MODERATOR O’BAN: Alright. Very good. Dr. Leithart, let me just, you’ve heard this read, I’ll read it to—COMMISSIONER SUNDERLAND: Mr. Moderator? Point of order. I’m moving for a directed verdict on all 5 counts.
MODERATOR O’BAN: Do you want to explain— I understand what you’re saying but I’m not sure everyone else will understand your motion. Do you want to explain—
COMMISSIONER SUNDERLAND: We can do that in chambers if you don’t mind.
MODERATOR O’BAN: Okay. Directed— Well, let me just explain for the court and the for the other members; by “directed verdict” I think Mr. Sunderland is saying that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof on each of the counts and is asking that a ruling be made by the court to effectively dismiss the charges based upon the presentation of the prosecution’s case. Is that a fair summary of what you are requesting of the court?
COMMISSIONER SUNDERLAND: Yes.
MODERATOR O’BAN: Okay.
PROSECUTOR STELLMAN: May I ask a question?
MODERATOR O’BAN: You certainly may.
PROSECUTOR STELLMAN: Mr. Sunderland, have you read, and have all of you read, Lane Kiester’s testimony?
MODERATOR O’BAN: Why don’t we direct that to Mr. Sunderland at this point.
COMMISSIONER SUNDERLAND: Yeah. I have reviewed the entire testimony.
PROSECUTOR STELLMAN: So, you’ve read the 40 page testimony?
COMMISSIONER SUNDERLAND: I have not read every single page.
PROSECUTOR STELLMAN: Then why would you dismiss the most weighty bit of testimony without having read it?
MODERATOR O’BAN: Okay. I think the argument is against your motion is it should not be raised until each one of us has had an opportunity to read each page thoroughly Mr. Kiester’s testimony. Would you—
COMMISSIONER SUNDERLAND: That’s his argument. I understand it.
MODERATOR O’BAN: Do you want to withdraw your motion at this time? Or you still want us to consider it?
COMMISSIONER SUNDERLAND: I want it to be considered.
(All the relevant documents from the Leithart trial are now uploaded and can be accessed here.)
Post Script: The defense spoke against this motion, and after a brief recess the commission voted it down.
As I have not yet voiced my disagreement with the verdict officially, I am offering trial testimony excerpts without comment so as not to violate PNWP's exhortation about circularizing the court.
ReplyDeleteOutrageous. And I don't mean you, Jason.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened next? Was that the end of the trial?
ReplyDeleteNo, the motion failed and the defense presented their case. It should be noted that the defense was NOT in favor of this motion to dismiss (it was made immediately after the prosecution rested its case).
ReplyDeleteWasn't Sunderland there to hear Kiester's testimony? Was Kiester there or did he just send a statement? I thought he was there.
ReplyDeleteLane was there, but testimony was entered into the record as a written document since it was over 40 pages long. Sunderland moved to dismiss the case quite soon after the testimony was entered.
ReplyDeleteWere Sunderland's comments a reflection of the prosecution's allegation that Kiester has no particular qualifications as an expert witness?
ReplyDeleteIt was the defense who alleged that, and I couldn't speculate as to what Sunderland was thinking when he moved to dismiss the case (although now that I think of it, he did so pretty much immediately after I rested, which made me think he was probably waiting for that moment to make the motion).
ReplyDeleteSorry, The defense, of course.
ReplyDeleteJason, any chance of these files being made available in other formats that can be easily converted - for example, .doc?
ReplyDeleteAdam, you could just download the PDF and use a PDF to WORD converter: http://www.pdftoword.com/ You can do it for free on that website.
ReplyDeleteWell Andrew, what I'm actually doing is using mobipocket creator and will eventually upload a Kindle book of all these documents to the web so that people can have a version of the docs that has a table of contents. The problem is, the documents which have numbers along the left side are good for precise reading, but they're awful on the Kindle screen. I've go the problem solved, I think. I should have it finished by tomorrow for everyone to grab.
ReplyDeleteB. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
ReplyDeleteSeveral principles have guided the Court in its findings and judgment.
First, as TE David F. Coffin, Jr. recently wrote for the GA SJC in SJC Case 2010-04, Complaint of TE Art Sartorius, et al. vs. Siouxlands Presbytery: “If a view can be interpreted in an orthodox fashion, it ought to be so interpreted until one is forced to do otherwise.” Likewise, “One cannot properly impute implications that are drawn from a position to a person who expressly denies the implication.”
Until this article is challenged and soundly defeated the PCA will have extreme problems with ANY doctrinal trial. The only way around this obstacle is for the defendant to actually joins the prosecuting team in the middle of the trial.
How many cases in church history had to endure this insurmountable hurdle? How many prosecutors would have won under these terms?
Something as serious as serious as doctrinal errors and protecting the peace and purity of the sheep the prosecutors case should not be overturned as soon as the defendant says, "I am not guilty" or "The prosecutor is not a mind reader". This is Presbyterianism gentlemen. An individual does not get to decide if his views strike at the vitals of the system of doctrine.
Dean B
"Something as serious as serious as doctrinal errors and protecting the peace and purity of the sheep the prosecutors case should not be overturned as soon as the defendant says, "I am not guilty" or "The prosecutor is not a mind reader". This is Presbyterianism gentlemen. An individual does not get to decide if his views strike at the vitals of the system of doctrine."
ReplyDeleteNot anymore. Apparently we no longer believe in total depravity or that TEs are sinners saved by grace. Instead TEs are fully sanctified at ordination and incapable of being mistaken in their assessments or worse.
reformedmusings
ReplyDelete"Apparently we no longer believe in total depravity or that TEs are sinners saved by grace."
I believe the Coffin doctrine is a direct violation of I Tim 5:21. The partiality shown by the defendants is greater than the partiality shown to those in the general public. Additionally the prejudging which was displayed by TE Sunderland is this case is also in violation of I Tim 5:21.
Dean B
This is standard legal practice to move for a directed verdict--no matter what the circumstances. Is there a particular problem here?
ReplyDeleteBob, Coffin's assertion is against what you just stated (and he's in your presbytery) how do you respond?
ReplyDeleteCoffin: "If a view can be interpreted in an orthodox fashion, it ought to be so interpreted until one is forced to do otherwise.” “One cannot properly impute implications that are drawn from a position to a person who expressly denies the implication.”
There is nothing wrong with asking for a directed verdict - it's a court. You're allowed to ask for certain things in court. He did, he was refused. If Sunderland could be considered guilty of judicial prejudice for asking for something the court allows to be asked, could the prosecution be wrong for bringing charges in the first place? Does it amount to slander, to have suggested things which have never been proven to be true? No, because the prosecution is presenting its case in the way that it ought to be done. If the prosecution said the same things about Leithart out of court, whispering to their friends, that they did in court, they could be violating the 9th commandment. But there is a certain immunity within the context of the court.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDelete"This is standard legal practice to move for a directed verdict--no matter what the circumstances. Is there a particular problem here?"
It very well be a standard legal practice, but we are talking about a matter of the peace and purity of the gospel not a drunk driving charge.
Secondly, how could Sunderland believe the prosecution failed in their attempt to prove there case when he had not read all the evidence.
Consider the following example: if your wife was killed by a drunk driver and you saw the defense attorney and several jurors were sleeping during a critical part of the prosecutions case and he moved for a directed verdict would you see a problem? If the drunk driver was acquitted would you see this as serious injustice?
Dean B
Do judges usually ask for directed verdicts? After all, Sunderland was charged to serve as "a judge of a court of Jesus Christ" (page 11, line 6).
ReplyDeleteThe issue is clear if you read my statements in the exchange. I have no problem with directed verdicts.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteHaving had the pleasure of working with David at presbytery meetings and in committees, I can state with assurance that he has no sympathy for FV, NPP, or any other theological nonsense. He displayed that clearly to the 35th GA. He's as orthodox Reformed as they come. He takes his responsibilities very seriously and executes them diligently. While David and I have disagreed from time to time, he has always been gracious in those disagreements.
While I disagree with David's statements as quoted from the Moon decision in that context for the reasons that I stated above, it would be inappropriate for me to try to guess at his motivation in writing the offending sentences.
We all have a sin nature that wrestles with our new nature daily, but especially under examination and/or trial. I believe that we fool ourselves when we overlook that fact (Rom 7:13-25).
PROSECUTION: Well, my - - my question is. I’m asking you is this your view namely that the - - the arrabon of the Holy Spirit, the down payment of future glory is given to all members of the visible church merely by being baptized and can be lost by those members of the visible church who later apostasize.
ReplyDeleteWITNESS (Leithart): Yeah, I - - I would say yes.
Transcript - Page 190, Lines 16-20.
Bob, I wasn't intending to make Coffin a FVist. I know he is not. Far from it. Just wanted comment on his remarks from you. Do you think his remarks should be taken as precedent now as almost all men who are in doctrinal error will quote in the PCA?
ReplyDeleteSorry for the double post, reading through the trial, in the context following Dr. Rayburn's asking Lane Keister if he was biased (using that to discredit him) (pg. 124), I found it funny that Jason came back and asked Leithart the same question (pg. 182),
ReplyDeleteJason: Would you consider yourself biased at all in this case?
Leithart: Biased in my own favor? Yes.
Jason: Okay. Well, I just want the record to show that I do not hold it against the accused that he is biased and has a stake in the outcome of this trial.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I misunderstood you. I do not believe that his remarks should be taken as a precedent. First, any court case is only binding on the parties involved. From BCO 14.7:
"Judicial decisions shall be binding and conclusive on the parties who are directly involved in the matter being adjudicated, and may be appealed to in subsequent similar cases as to any principle which may have been decided."
So, it may be appealed to in other cases, but is not binding on them. One could just as well, and probably should, appeal to the decision concerning LAP, SJC 2007-08, Judgment 1:
"Based primarily upon these assertions in his testimony, Presbytery’s brief repeatedly asserts that TE Wilkins claims no further exceptions, does not overtly deny or expressly contradict the teaching of the confession and, therefore, cannot be found to be in violation of its teaching (See, e.g. Preliminary Brief at I.1 and I.6). Similarly, the Presbytery’s answer to the dissent of a presbyter to LAP’s decision not to bring process against TE Wilkins asserted that TE Wilkins does not contradict or deny the teachings of the Confession. The standard adopted by LAP suggests that an “exception” only occurs where the stated position of the party being examined denies or contradicts the teaching of the Constitution. That standard is not in keeping with our Constitution (see BCO 21-4 and RAO 16-3(e)(5))."
The reasoning in 2007-08 seems more consistent with Scripture, our Standards, and our form of government.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend reading through the LAP SJC decisions on Wilkins, especially SJC case 2007-08. Many of Rayburn's arguments for Leithart parallel those of LAP on Wilkins.
Having read the transcript of Lane's testimony, I am wondering why men such as Rick Phillips, J. Pipa and J.L. Duncan did not testify in addition to Lane.
ReplyDeletePatrick raises a good question. Where are the PCA celebrities who were so quick to stand up and speak to this issue at the 2007 GA? Are they waiting for the inevitable SJC trials?
ReplyDeleteLane, Jason, and others. Thank you for your faithfulness in serving your church and your savior in the way you have.
That's a great question. Why wasn't RC Sproul called as a witness? He was pretty able to convince the GA a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should be very thankful for men like Jason. While many (mostly in remote locations) have sniped from blogs and the relative safety of a computer screen, Jason had a problem, and used the system proscribed for him to address it. Tally ho!
Musings,
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend reading through the LAP SJC decisions on Wilkins, especially SJC case 2007-08. Many of Rayburn's arguments for Leithart parallel those of LAP on Wilkins.
Yes, that issue is key, and believe me, it will be argued by us!
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteHaving read the transcript of Lane's testimony, I am wondering why men such as Rick Phillips, J. Pipa and J.L. Duncan did not testify in addition to Lane.
Well, suffice it to say that I asked some high-profile men to testify, and they refused.
In the end, I wanted a Bible/theology guy and a history guy (remember, our time was limited), and Horton clearly fit the latter description. And when I found out that Lane had actually read everything Leithart has written, I felt that he'd be perfect.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteCan you share the reasons for their refusal? Since this was such a high profile case and an important one, I am surprised by this, esp. in light of their public opposition to FV. What kind of message does their refusal send?
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, it has been so long now that I don't remember.