Umm…For rather obvious reasons… the First Amendment…there are no governmental licensing requirements to become a minister. Whether a particular person can become a minister depends wholly on the particular denomination.
It is my understanding that some mainstream Protestant faiths require a degree from a Divinity School, but others do not. Thus, my understanding is that Rev Al Sharption is an ordained Baptist minister, but completed only two years of college–not in theology. (I don’t want to get into a political debate re Sharpton; I am only pointing out that he is an ordained minister without a divinity degree.)
Certainly, I think it can be anticipated that SOME congregations would not want a minister who had been convicted of a sex offense, but I think if Labrie stays out of trouble it’s probable that he could be ordained as a minister at a future time.
I personally, think Labrie’s claim that he wants to be a minister was just part of the spin. It’s possible a young man of faith could make the “mistake” that Labrie made. I doubt though that he’d delete over 100 email messages from his computer and “Deny until I die” a la Labrie. But, of course this is speculation on my part.
Moreover, the computer charge may be appealed. If an appeal is successful, Labrie won’t have to register. Even if he does, my understanding is that Labrie can petition to be removed after 10 years. Since he’s got four years of college and, depending on the denomination, 2-3 years of Divinity School plus some internship type thing—I’m not Protestant, just basing this on the experience of a couple of young ministers I know about—it would be almost 10 years before he’s eligible.
Now getting into college and Divinity School is different story, of course,but if he stays out of trouble and convinces the leaders of his faith of his sincerity, I don’t think it’s out of the question.
Please understand that I agree that it’s a terrible thing to have to register as a sex offender. I’m just saying that I don’t see this conviction as an absolute bar to becoming a minister.
Just an observation: I think it’s interesting that the reports have mentioned Labrie was a soccer player, an A student and a prefect, but no mention of any church or religious activities/accomplishments (other than the “divine intervention” visited upon him when he was with the victim) have been named.
Maybe they’ll all come out in the pre-sentencing reports and at the sentencing.
Were there any testimonials as to his character during the trial? I haven’t read of any in the newspaper reports. Will there be time for people to speak in his favor at the sentencing?
I expect more info will come out during sentencing to shed light on labrie’s character, good or bad. At this point, there’s likely been a lot of spin from both sides. I too believe the “minister” stuff was spin, perhaps even something used to gain admittance to Harvard in the first place. Does anyone know whether the sentencing hearings will be made public?
I think there has been too much emphasis in the media that he was going to Harvard and that now that’s probably not going to happen. If he really wants to be a minister there is no huge reason to go to Harvard. It’s not like getting a degree from Harvard is going to make someone a more desirable minister.
Legal analysts out there, remind me of how the prosecution was able to get in the testimony of the detective, who explained the statements made by the defendant during the investigation (denying he penetrated her, etc.) I know the police testimony must have been admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule but can’t recall the technicalities (l have not used my law degree in 20+ years).
I do recall that the various “I boned her” statements Labrie made to his roommate/friends got in as statements against interest.
Well, again, I’m not in NH and I don’t do criminal law but…I don’t think the hearsay rule applies at all.
The police officer is NOT testifying to the truth of what Labrie told her. She is ONLY testifying that he told her. So, say my neighbor says to me “Mr. X complained to my boss and got me fired.” Mr. X’s car is “keyed” shortly thereafter. I can not testify as to the reasons my neighbor was fired, i.e., I can’t testify to the TRUTH of my neighbor’s statement that X’s complaint is why he was fired. I CAN testify that my neighbor made the statement, which would be evidence that my neighbor had a beef with Mr. X.
So, here, the police officer didn’t testify to prove that Labrie did not have sex with his accuser. She’s ONLY testifying that he told her that. There’s no hearsay involved as long as what he told her isn’t being offered to prove the statement. She has personal knowledge of what Labrie told her–not of the TRUTH of what he told her–but just of what he told her.
Alternatively, if the police officer has to use her notes, it’s past recollection recorded. Say it was a running a red light case than went to trial 3 years later. The cop doesn’t really remember what the driver told him or anything else, but he wrote it down at the time. It would be admissible as past recollection recorded.
Another exception would be a record kept in the normal course of business. A police report would qualify as long as the police officer had to make this report as part of his duties and regularly followed the same procedure. It’s just like a business record. Howeve, evaluative reporrs are usually kept out. So, if the officer wrote “I think Labrie is lyng through his teeth” that would be kept out.
Again, I don’t do criminal law…it would be better if someone who does waded in…
Exactly who has done this? I think two or three people have indicated that they think BOTH of the kids were “promiscuous” by THEIR definition.
Okay, this is the police version of what he said to them while being questioned without a lawyer, and probably without a parent.
You may not agree, but I regard anything he said to the police as very different from testimony under oath. Don’t forget, the police can–and frequently do–lie to people they are questioning. I don’t see this as invalidating the rest of his testimony under oath at all. (It certainly doesn’t validate it either.) What does “wavered” mean in this context, anyway? As far as I’m concerned, this is simply a typical police effort to cast him as guilty.
Obviously, Carney is doing his job as a defense attorney, but he is not likable. I wish the reporter had called him out on his characterizations of the girl. No means no, JW.
Was anyone here impressed by Carney’s handling of this case? Having read so much about him prior to the trial, I guess I was expecting more. Granted, he was late to the game and a lot had transpired with the prosecution and the defense before he came on board, including the many hours of police questioning without representation. And we were only privy to short clips of him in the courtroom. We’ll see if he has success with an appeal and the sentencing phase.