Hello there -- Theo, CR's administrative assistant, here! Commentaries have been spilling out of the wood work in the aftermath of the Karen Dammann trial. Again the timing was something else -- just on the threshold of the General Conference of the UMC which will be meeting in Pittsburgh the last week of April. If you want to see some real fancy footwork (read "Philadelphia lawyer" maneuvering -- maybe this guy really is one!) then take a look at the comments by one identified as Richard Bentley which are cited below. Enjoy!

---

The following article may be shared with others with credit given to Richard Bentley.

The Karen Dammann Trial Court Did Not Nullify!

In writing about the decision in the Karen Dammann church trial, many may say that the trial court engaged in jury nullification, disregarding the Book of Discipline. But in fact it did not. Why? Because United Methodist church law is different from the secular law in several critical ways.

If you've ever served on a secular jury, you know you listen to the evidence during the trial. Then the judge gives instructions to the jury regarding applicable laws. This includes reading sections of the law that define the alleged crime. The jury's job is to decide if the facts of the case constitute a violation of the law as defined by what the judge read. Jury nullification is claimed to occur when the jury acquits the person even though others view the facts as clearly adding up to violation of the law's definition.

As governed by the Book of Discipline, a trial in the United Methodist Church is very different. First, it is important to clarify that Karen Dammann was not charged with being "a self-avowed practicing homosexual" nor with "living in a partnered, covenanted homosexual relationship." Rather, she was charged with "engaging in practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teaching." (Italics added for emphasis.)

What does the Book of Discipline mean by the phrase "practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teaching"? This is not clear because the chargeable offense is not defined in the Book of Discipline. Indeed, none of the 12 chargeable offenses for clergy in Par. 2702 is defined. Thus every trial court must be both a trier of fact (like a secular jury) and a trier of law (unlike a secular jury).

As part of a United Methodist church trial, the trial court receives a charge containing both the chargeable offense that allegedly happened and the specifications of the particular events that supposedly happened that constitute this chargeable offense. In the Karen Dammann case, the chargeable offense was "practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings." The specifications to demonstrate that she committed this chargeable offense revolved around instances in which she claimed to be "living in a partnered, covenanted homosexual relationship."

After hearing pertinent testimony, the trial court must reach a verdict. As part of reaching a verdict in a church trial, the trial court must decide on a working definition of the alleged chargeable offense. Just as secular law does not tell a jury how to deliberate, neither does the Book of Discipline tell a trial court how it must deliberate. In particular, the Book of Discipline does not define or limit the trial court in what sources or processes it must follow in arriving at its working definition of the chargeable offense. So, it may use any means at its disposal, most often the Book of Discipline. If it follows the guidelines in the Book of Discipline, the trial court would then use scripture, reason, tradition and experience to help reach its verdict.

Although a trial court is not required by the Book of Discipline to issue a statement explaining its verdict, the members of the Karen Dammann trial court did explain their reasoning in a statement that they released after their verdict was read. Their statement showed that they concluded the specifications actually did happen, but that they did not constitute the chargeable offense. In explaining their reasoning, they showed that they had paid careful attention to testimony about the history of General Conference actions regarding homosexuality. But, as is their discretion in United Methodist judicial process, they chose to look at the Discipline in its broader context in deciding whether the specifications constituted the alleged chargeable offense. While people may agree or disagree with their reasoning, their verdict is not jury nullification because there is no definition of the chargeable offense for them to nullify. Moreover, since their statement shows that they based their decision on relevant disciplinary passages, they did not disregard the Book of Discipline.

Some may feel that the trial court should have paid more attention to what they regard as the clear meaning of the Book of Discipline. Some may even say that the trial court did not discharge its duty because it rewrote the Book of Discipline according to its members preconceived notions. However, the records from the trial show that both the Presiding Officer and Counsel for the Church were very diligent in excusing anyone from serving on the trial court who was unwilling to follow the Book of Discipline. The records also show that the trial court engaged in extensive deliberations. In addition, its members took breaks to go to the chapel for individual soul searching and prayer. If the trial court was acting on preconceived ideas, its members would have reached a verdict quickly, without the agonizing time spent in prayer.

Some critics may imply that the trial court was a monolithic group disregarding what the General Conference had to say about homosexuality. But, the trial court's statement clearly shows its members were divided in their views regarding homosexuality. Despite their differences about homosexuality, 11 of the 13 members of the trial court could agree on a verdict because they understood that the trial was not about homosexuality. They were able to find agreement within their disagreements on homosexuality because they focused on what the General Conference had declared to be incompatible with Christian teachings. They found that the General Conference had not declared homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching. Although a statement appears in the Social Principles, the 2000 General Conference declared the Social Principles are not church law. And the trial court noted that the General Conference had declared, "inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community, and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination." (Par. 138 in the section on the ministry of all Christians.)

Finally, some may feel that the trial court should have paid more attention to Judicial Council Decision 980. In this decision, the Judicial Council appeared to conclude that the facts of the Karen Dammann case constituted a violation of church law. However, in United Methodist judicial process, the purpose of appellate bodies (including the Judicial Council) is to protect people from a capricious definition of a chargeable offense and/or excessive penalty by a trial court. While the Judicial Council may remind a trial court to follow the Discipline (as it did in Decision 980) and review whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict, the Judicial Council has no authority to tell a trial court that a particular set of facts must be interpreted as committing a particular chargeable offense. Only a trial court may make that determination. And in this instance "as is the trial court's right" it determined that the facts of the case did not constitute a violation of church law.

Richard Bentley
April, 2004

Richard Bentley has served as the Secretary of a Committee on Investigation which voted out charges two different times. He has written briefs for the Judicial Council and appeared before it in oral arguments. He has been on the prevailing side in matters concerning clergy confidentiality (Judicial Council Decision 800), how the constitutional separation of powers applies to the participation of District Superintendents in involuntary proceedings before the Board of Ordained Ministry (Decision 917) and fair process during the supervision (Decisions 972, 974).