these tasks required in the parish as a result of some injury that he had, is that correct? witness to testi?y_as to matters through the years 1974 and through the calender year 1975 because there are allegations by the plaintiff that some of the contact did possibly take place as late as the winter of 1974. and giving him the benefit of the doubt. we'll assume that extended into 1975. so with that caution.in mind, I will allow Archbishop Roach to testify as to whether or not he received any complaints of sexual misconduct by Father Kapoun up through and including calender year 1975. But before he answers. I helieve Mr. Brown has an objection as well. MR. BROWN: On behalf of Defendant Xapoun. I would join in the objection. however. I would object to any information after January 1. 1975. 1975? THE WITNESS: After January 1. MR. EISENZIMMER: However. Archbishop. you are allowed to testify and I'll instruct you to testify through the calender year 1975 as to whether you received any complaints regarding Father Kapoun. THE WITNESS: Is that the question? MR. EISENZIMMER: That's the question. I have no information. received no information through 1975 on the part of Father Kapoun. (By Mr. Anderson) so I'll re-ask the question so it 41 1 other words, a minor. Have you ever received any 2 information from any source that Father Kapcun 3 touched the genital area of D.J. while D.J. was under did not. 6 Q. And before I brought this information to you today. 7 had you heard that fro any source? 8 A. I not: no. 9 Q. How, other than Mr. Eisenzimmer, with whom have you 10 discussed the subject matter of D.M.'s claim of 11 sexual abuse by Father Kapoun? 12 MR. EISENZIMMER: Excuse me, counsel. can 13 we include Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Haws in that? other 14_ than Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Haws and myself. as they're 15 counsel to the Archdiocese as well. 16 MR. ANDERSON: Sure, if they are counsel to 17 the Archdiocese. 18 MR. EISENZIHMER: In this matter they are. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: You didn't know we were? 20 (Discussion off the record.). 21 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, you can include them. 22 1'11 rephrase the question. 23 Q. (By Mr. Anderson) other than with attorneys 24 representing you or the Archdiocese. with whom have 25 you discussed the claim of sexual misconduct by three--page statement written in somebody's hand. Do you know whose hand? I do not. It is signed by a T.M. Is it a fair statement or am I correct in stating that the writer of this document claims that Father Kapoun engaged T.M. in sexual nisconduct sometime in the year 1973? According to this memo. that's correct. Now, Monday Srneo has testified that in 1973. specifically September, early September 1973. that he brought this very memo to you and presented it to you in the Chancery. Are you eware that he has testified to that? I am, I am. correct. yes. My question to you. Archbishop, is did Monsignor Srnec ever present this memo to you? Not to my knowledge. no. If this memo had been presented to you in September of 1973 or thereabouts, what would have been done with it? MR. EISENZIMMER: Object to the extent that the question calls for speculation on the part of the witness. but I'll allow him to answer it without waiving the objection. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. would have treated this as a very serious issue. I certainly would have called Father Kapoun in at that time. would have tried to determine the correctness or the incorrectness of the charge. I certainly would have inquired as to what we as an institution might do to be of assistance to T.M. Those things certainly I would have tried to do. (By Mr. Anderson) Now. earlier I had asked you some questions about maintenance of priest files and you gave me some descriptions and maybe in some other cases as well the kind of materials that are maintained in the priest files. and you also I think this morning talked about a vault where certain sensitive type documents are maintained. can you tell me today. based on your knowledge of the I maintaining of the priest file. the general file. and the maintaining of the personnel files and the maintaining of the files that are maintained in the somewhat secret vault. if this particular document in 1973 had been presented to you. where it would have been maintained. if it would have been maintained? MR. EISEHZIMMER: I'll object again on the basis that the question calls for speculation and He doesn't have instruct the witness not to answer. to engage in that kind of speculation. It's a little afitnfi I conversation with Monsignor Srnec. not Father Kapoun. 66 (By fir. Anderson} That's what I intended to say. Excuse me. I do not recall that, but the memo is certainly reflective of that. But you do recall having sat down with Father Srnec and discussed Father Kapoun. at least in 1974, is that correct? That's correct. okay. The content of this memo. which I had had a chance to review. I must say is somewhat puzzling to me in view of the prior memo or the question of this person. That was a year prior to that and it would seem to me strange that Monsignor Srnec and I would not have talked about that problem, had we talked about it before. There's nothing in here, nor is there anything in here. which would indicate that Monsignor srnec was talking about a sexual problem in this memo (Indicating). I find that puzzling. Is it your testimony then that if Monsignor Srnec had talked about a sexual problem regarding Father Kapoun -- It would have been in this memo. In July of '74 it would have been in the memo? 67 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. And you wouldn't have intentionally left it out? 3 A. No, I would not have. no. 4 Q. We're going to skip 5 and Show you what's been marked 5 for identification as Exhibit 6. Can you tell me 6 what this is? 7 A. I cannot tell you. Wellit's to 8 Archbishop Byrne, it's in response to a letter which 9 apparently Archbishop Byrne had sent to me from 10' Monsignor Srnec. 11 Q. How. is this a memo from you then? 12 A. It's a memo from me. 13 Q. In your handwriting? 14 A. In my handwriting. 15 0. Maybe you can read it for me then. 16 A. You can't read that? "Thank you for Monsignor 17 Srnec's letter. He is probably right about Kapoun,' 18 and I don't understand the file above. "We must 19 check on him after a few months." 20 Q. Now, this memo doesn't have a date on it, does it? 21 A. Does not. 22 Q. Why don't you look at Exhibit 7. 23 A. (Examining documents.) 24 MR. EISENZIMMER: For purposes of 25 clarification. it's my understanding that in the NW EXHIBIT STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRIC COURT COUNY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT D.M.. lP1ainti??. vs. File fie. FATHER ROBERT KAPOUN. CHURCH OF ST. RAPHAEL in Minnesota. and THE ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS. Defendants. Deyosition of FATHER ROBERT KAPOUN. taken pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition. and taken before Gary w. Hermes, a Notary Public in and for the County of Ramsey. State of Minnesota. on the 25th day of July. 1989. at E-1400 First National Bank, St. Paul. Minnesota. commencing at approximately 9:10 o'clock a.m. AFFILIATED COURT REPORTERS 743 NORWEST BANK MIDLAND MINNEAPOLIS. MN 338-4348 my Kb And his name? flight. Befoxe Gaod Shepard you were at St. Raphael? Yes. And you were assigned to St. Raphael an what date, Father? I: was the summer of 1571. And you served as assuaiate there? Yes. 1 And the paste: was Monsignor Smec? Eight. Before St. Raphaal? SE. Kevin's. For how 1mg? Four years. Associate? Yes. who was the pascch Father Robert Vashto. Can you spell that? V> co EP Case Type: 11 vinofi Cuurt File No: ,1 Plaintiff, momma In amen or vs. "canteens-a norm>> In mums TD new" or nuns>> Iowan vIc'ux' mus: Archdiocese at St. Paul and Minneapolis, and Father Robert B. Kapoun, Defendants. gs This Memorandum of Law is submitted in support of defendant the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis' ("Archdiocesfl Motion in Limine to exclude any testimony or evidence regarding allegaticns of sexual abuse or relatiunships with persons other than the plaintiff. I. Human! RIGARDIXG meannoua 0P FATHER menu's 53mm OR RBI-31103331115 Ifl'l FERSOHB OTHER mu fl-ll. SHOULD BE EXCLUDED OP 'l'lIB TRIAL- Piaintitf has alleged that Father Kapaun engaged other victims in acts of alleged sexual abuse. Plaintiff has identified: as potential witnesses in this case. Presumably, plaintiff intends to calls these persons at the time of trial as witnesses to testify as to their sexual involvement with Father Kapoun. Such testimony should be excluded on the grounds that it is both irrelevant and prejudicial. A. my testimony at uqu1 between Patna: npoun and per-en- othox than tho it ixrelovlnt. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 401 defines "relevant evidence" as follows: Relevant evidence means any evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Lil. The existence on evidence that Father Kapoun engaged any other person in inappropriate sexual conduct does not make it more or less probable that the Archdiocese knew about Father: Kapoun's propensity to engage minor children in inappropriate sexual conduct. other than the statement of _tu Monsignor Srnec in 1973, there is no other allegation that the Archdiocese knew of Father Kapoun's alleged inappropriate conduct until the late l950'5. In addition, there is no evidence of alleged victims' sexual abuse being brought the attention of the Archdiocese until the late 1950's, after the alleged incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit. If there is no evidence of any notice or other sexual abuse victims complaining cf abuse to the Archdiocese until after the incident with plaintiff in this case, none of the "other 2 alleged acts of victim sexual abuse", could in any way make the existence of any fact in this lawsuit more probable or less probable than it would be without such evidence. As such, this evidence is irrelevant. Furthermore, Rule 404 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence specifically excludes character evidence and "other act" evidence whose sole purpose is to prove action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.-i . Rule 4o4(b) provides that "evidence of "another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith . . . Minn. R. Evid. 4o4(b). Application of Rule 4o4(b) to sexual abuse cases like the present wasirecently discussed in u,L, 1, Magnggon, 531 349 (Minn. ct; App, 1995). In Magnusgn, the court considered whether, under Rule 404(b), evidence of "other acts of abuse" would be admissible against either Magnuson or the Redeemer Covenant Church. at 859-60. The court held: 7' [w]e cannot discern a basis for finding that the evidence of other sexual abuse victims . . . was relevant to any issue in the case aimed at establishing the liability of Magnuson. Moreover, this evidence could only have the ill effect of inflaming the passion and prejudice of the jury Regarding Redeemer, the court held that evidence of other sexual abuse was "arguably admissible" in the negligence case to prove that they "knew or should.have known.Magnuson.wou1d engage in sexual abuse." Such_evidence, however, would be limited to "gnly I I 4 I inci ents occurre rior to th M.L. was abused . . . at 860. (emphasis added). Here, should the court find that the limited probative value of such evidence outweighs it's prejudicial effect, evidence of "other acts" of sexual abuse by Father Kapoun must be limited to the T.M. claims of seiual abuse which allegedly occurred in 1973, two years prior to the time that S.M. claimed he was abused. There are no other alleged incidents of abuse where there is_any evidence that the Archdiocese?arguably knew or had reason to know Father Kapoun had engaged in abuse. 3. Even if evidence or testimony with respect to other alleged victims of sexual abuse is relevant, the testimony should be excluded pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Evidence 403. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 403 states: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation ofacumulative evidence. The probative value of allegations of other alleged victims of sexual misconduct Eby Father Kapoun even if probative, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. .As the Court stressed in figgnusgg, "we cannot discern a basis for finding that evidence of other sexual abuse victims . . . was relevant to any isue in the case aimed at establishing the liability of i Magnuson . . . [a]dmissicn of this evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to entitle Magnuson to a new trial." Ha nus 531 N.w.2d at 350. Here such evidence has no probative' value. Allegations by other Victims of sexual abuse by Father Kapoun are simply of such slight probative value, that they could only have the "ill effect of the passion and prejudice of the jury." fiagnusop, 531 at 860. Secondly, the admission of such testimony would confuse the jury on the real issues at trial, the.Archdiocese's liability to the plaintiff. Evidence or testimony regarding"other victims' allegations of sexuah abuse by Father Kapoun have no bearing on whether the Archdiocese had knowledge prior to 1975 that Father Kapoun had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. Finally, allowing the testimony of other victims' allegations of abuse by Father hgpoun would cause undue delay and a waste of the Court's time. The Archdiocese would be required to cross- examine each of the witnesses regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct by Father Kapoun. Numerous other witnesses would have to be called to determine whether the Archdiocese should have had any knowledge regarding these alleged inappropriate sexual activities by Father fiapoun. The jury would be forced to listen to numerous witnesses testify regarding allegations of sexual abuse which occurred afterithe allegations of abuse in this case. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the probative value of any such witnesses' iestimony is clearly outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, jury confusion and waste of time. Should this-count find, however, that "other act" evidence is more probative thaniprejudice, than this court must limit that evidence to allegations of abuse that occurred prior to the incident with the plaintiff and which the Archdiocese arguably had reason to know about, ie. m,M, See, nagngson, 531 at 860. CONCLUSION Based. upon the: foregoing arguments and authorities, the Archdiocese requests an Order of this Court excluding any evidence, testimony or reference to allegations of sexual abuse with persons other than the Pla tiff. Dated this?ga?fday of March, 1996. Respectfully submitted, MURNANE, CONLIN, BRANDT Professio Association niel . Haws, #193501 ark Covin, #218820 Attorneys for Defendant 1800 Piper Jaffray Plaza i 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 227-9411 6 STATE OF DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT mm rial-tort DATE: Augustz,1996 DOCKETED: 7:30 am. FILE NO: 95--2181 Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and Father Robert E. Kapnun' Defendants JUDGMENT ROLL The above entitled action having been regularly placed upon the calendar of the above named Conn, came on for trial before the Court and Jury duly impaneled and sworn to try the same on th: 18th day of March. 1996; which said Jury did, on the 25th day of March, 1996, duly render a special verdict as uemin interrogatories herein. and thereafter, on that 28m dxy of March, 1996, the Court did make and filc its for judgment hEreiu. adopting said special verdict as a fouling of fact. Now, pursuant to said order and on motion of Mark D, Covin. Esq" Allomey for the Defendant Ardldiones: of St. Paul and Minneapolis, IS HEREBY ANUDGED: 1. That defendant Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is entitled tojudgment against the plainlifl'_ dismissing plaintiff's claims as a matter of law, with prejudice and on the merits. 2. That judgment is entered in favor in! Defendant Archdiocese nl' St. Paul and Minneapolis and against l'lainliff for the sum ofthree thousand, three hundred twelve and 04/100 (53.31234) Dollars {or cons and $3,312.04 BY THE COURT DISTRICT OURT ADMINISTRATOR HC 2399 . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEYIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JumdAmeCr my, g'un/ Order Amending Title WIC HSTRA Vs St. Pam and Minneapujisr. fandr Father Rubertr E. Kayoun, Tall No" 95-2181 Detendams Upon molion of (manna) (Delendant) (Sliyuhlion nun: Pinks) in Open Cum, IS HEREBY ORDERED daal the m1: anion 1: amrnded md 3; (allows: PlainLifi vs Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Father Robert Kapoun, Manda!" CASE TYPE: 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA 6 DISTRICT COURT com! or "maxim i105: DISTRICT -nmum magnum.-- Court File PI 95-2181 Plaintiff, Vs. 003050310]. 0! all)" to: Archdiocese of st. Paul and Minneapolis and Father Robert E. Kapoun, Defendants . "mm, the above--entitled matter came on for jury trial before the Honorable Gary Larsen on March 19, 1996, through March 22, 1996, at the Hennepln Cuunty Government Center, city of Minneapolis, state of Minnesota. "mm, Jeffrey Anderson, Esq. and Mar): Hendort, Esq. appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Mark Schlitz, and Daniel A. Haws, Esq. and Thomas A. Gilligan, Esq. appeared on behalf or defendant Archdiocese of St. Paul and Hinneapulia. HUI, mum, based upon the files, records, proceedings, and special verdict entered by the jury on March 25, 1996, the court makes the follwing: 0! ,101' 1. That the matter was tried betere a jury of six. The jury returned a special Verdict on March 25, 1995. 2. That the jury in this matter found the folluwing in the form of a special verdict: V. 1. Di-sustain any injury as a result of the sexual abuse by Father xapoun? Yes No If your answer to Question N0. 2 was "Yes," than qnswet use following question: 2. when should a reasanable person in - situation have known that he was sexually abused and that he sustained injury as a result of the sexual abuse? 9 1 month day year Regardless of your answers to any of the nther questions, you must answer the follwing questions: 3. What sum of money will fairly campensata- -:or his damages up to the date of trial? Medical, therapy and counseling expenses 3 472.00 Loss at earnings SA Disahility. emotional distress and embarrassment 7 00 4. what sum of money will fairly compensate- - for his damages reasonably certain to occur 1.. the future? Medical, therapy and counseling expenses 5 9 07;.00 Loss of earnings 3 0.00 Disability, enational distress and embarrassment $21 g50.oo Dated March 25, 1996. 3. That the above verdict submitth to the swift was a 5/Sth verdict reached after six hours of deliberatian. of LI. 1. That the Court adopts the jury's special. Vardict as its findings of fact which are reasonable and in accordance with evidence submitted in this case. 2. That pursuant to the jury's finding that a person i_'s situation should have that he was sexually abused and sustained injury as a result of this sexual abuse by September 1, 1975, plaintiff's claims are time barred pursuant to the statute of limitations set farm in Him. Stat. 511.u73. 1. That defendant Archdiucese Of St. Paul and Minneapolis is entitled to judgment against the plainti??_ dismissing plaintiff's claims as a matter at law, with prejudice and on the merits. 2. That the Archdiocese is entitled tn an award of costs and disbursements as will be submitted and as provided by law. 3. That entry of the above judgment shall he stayed for 30 days from the date hereof, as provided by the General Rules of We . . (Practice 125 the Hmnesota Rules or civn Procedure. mm 38 man MOWIISLY. 3 District Caurt STATE OF MINNESOTA COURT COUNTY OF FOURTH TUDIUAL DISTRICT -- Plaintiff. DEFEND ROBERT KA M93535 T0 FLAMES vs. RROGATORIES Ruben Kapolln. personally and i The Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Defendam. T0: Plainfiff above-named and his money, Brlan Bennett Ruling, Esq.. 3001 Humepin AVE. Shire 3093. Minneapolis. Minnesma 55408. Defendant Father Robert Knpoun, for his responses to Plaintiff's starts as follows: 0. l: Slam 11:: full name, age, date of birth, occupaan and address of the pencn answering "use m: Revemnd Robert Kupoun; RR. Box 218, Fugue, born on December 1. 1938: pulnr at Church of SL Scholastica. Church of St. Joseph and 0mm}! of St. Thomas, W: State Ila: full Mina. address of wary person wivl: whom you consulted in preparing your answers In these Invarrugnmfias. Ausmgk: consulted only will: my anal-nay, C. Brown. MERROGAEJRY N0. 3: Identify by name. current address, and oocuparion all individuals who hxve any information relawd the allegations refund to in Plaintifo and star: that lmowledge possessed by Earl: person. mu wmu 0 claims. [1 is possible Illa--and plnimifl's doctors and rherupisu may have some lmowledge. but the flerails of such knowledge are unknown In me at this Lime. parenlly has knowledge of the facls relating to his Following service of the Complaintin this action, I discussed the general accusations wilh several individuals, none of whom had any lmowledge of the nllegnlions prior to my Miami INTERROGATORY nor 4: Identify by name, current address. occupation each person whom you :xpect on call as a wines: at trial of this action and rune facts to which each witness is expected to testify. The witnesses have nm yet been identified. This response will be supplemented prior to u-iaL m'mnnocugnr mg. 5: sure whinh oflhe persons referred to in your answers to Inxerrogalmies herein you have interviewed giving the date, time and location of each interview, and identifying each person conducting or otherwise present at each in'erview. m: None. other than discovery responses and umuuent records and repons received from plaintiff's counsel herein. INTERROGATQRY 50, i: Identify any reports, statements, memomnda, investigations, writing; pamphlets. or any other information including. but not limited any medical information relating in any maner In this case AME: To my knowledge. none since the allegations regarding occurrences are denied. HQ. Fully Inlay, in us much detail as you recalL all conversations which male place at the time of, prior to or following the occurrences referred to in Plainn'ff's complaint No conversations have taken place to my knowledge 19! IERROGA JQRY N0. Identify all persons who overheard or may have overheard such matters mm -2-- ..2 - I.- Not applicable. INTERROGATQRY N0. 2: Identify all persons whom you may call at trial to give testimony in a form, expert opinions or conclusions and for each person, state the subject matter on which he or she may be asked to give expert testimony, his or her qualifications to give expert testimony, all facts to which the expert will testify, all opinions or conclusions in which the expert will testify, and the grounds for those opinions or conclusions. Expert witnesses have not yet been identified or retained. This response will be supplemented prior to trial. EERROGATORY N0. 10: State whether you have been arrested or convicted of any crime and provide the jurisdiction, the date of arrest andlor conviction, an the basis for the criminal charge and the disposition of the matter. AQSEER: No. 130, 1 State whether you have ever been treated by a counselor, or any other mental health care provider, and identify the provider, the" date of the treatment and the reason for the treatment and give the address of each provider. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Intetrogatory on the grounds that it seeks inforniation which is immaterial to any allegation at issue herein and is not intended to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence. In addition, the Interrogatory seeks disclosures protected from disclosure by Rule 35 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable statutory privileges. N0. 12: Identify by name, address, and dates of enrollment of all schools that you have aI1ended.t ANSWER: a) St. Paul Seminary 2200 Grand Ave. St. Paul. MN 55101 1958-1964 b) Nazareth Hall Seminary Arden Hills. MN 1956-1958 335118057834 1215194 -3- gun-Cretin High School St. Paul, MN 1952-1956 LNIERRQGATORY N0. 13: Since your ordination, identify all parishes where you have served giving the addresses and dates you served. ANSWER: a) 13) St. Scholastica, St. Joseph. St. Thomas 1989-present St. Patrick Church St. Patrick, MN 1977-1984 Home of the Good Shepard North Oaks, MN 1974- 1976 St. Raphael 7301 Bass Lake Rd. MN l971--1974 St. Kevitfs S844 - 28th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 1967-1971 Holy Redeemer Montgomery, MN 1964-1967 N0. 14: Identify all claims of misconduct, including but not limited to. financial misconduct, sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, made against you, giving the date of the claim, the basis for the claim and the disposition of the said claim. ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information which is immaterial to any allegation at issue herein and is not intended to lead 335118057884 1215194 to the discovery of any admissible evidence. In addition, the Interrogatory seeks disclosures protected from disclosure by Rule 35 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable statutory privileges. INTERRQGATORY E0. 15: For any incident referred to in the above Interrogatory, identify all witnesses or persons who have knowledge of said incident. Not applicable N0. 16: Identify all your sexual activities. AN?fl' ER: I cannot understand this Interrogatory and therefore cannot provide a meaningful response. INTERROGATORY 39. 1'7: Identify any insurer which provides coverage for the claims in Plaintiffs complaint, identifying the insurer, the policy number, and the terms and limits on that coverage. To my knowledge. I had no personal liability insurance policy in effect during whatever may be the material time herein. EEBBQGATORY EQ. Describe your employment history from high school until the time you became an ordained priest, giving the place of employment. employer, and the address of the employer, and the reason for terminating such employment. None, other than part-time miscellaneous jobs. Subscribed and to before me this of 33511805788-4 1215194 -5- -i The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. 549.21, Subd. 2, to the party or parties against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted. Frederick C. Brown aasnsosvsu -6- not know. How long did Father Kapoun after August of 1973 remain an associate at St. Raphael? I'm not sure. I think you can get that information from the Chancery. My best guess is that he was there to about September of '74. but I could be mistaken. Did he continue after. let's say. August of 1973 through the rest of his tenure there. be it September '74 or whatever, did he continue to have the usual youth contact that the associate pastor would have at St. Raphael? Yes, I did not restrict him and I was not aware that he was operating under any restrictions. So that would include working with servers? Working with mass servers, working with kids in school in the CCD program. And those are things that Father Kapoun had done while at St. haphael and continued to do through his tenure there? That was part of his responsibility. okay. Do you know if Father Kapoun brought the youth on any particular, for example servers, on retreats or anything of that kind during his service at st. Raphael? 0- STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: 11 A.M. Plaintiff AFFIDAVIT OF REV. THOMAS P. DOYLE, O.P. VS. ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL HVIMACULATE HEART OF MARY CHURCH IN MINNETONKA and FATHER JEROME C. KERN Defendants Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., J.C.D., being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say: 1. I am a Roman Catholic priest and a member of the Dominican Order. I was ordained a priest in 1970. At the present time I am on active duty with the United States Air Force serving as a chaplain. I am presently Catholic Chaplain at Hurlburt Field, Florida. I reside at 10 Hume Drive, Hurlburt Field, Florida. 2. I hold the following degrees: MA in philosophy, MA in theology, MA in Political Science. in Church Administration, MA in Canon Law and JCD or Doctor of Canon Law. I have held a wide variety of positions in Church Administration, including serving as a ludge in the Tribunals of several dioceses and archdioceses and as Secretary- Canonist for the Vatican Embassy, Washington DC. My curriculum yilae is attached. 3. Since October, 1984 I have been involved in the issue of sexual abuse of persons, especially young people, by Catholic clergy. have functioned as a Canon Lawyer, presenting workshops and seminars to priests groups on the issue of sexual abuse around the country since 1985'. I have had extensive contact with victims of sexual abuse and of the Code of Canon Law will be in reference to the canons of the 1917 Code unless otherwise noted. 9. The defendant is a Roman Catholic priest. As such he is always bound by the obligation of chastity which entails refraining from any and all sexual-activity with anyone 132). In addition to this, it is correct to say that the calling of a priest is not an employment but a way of life. As such, a prist is never "off duty". He may have specific duties which he fulfills as a priest, such as celebrating religious ceremonies, counseling, teaching etc. But his fundamental obligation as a priest is one that is always with him, whether he is fulfilling specific duties, on vacation or a day off or away from the church or other church institution to which he is assigned. Canon 124 refers to the priest's obligation to lead and teach by example: Clerics must live both interiorly and exteriorly a holier life than lay people, and must excel the, i,rj_1_,giving the example of virtue and good deeds. Of this it is said in a noted commentary on Canon law (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, Bouscaren and Ellis, 1966): This is the primary and fundamental obligation of clerics and especially of priests. Their example will be more powerful than their would be impossible to list all the documents by which the Apostles and the Supreme Pontiffs [popes] have urged this obligation. p. 108 10. The Ad Altare Dei is an award given by the Boy Scouts of America to Roman Catholic members of the Boy Scouts. It requires that candidates for the award participate in a program of learning and practical application of Roman Catholic principles. The award also requires the involvement of the candidates with a priest to a certain extent. Although a candidate may be a member of a Boy Scout Troop that is not sponsored by a Roman Catholic institution, the candidate nevertheless must seek out a priest to assist him in fulfilling the requirements. In assisting Boy Scouts with regard to this program, a priest is most certainly fulfilling duties that are directly related to his role as a priest. If the Boy Scout Troop is not affiliated with a Catholic parish or other Cathoiic Institution, it is common for a candidate for the award find a priest to help in a nearby parish or at least . _s in another parish that is available to him. 11. The subjects of a parish priest include not only those who have domicile or residence within the geographic territory of the parish but also those who come into the parish for some reason such as seeking pastoral or ministerial care 94). Roman Catholic parishes are ordinarily territorial in that they include as their parishioners those who iive within the geographic boundaries. The authority or jurisdiction of the pastor and the assistant pastors of the parish includes those who are actually living within the parish or who come to it for some special reason. A priest is responsible for fulfilling his obligations of chastity and giving good example to all who come to him for assistance of whatever kind, whether they are formal members of his parish or not. If a person is seeking the assistance or guidance of a Catholic priest, it has been and continues to be the common custom to first contact a parish since priests are, in the minds of the lay persons, associated with parishes. It is very common for priests in parishes to be sought out for pastoral help by persons who are not technically members of the parish. They are still responsible for maintaining the standards of proper conduct expected of the priesthood no matter where the people are from. 12. In general, pastors and assistant pastors are obliged to what is known in Canon Law and Catholic theology as the "care of souls" in regards to the laity. This term, though poetic sounding, is actually somewhat technical in that it includes all that would enhance or strengthen the spiritual welfare of the lay persons. (canons 464 and 476). By reason of both ordination to the priesthood as well as appointment as a pastor or assistant, a priest has a duty towards all those who are subject to him. This includes those who are properly members of a parish but it also includes all others. There are no hours, specific work locations nor other factors which detennine when or where a priest is to fulfill his duties of the "care of souls." This is a long standing tradition in the Catholic Church and is spoken to in countless Church documents. The Vatican Council ll spoke of this overall and fundamental obligation in its decree on the "Ministry and Life of Priests," (Dec. 7, 1965): STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE Type ll Coun Fila Nu; PI 95 2182 T.M., Plaintiff mm or-- vs. Archdiocese ofSl. Paul and Minneapolis, Church ofSt. Raphael in Minnesota and Fathu Robert Kapoun Defendants STATE OF MINNESOTA )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN -bcing duly sworn under oath, deposes and states as follows 2.1was bomin 3. I mende 'he from file agvs of six though mincen. 4. Father Robenxapnun was Assismm Pasmr during some of my years at St Kevins. 5' Either Kapoun taught Religion Class. During this class he would invariably tum religous topics into sexual topics I vividly recall his interpretatiun of Communion He told us that "Cnnununion was the same as having interwuxse with Christ." when he told us this he graphically illustrated his point with hand gestures, He would form a circle with the thumb and index finger of one hand.He would insen the index finger of his other hand through the circle. His finger would go in and out of the circle, in and out. Over and over. I-Es speech would speed up, his breathing would grow harder, his nostrils would flare. He would some close to snorting. This made a terrible and long lasting impression on me. It made me anxious and 6. To this day when I hear Father Kapoun's name, the images of his gestures and his behavior come to mind. 7. Irementber talking with my grlfiiends about this and haw awfiil it made us feel. 8. Fadier Kapuun also wanted us to ask him questions about sexual matters. He would get mad if we didn't have any questions 9' Our male classmates told us that Father Kapoun would watch them take showers and grab their testicles while they were swimming. . .10'My brother. told me that Father Kapoun would have them write down their questions ficiary Public about sex on a piece of paper and then turn that paper over to him. 11. When I was thirteen years old I cleaned the Rectory on Saturdays. One Saturday while cleaning his room I opened the drawer to a bedside table I saw pieces of scratch paper with questions regarding sexual matters on them I saw approximately 15 or 20 pieces of paper with questions. I remember one piece of paper had written in a child's handwriting. "What is a wet dream'l' I went home and told my Father what I had found. I was disturbed by what I had found, FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH Subscribed and swomto hefiare methis 30 day oprril 1995 HCOTI wetland". mu" imuuv m9 ('her FEBRUARY 17, 1989 HEARDIIGS o1?1 SENATE 1:11.13 315 s7 -e SENATE FILE NO. 315 Date: 02/17/39 SEXUAL ABUSE Mr. Chair and members of the Committee, this bill is part -- is a Crime Victims Bill as well, that are in this came from the Attorney General's office and some of the things are from the Task Force'on Sexual Violence Against Women. The essence of the bill is on on page one is a technical change in'reference to the change that's on page three. What this does is say that the Statute of Limitations which currently is two years from the time the"sexual abuse was committed, and what we're doing is adding to that, or two years from the time the comp1ainant.knew or had.reason 'to know the injury was caused. That would be the change. 11 second thing that we're doing with this is that the complainant need.not establish which act:h1a.continuous series of sexual abuse -- ah which sexual abuse acts by the defendant caused the actual injury and then. the third thing is that the knowledge of the custodial parent or guardiancufa minor would.not um -- change that statute of limitations. The sexual abuse on lines 11 and 12 that's used here is any sexual abuse except that page three towards the end, what we have is a um the deletion is not.that we're deleting that particular provision but itFs a clean--up and I think Senate Counsel can refer as to where it is, or how and now I'm going to stop with that. Because, can you will you explain that one -- it's a o1ean--up provision I know that, we're not eliminating that_ particular request. Um Madam Chair, are you on page.three? Page three, line 25, 26, 27. A. 88 J: I This this really is just removing a duplication, because the_languaqe that protects this information in terms of privacy is actually in that same section at the end. so somehou in amending this section in a previous session we ended up saying the same thing twice. We're just taking one of those out. so we're striking that sentence because its ah duplicative. And.Madam Chair' the amendment that also trewrites the language in this section's been passed out. But, there's an amendment A--1 and it rewrites the the senate Counsel's right it rewrites the language that's in this, inathe language of what we're doing here it's saying that the Commissioner should be notifying the victim of not oniy of the release of the defendant once they've done their time, but the conditions that are governing the offender's release would also be known to the victim; and the amendment just simply clarifies that language as to -r um making it clearer. Senator Peterson is that. the only thing .A-1. does; it's clarification of the It's clarification, it's also a clarification on page one as well as in the top part of page three. These are just technical as I_hnow it on that part.' Is there further discussion of Amendment_A-1? Hmm? I'd like to add that I'd move that amendment. How have a quorum again. .A.89 ,3 Senator Peterson moves the adoption of Amendment A-1. Any discussion: if not, all those in favor, say aye.. Aye. opposed. Motion carried. Then continuing on page four, lines 5 and 6, what that is -- um -- in the previous section we used the term, well that's part of the amendment but it's the same um -- the terms that we're using are basically those persons who um the crime against the person we're talking about the violent crimes. That's what that notification pertains to. And then, Section 4 is a notification wh_e_n someone who has been arrested for criminal sexual conduct or attempted criminal sexual conduct -- um that when they're .-released from their pre--trial detention that the victim would be notified of that. The language in this is the same language that is -in current statute for the battered woman being given notice when the person was released on pre-trial detention. This would add to that um anyone sexual abuse victim. . I have a question for Counsel because this seems to be, if I am reading it correctly, Section 3 is the notice of right to release when they get out of prison. Section 4 is when their pre- trial release um one of them just stylistically one of them numbers the conditions and the other one discontinues it to be the same conditions time of release and that sort of thing. Am I reading that wrong or is it -- is there a reason for this style difference? A. 90 0 Mr. Chairman, I look to Senate Counsel, but as I recall on Section 3 we're just adding in what was already in statute in statute -- in Section 4 we copied what was in statute for the release of a -- actually that legislation was passed either last year or the year before and we just copied that for the pre--trial release. Further questions from the Committee? Senator Peterson I have one question about top of page three, knowledge of a custodial parent or guardian of a minor. .Abuse may not be imputed to 4-- is that in the situation where if you're a ten--year--old abuse victim and one of the parents knows about it and you don't go to the Courts until you're twenty--two years old, ah -- the fact that the 'parents knew about it cannot -w cannot be used to put the statute of limitations in there? Mr. Chairy Senator Mr. Chair, yes that's'my understanding ofi it. And one other thing, the language at the top about the two. years from the time the complainant knew or had reason to know the injury was caused by the sexual abuse which ever, in other words I presume this is the same case of a minor who or anybody whose a victim of it but doesn't realize its done some harm or something to them. Mr. Chair, we have someone here that can speak to this, if you would like, as well as we have several handouts that can go out also pertaining to this time. we have two witnesses. we have a .A.91 0 0 victim as well as 'anattorney that can give more definition to this if the Committee would like. I guess I would be interested. okay. Please identify yourself for the tapes. My name is Jeff Anderson. I am an attorney in Hinnesota, and I do and have represented many, many victims of sexual abuse. The proposal before the Committee, and in the Bill, is to adopt a "delayed discovery applying to victims of sexual abuse, particularly youthful victims because it is patently obvious to all cf'-us that when many victims of abuse sexual are abused usually by a person in position of authority they develop a nurnber of mechanisms to keep them from discovering it, and thereby doing anything about it; reporting it to the police, bringing legal action. What the delayed discovery rule does is acknowledges that this happens that these people suffer traumatic- amnesia, they 'don't remember the abuse in order to cope. They suffer post-traumatic stress disorder much like the Vietnam Vets have and did in Vietnam, and because of those mechanisms that develop that are necessary for them to survive, it's only later, sometimes they get therapy, sometimes--they breakdown, sometimes they attempt suicide or' whatever else that they realize and appreciate that they had been wronged years earlier. And for that reason it is absolutely necessary to adopt this "delayed discovery rule" and I think that's what this bill includes. A. 92 The question I have about it is is that period. specified after the discovery two years too circumstances and I have some concerns about that. Why it should be two shorter than most other statutes that apply to this, and I would consider proposed considering perhaps a longer than twowyear period. Mr. Anderson they I don't.know'where the language came from and.I realize that.I've heard before of delayed awareness of some of these things, why is there not the decision. to dislengthen the limitation that the regular limitation instead of saying if you discover it later because doesn't that provide one ma?2 burden you have to prove that you didn't discovery the injury 'til ten years later or so. 0 Well, this is a rule right now and the statutory rule is you have to-bring it within a certain period after the actual wrong, and the delayed discovery provision accounts for the mechanisms that keep one from discovering that they're appreciating- it so that that 'delayed discovery provision is necessary to account for that reality. that prevents these people from bringing the action that they weren't aware of earlier. hy question is if you need say if somebody doesn't discover it for ten years um I guess I'm not familiar enough with the rationale for why we have such a short limitation on it anyway. My thought.would be that you have to prove, maybe it's not a difficult preponderance to the evidence if something you have to prove you .A.93 short under the' It's the injustice of that reality right now Ffl} 439 '5 'ha? didn't find out about the damage until within town years of when you finally brought the charges. . It does put a burden on the victim. If you do use a delayed discovery rule of two years or five.years or what.ever it is that's not an undue burden in my judgment because the reality is that the coping mechanisms is such that.the person never tells anybody else and you can show.that. The person is never reported to the police or the parents or to anybody else and you can show that so I don't think that places an unrealistic burden on the reality of sexual victimization. Are there questions to the witness? Help me where are we on this? Senator Hoe we're on top of page, top of page three. The language on line 4 -- or two years of the time the complainant knew or had reason to know the injury was caused by sexual abuse. okay. Ah --F Mr. Chairman, Sir, your name? Anderson. Jack Anderson; Hr. ah what*wou1d be is there a maximum length of time um following the commission of a crime -- ah where a complaint could be made or is there not? Well, as it presently exists there is a maximum length of time, it's two years in the case of intentional torts and six in the case of negligence nonintentional torts. My adaptation.of this particular provision, the length of time could be extended and should be extended way beyond.that potentially, simply by virtue of the delayed discovery aspects of it. So this, in my judgment, .A.94 would not put a cap on the actual time. it could be invoked using the delayed discovery. Do you have problems with that? - I don't see constitutional problems or due process problems with that, no. Because if we do say, or You '30 5_aY: '"311 there's a matter of ten years, you're in essence by doing that punishing the 'victim and rewarding the perpetrator because it is the deeds of the perpetrator that caused the mechanisms that keep the people from remembering or knowing that they've been damaged. So, indeed there are considerations, I don't think they weigh unfairly Is it possible that as long as forty years could elapse -between the ah commission of a ah or the incident ah I guess we're talking about sexual assault here. Yes. And the ah -- recognition or understanding or awareness. that a crime occurred. I'd say it's possible. It's rare. But it' certainly- possible and --ah albeit rare, I think that ten years is not unrealistic and I am aware of cases where there has been as many as fifteen years -when, for_exanp1_e, a seventeen--year-<