…Lynch said he still wanted to hear the retired priest admit to the attack.
He testified that he went to the Sacred Heart retirement home in Los Gatos in May 2010 to confront Lindner with confession papers he wanted the retired priest to sign. Then Lindner leered at him the same way he did during the molestation, he told the jury, and that triggered an emotional explosion….
Fascinating, in a few ways.
First, personally. Lynch’s years of trying to bring Lindner to justice through the court system before the attack, though a predictable failure, is admirable. After admittedly losing his calm, he gambled at four years in prison to tell his story and expose what Lindner did to him. At the same time, his defense lawyer wanted to have three other witnesses testify and tell their story of Lindner abusing them as children. While court hijinks prevented the attacker from being cross-examined by Lynch’s defense and the three other witnesses didn’t get to testify at all, this quietly shames anyone who may vainly stoke themselves as brave. At the same time, his courage inspires other victims of a similar kind to not withdraw and instead seek justice and/or peace in their own case.
The case has also captivated me as a “basic libertarian” who supports jury nullification. It’s not a perfect case in line with the ideologically pure Non-Aggression Principle–Lynch admitted to inflicting aggression on another person. However, the jury was presented with circumstances which apparently moved them to look beyond the letter of the law and find Lynch not guilty of that which he admitted. But as heard on a local radio station out of Los Angeles just after the news broke, the jury was kept from being told about their right to nullify–how then is can it be argued that this was a case of jury nullification at all?
Perhaps then, this is only a case of vigilante mob justice; the jury’s collective ‘heart’ was unarguably in the right place acquitting Lynch, but there’s no indication that that heart is on a right path to consistent application of principles toward a more just and peaceful society. This problem is obvious. The next case like this may be a bit more wobbly and a jury may still get that one right, a similar case after that could easily be a toss-up, and lawlessness continues, nothing new under the sun, hey I think I read that somewhere.
Lastly, as a deliberate California ex-pat, it tugs a little at my now-invisible tan lines to hear of something that went “in the right direction” over there, even if it’s littered with stumblings.
TL;DR: Sometimes I’m Harry and Lloyd is California.