Protest Against the PNWP SJC Decision Regarding TE Peter Leithart: Procedural Issues, Part One

This is the next section of my Protest against the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, which has been filed with the stated clerk.

***

In addition to what I consider to be the obvious theological errors made by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery in their acquittal of TE Leithart, there are some procedural and tactical issues that my conscience demands I address for the record.

Commissioner Bias

The first concerns a motion made by one of the members of the trial’s judicial commission. We read in the transcript:

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 against your motion is it should not be raised until each one of us has had an opportunity to read each page thoroughly of 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.

Thankfully the defense expressed their disapproval with this motion and it was voted down in chambers by the rest of the commissioners, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the commissioner in question can said to have been objective and unbiased when, immediately after the prosecution rested its case, he moved to dismiss it entirely due to lack of evidence, despite the fact that he, by his own admission, had not even read the evidence that was supposedly so lacking. It seems to me that any reasonable person would conclude from this that at least one member of the judicial commission was biased and unwilling to give the prosecution a fair hearing, which calls into question the integrity of the entire process.