ShareThis Page

3 friars asking judge to dismiss predator oversight charges

| Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 11:51 p.m.
Giles Schinelli (left) Anthony Criscitelli (center) and Robert D'Aversa when the three Franciscan friars were arraigned on charges of child endangerment and criminal conspiracy at a district magistrate in Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pa.
Giles Schinelli (left) Anthony Criscitelli (center) and Robert D'Aversa when the three Franciscan friars were arraigned on charges of child endangerment and criminal conspiracy at a district magistrate in Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pa.

HOLLIDAYSBURG — Three Franciscan friars have asked a judge to dismiss charges that they didn't properly supervise a suspected sexual predator accused of molesting more than 100 children, most at a Pennsylvania high school.

Attorneys for Giles Schinelli, Robert D'Aversa and Anthony Criscitelli argued Wednesday in Blair County that there was no basis for conspiracy charges and the statute of limitations had expired on child endangerment counts. D'Aversa's attorney, Robert Ridge, called the conspiracy charge “deeply flawed,” saying there were no acts taken or plans made by the defendants.

But Daniel Dye of the state attorney general's office disagreed, saying “There was no error in holding this matter for trial.”

Judge Jolene Kopriva promised to rule on the issues “as quickly as possible,” The (Johnstown) Tribune-Democrat reported.

State prosecutors say the friars assigned or supervised Brother Stephen Baker when he served at Bishop McCort Catholic High School in Johnstown in the 1990s. Baker killed himself in 2013, shortly after a settlement was announced that he had molested students in Youngstown, Ohio. That settlement prompted more than 80 former McCort students to come forward with molestation allegations that have resulted in more than $8 million in settlements.

The state argues that the conspiracy started when Schinelli assigned Baker to Bishop McCort in 1992 even though a previous allegation of abuse existed, and the conspiracy continued while D'Aversa and Criscitelli were in charge of the order. The defense argues that a psychological evaluation ordered by Schinelli concluded that Baker posed no threat.

D'Aversa, in 2000, removed Baker from his formal assignment at Bishop McCort, but Dye said he failed to tell the school that the decision was made because of a new credible allegation from Baker's past. Ridge disputed the timeline and called the reassignment and allegation revelation “coincidental.”

Criscitelli is accused of knowing a safety plan was in place for Baker, but still putting him in positions where he could potentially be around children, including while working at a mall shop.

Lawyers said the defendants fulfilled their duties and argued that the state's contention that Baker shouldn't have had any assignments with access to the public was too broad. They also pointed to a two-year statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of children, and Schinelli's attorney, Charles Porter, accused the commonwealth of using an alleged ongoing conspiracy to “back-step there to get to the statute of limitations.”

Kraus also asked for a change of venue due to publicity, but the judge said such matters aren't determined during pretrial motions, adding “It's a very high standard for change of venue because of pretrial publicity.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.