Can Jesuit Priest Jerold Lindner be Charged With Perjury?

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said his office will take several weeks to evaluate obstacles to prosecute Los Gatos cleric for allegedly lying under oath during William Lynch trial.

The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office said Friday it's investigating  whether to file perjury charges against Los Gatos Jesuit priest Jerold Lindner, the victim in the high-profile William Lynch assault and elder abuse case.

However, even before the county's top prosecutor announced he wouldn't be refiling the charge, Lynch's supporters were calling for Jeff Rosen to file perjury charges against the priest.

Following Lynch's acquittal, his supporters and members of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, began calling for the DA's Office to charge Lindner with perjury.

The maximum punishment for perjury is four years in jail, although officials with the DA's office say it's highly unlikely Lindner would receive that sentence if he's charged and found guilty.

California Penal Code 118 states that a person commits perjury when he deliberately gives false information while under oath and he's subject to prosecution if he willfully gives false information when testifying in court, when being deposed, in a signed affidavit, in a signed declaration, or in a signed certificate.

Perjury is a serious felony and it's considered a so-called "non-alternative felony," meaning it can only be a felony, explained criminal attorney and legal analyst Steven Clark.

A press release issued by the DA's Office last week announced prosecutors wouldn't retry Lynch on the lesser misdemeanor assault offense, stating that the office was evaluating the obstacles to filing a perjury charged against the priest.

The DA's Office also said Friday it would take several weeks to make a decision on the matter and that when a decision is made, it would explain its rationale to the public.

Clark said one of the issues faced by the DA's Office is that since it had frequent contact with Lindner before the trial - including meetings, and calling him as a witness during the court proceedings - it may be so involved with the case that the office itself may be a witness to the case.

In that case, Clark said, the question is whether the case should be referred to the California Attorney General's Office to consider the potential conflict.

Clark also said the second issue with the perjury charge is that, in general, it's a difficult charge to prosecute because you need someone more than just saying he did something and another person saying he didn't do it. "If it's just coming down to two people saying something happened, that typically going to be very challenging ... it's not enough for perjury. You would need more corroboration," he said.

Witnesses would have to be called to support the perjury charge to say that Lynch was indeed molested, and those witnesses could be other people who say the priest molested them, Clark added.

Witnesses from Lynch's civil case in 1998, in which the Catholic Church paid a $625,000 out-of-court settlement to the Lynch brothers for the alleged abuse by Lindner, would have to be called to testify, Clark stated.

These witnesses would speak about Lindner's conduct, which would be helpful to the prosecution, but it would still come down to the priest saying he didn't do it and Lynch saying he did it. "Is that going to be enough? Even with cooperation to prove perjury, that may be difficult. The issue is also if Lindner is ever going to take the stand," Clark explained.

"It's a challenging perjury case because there's no other evidence," Clark added, saying that in some perjury cases there are documents or video that show those charged are lying, but that evidence doesn't seem to exist in this case.

The other tricky legal issue related to a possible perjury case against the priest is that

"That makes [Lindner's testimony] not material for purposes of the William Lynch case. His testimony was thrown out, so how could him saying, 'I didn't molest him,' be material ... when it wasn't even considered by the court for the jury," Clark said.

But even with the procedural and burden-of-proof problems related to a possible perjury case, Clark said he understood why so many still want the DA's Office to charge the priest. Many believe he's never been brought to justice, and the charge would be a way of giving justice to the alleged victims.

"You don't have make-up calls in the law," Clark said. "The fact that Lindner may have gotten away ... may not have been brought to justice for the child molest, doesn't mean that he should be prosecuted for a case that can't be proven."

Carolyn Neal July 16, 2012 at 03:30 PM
"The DA's Office also said Friday it would take several weeks to make a decision on the matter and that when a decision is made, it would explain its rationale to the public." Seems to me, based on the statements made both to the press and in email responses to those of us who have urged prosecution, that DA Rosen has already made up his mind. I will be very surprised if he pursues the charge against Lindner. In my opinion, he is hoping public outrage will die down prior to his announcing his decision. Yes, CA Penal 118 does state "Another person's testimony that conflicts with yours is insufficient, in-and-of itself, to support a perjury conviction. In order to prove your guilt, the prosecutor must offer corroborating evidence to prove that your statement was, in fact, false." However, given that he denied molesting both Will & his brother, would not the testimony of them, along with the testimony of all his other victims and the settlement in the civil cases lend enough credence to Will's allegations to warrant pursuing? I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the ethics of investigations but would not at least investigating and gathering evidence in the perjury charge lend the DA's office the ability to look into exactly what is going on at Sacred Heart Jesuit Center? Seems to me that would be a much better use of his resources than prosecuting Will Lynch ever was and he certainly owes it to the children of Santa Clara County.
Virginia July 16, 2012 at 05:01 PM
A person like Jerold Lindner should not be allowed to live in the care of the Catholic Church. He should be in prison where he belongs. Perjury is only the tip of the iceberg of guilt on the part of Jerold Lindner. I don't know how others can even live in the same house with this man.
lian July 16, 2012 at 06:14 PM
Law is always very tricky, and I can see why it could be so hard to charge him with perjury.. .However, what I don't understand, is WHY IN THE WORLD this Sacred Heart Jesuit Center doesn't kick this man out and stop providing him a house, food and care? He should be left and die all alone, and not even one person should ever offer him help knowing what he did.
Carolyn Neal July 16, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Honestly Sacred Heart is probably the safest place he could be. He has never been convicted of a crime and does not have to register as a sex offender. If he is excommunicated by the Church, he would be free to go anywhere without any supervision. What I want, short of Jerold Lindner and every other pedophile being in prison, is for the Church to stop protecting their image and start protecting children. They should actively report and cooperate with law enforcement. The pedophiles that have escaped justice due to statutes of limitations should be locked away with no access to the outside world. Not allowed the freedom enjoyed by Lindner and his other "friends" at Sacred Heart.
Mark Belenchia July 16, 2012 at 07:45 PM
Hire Louie Freeh to investigate the institutional catholic church and it's cover-up of crimes. Heads will roll at Penn State and I think it is safe to say there will be jail time for some involved. Explain one thing for me... What is the difference in Joe Paterno and Bernie Law? Could it be POWER and MONEY?
Mckenna Smith July 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Prosecute the priest ... the DA needs to show courage now and just as he was zealous in his prosecution of Mr. Lynch, he needs to be zealous in charging him if he believes perjury can be proven. I bet it can!
Bonnie Rose July 19, 2012 at 12:44 AM
I think about all the really violent bar room and back alley brawls the legal system couldn't care less about, and it astounds me that the DA would go to so much trouble to bring Lybch to trial for barely hurting the man that had essentially destroyed his life... And then I think about how many passes Lindner has gotten all of his scourge of a life. Passes from the law, passes from the Church... Everybody including Rosen knows Lindner lied on the stand. Everybody wants to see justice done for Lindner, except for the few who have some sort of twisted stake in giving him yet another pass... Try the creep for God's sake! Have him be accountable for this one lie at least. Give the thousands of us who care a reason to breath a little easier. Give us a glimmer of hope that we can believe in justice again.
Alison July 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Right on target, Bonnie. I, too have thought about all of the bar room brawls the legal system ignores.
LoyolaAlum April 17, 2013 at 05:43 PM
Jesuit lawsuit can proceed April 17, 2013 A judge has ruled that twenty-three Haitians may go forward with their lawsuit against the Jesuit Order (New England), Fairfield University, Jesuit Father Paul Carrier, Hope Carter, and the Knights of Malta – the people and institutions that the lawsuit says should have protected the homeless boys from the sexual abuse they suffered in a school founded for street children by 1992 Fairfield Jesuit University graduate Douglas Perlitz.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something