This past Tuesday afternoon, John Geoghan — the now-defrocked priest accused of molesting more than 100 children — walked into Courtroom 9 in Suffolk Superior Court for the first time in almost two years. Short, slight, and sporting a suit and tie, he had entered so quietly, so discreetly, that the half-dozen people in the audience were taken by surprise. Geoghan, now 65 and living with his sister Catherine in West Roxbury, has been charged with two counts each of child rape and child assault in Suffolk County, and one count of child assault in Middlesex County. In addition, he has faced as many as 120 civil lawsuits that allege sexual abuse spanning his entire career, from his ordination in 1962 to two years after his retirement from parish duties in 1995.

His entrance proved a stark contrast to the events of December 9, 1999, when Geoghan was arraigned on criminal charges of sexual assault. At that time, years of pent-up anger among dozens of his alleged victims made for a nasty spectacle. People screamed out at him " You filthy pig " and " Burn in hell, " and everything was recorded by throngs of photographers and reporters.

The absence of such a media frenzy on Tuesday was ironic. If ever there was a moment when publicity could have helped Geoghan, it was then. Geoghan showed up that afternoon specifically to implore Suffolk Superior Court judge Margaret Hinkle to move his upcoming criminal trial to Western Massachusetts. Press scrutiny of his case had reached a perilous level, argued Geoffrey Packard, the Cambridge public defender representing the former priest. Over the past four years, Packard said, more than 100 articles about Geoghan’s alleged sexual misconduct have appeared in the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, the Quincy Patriot Ledger, and reports from the Associated Press. Twenty-seven of these articles made front-page news. Allegations against Geoghan served as fodder for the city’s bigfoot columnists, including the Globe’s Eileen McNamara and Joan Vennochi. " There is no question of the prominence of this case, " Packard maintained. " Publicity that alleges sexual abuse of children immediately casts my client in a negative light. " And now, he said, it jeopardized Geoghan’s ability to gain a fair and impartial trial.

Packard also took issue with the media’s focus on pending civil lawsuits against Geoghan — or, as he put it, " the multiplicity of cases out there. " Reports, he claimed, " continue to come out making references to all the crimes [Geoghan] has committed. " Article after article has mentioned that the Archdiocese of Boston already settled 50 of these lawsuits for as much as $10 million — implying that Geoghan had done something wrong. That 25 plaintiffs in the civil lawsuits have taken the unusual step of suing Bernard Cardinal Law has only intensified the spotlight. Packard, who was carrying a copy of last week’s Phoenix, which ran a front-page story about the Catholic Church’s long history with pedophilic priests ( " Failure To Act, " News and Features, October 5), concluded: " These civil cases will impact the criminal trial.... Maybe I’m pessimistic. But I find it hard to believe we will be able to locate impartial jurors. "

Hinkle, however, didn’t seem to buy Packard’s argument. She wondered aloud what set this case apart from other high-profile trials. Though the volume of coverage is " admittedly large, " she explained, surely other cases have captured an equal amount of attention. " I agree we have to ensure impartiality, " Hinkle said. She suggested that the court first try to find impartial jurors before rushing to the conclusion that they don’t exist. Added Hinkle, " It’s been my experience that a number of jurors, believe it or not, don’t read the local newspapers. "

Whether Hinkle will grant Geoghan another venue remains to be seen; she took the motion " under advisement. " It was the first of what will no doubt prove to be many twists and turns in the criminal prosecution of John Geoghan.

Issue Date: October 11 - 18, 2001