you're reading...
Bob Jones University, Fundamentalism, News, Sex Abuse, Uncategorized

Ernie Willis Appeals to the N.H. Supreme Court

Back in June, I wrote about how Ernie Willis wanted a new trial, even before he was sentenced. You can read that post here.

Sure enough, he’s appealing to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, according to the Concord Monitor.

Here’s what the article says:

Before jurors convicted Ernest Willis of forcibly raping his teenage babysitter twice in 1997, they heard testimony from his former pastor at Trinity Baptist Church, who said Willis confessed to twice having sexual contact with the 15-year-old girl and described himself as the “aggressor.”

Now attorneys for Willis, who was sentenced in September to 15 to 30 years in prison, are seeking to challenge the admission of that testimony with an appeal to the state Supreme Court, asking the justices to consider whether it was a mistake for a Merrimack County Superior Court judge to decide that conversations between Willis and former Trinity Baptist pastor Chuck Phelps weren’t protected by religious privilege.

The question is one of 14 listed in Willis’s notice of appeal, which was accepted by the Supreme Court last month. Besides the decision to allow Phelps’s testimony, public defenders Donna Brown and Brooksley Belanger want the court to consider whether Judge Larry Smukler erred in allowing other evidence to be admitted during the trial, including testimony that Willis invoked his right to an attorney in 1997 and did not at that time give a statement to the police.

In the notice of appeal, the attorneys also raise questions about Smukler’s decision to deny their motions to set aside Willis’s verdicts, in which they argued that jurors didn’t have enough evidence to convict Willis because the victim said she couldn’t remember details about the rapes. And they indicate questions about the court’s decision not to dismiss certain jurors, including a woman who knew one of the witnesses.

Briefs have not yet been filed, so it’s unclear what the focus of Willis’s appeal will be. But all 14 questions are not likely to make it into the appeal, said Chief Appellate Defender Christopher Johnson, whose office will be handling the case going forward.

“It’s certainly possible we could raise 14 issues, but that would be exceptionally unusual,” Johnson said. Since the trial transcript isn’t complete, the appellate defenders haven’t yet reviewed the questions from Brown and Belanger and met with the attorneys to discuss the most significant issues, he said.

To win an appeal, Johnson’s office must demonstrate that a significant error occurred during the trial stage of the case.

In Willis’s trial in May, Judge Larry Smukler ruled before Phelps took the stand that the pastor’s conversations with the defendant weren’t protected by religious privilege, which is provided for in the rules governing state court proceedings.

Those rules say that an ordained minister isn’t required to disclose a confession made to him in his “professional character as spiritual advisor” unless the confessor waives the privilege.

For the two conversations in question in Willis’s case, Smukler said the religious privilege didn’t apply because Willis’s statements weren’t confessions. The first conversation happened after Phelps got a call from a church member about an emergency involving the girl, Tina Anderson.

At Anderson’s house, Phelps learned that girl was pregnant, and Willis was the father. He called Willis the next morning and asked him to come to his office, where Willis admitted to having sexual contact with Anderson twice, according to Phelps’s testimony.

That doesn’t count as a confession, Smukler said, because Willis hadn’t attempted to seek guidance or counseling from Phelps, and the pastor called for the conversation as part of an “investigation” he was conducting into whether church rules had been broken.

Smukler said the same reasoning applied to the second conversation in question, which happened on the same day as the first and involved Willis telling Phelps that he had been the “aggressor” in his conduct with Anderson.

But beside the investigative purpose of the conversation, Willis’s wife and the pastor’s wife were also present, meaning Willis waived any privilege to keep the statements confidential, Smukler said.

And even if Willis’s conversations with Phelps were considered privileged, he waived that right after he talked to the police about the subject matter in question, Smukler said.

Smukler made those arguments in a written order that expanded on the oral ruling he issued during Willis’s trial, after the attorneys questioned Phelps outside of the presence of jurors. Phelps said during that questioning that he had consulted an attorney before speaking to Willis, was aware of the religious privilege and didn’t want to violate it.

Johnson said yesterday it could take months for the trial transcript to be prepared and reviewed. He said the court won’t assign a due date for both sides to submit briefs before the transcript is complete.


You can read the original article here.

Willis deserves every bit of time behind bars that he can possibly get, and then some. And I hope this appeal does nothing but get more negative media attention for the fundamentalist leaders who are involved, mainly Chuck Phelps. I hope the transcript gets scrutinized and more people see how Phelps covered up more than he “reported” and shouldn’t even be trusted to be a pastor, much less on a board at Bob Jones University.

If you haven’t already, please sign the petition to remove Chuck Phelps from the Cooperating Board of Bob Jones University.

Related Post:

New Trial for Ernie Willis?



2 thoughts on “Ernie Willis Appeals to the N.H. Supreme Court

  1. Ernest Willis is a predator and a danger to society. Chuck Phelps is complicit in the crime in that he actively covered it up by removing the victim from police presence, hiding her in an other state.

    Posted by Cat Givens | November 12, 2011, 3:31 pm
  2. I knew Ernest Willis as a young boy and teenager. At one point I was his substitute teacher in public school. His father died when he was very young. Ernest was raised by his mother and from all indications, a remarkable young man. He moved from the area at college age. Later, he returned with a wonderful wife and as he appropriately said, “two precious” children.

    This situation is so sad for all parties involved and so out of character for this young man, one can only wonder what went wrong. The thing that comes to mind is that it is possible for good people to make horrible, often inexcusable mistakes, yes, even twice.

    Posted by teacher | February 29, 2012, 10:02 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archived Posts

%d bloggers like this: