Spokane7
49°
February 9, 2010 in City
Morning Star abuse case goes to jurors
Jurors in the Morning Star Boys’ Ranch trial began deliberations Tuesday afternoon after opposing attorneys tried to define the case as all about accountability or all about profit.
“This case is about years and years of a gross violation of the public trust that continues today,” said Daniel Fasy, attorney for Kenneth Putnam, who is suing the suing the group home for troubled boys where he was a resident in 1988-89.
“What does Mr. Putnam want?” asked Morning Star attorney Jim King. “Well, he wants monetary compensation.”
Putnam, 34, says the ranch’s director, the Rev. Joseph Weitensteiner, and counselor Doyle Gillum, now deceased, molested him. His is the first of 19 lawsuits against the ranch scheduled for trial in Spokane County Superior Court.
To support Putnam’s case that the ranch knew or should have known about ongoing abuses, Fasy cited the testimony of five witnesses who said they too were abused at the ranch.
One of the witnesses, Michael Clarke, who claims to have been abused on 15 to 20 occasions while a resident of the ranch in 1961-62, said Weitensteiner gave him $2,000 in 2006 to buy his silence.
In his closing arguments, King weighed the credibility of the accusers — particularly that of Clarke, who has a criminal history that includes counterfeiting and theft — against that of Weitensteiner, who has served the community for 50 years.
“Father Weitensteiner may be many things, but I think you will have to agree he is not an unintelligent man,” King said, asking the jurors whether they can really believe the priest would pay hush money to Clarke in a public place in front of a witness.
Fasy pointed to the testimony of plaintiff’s witness Douglas Poppen, an expert in group homes for boys, who said he was “shocked and appalled” by the standard of care at Morning Star, particularly its methods of corporal discipline. Fasy asked the jury to consider why Morning Star’s attorneys did not bring their own expert witness to counter that testimony.
“Where is their Doug Poppen?” Fasy asked.
In his closing argument, King responded, “Exhibit 388 is my Mr. Poppen,” referring to a state audit of the boys’ ranch at the time Putnam was a resident. The licensors found no deficiencies, and credited the ranch for its recreational and social programs for residents.
King asked the jurors to consider how many times they themselves have been alone with one or two children and to consider how vulnerable they could be to false accusations.
He also cited the testimony of Jeff Benz, who was on Weitensteiner’s boat the day Putnam claims to have been abused. Benz testified in a deposition read during the trial that he saw no evidence of inappropriate behavior.
“Thankfully, there is a witness independent of Weitensteiner and Putnam,” King said.
In his rebuttal, plaintiff’s lead attorney Tim Kosnoff called Morning Star’s defense a “classic case” in which “you abuse children and then when they end up in prison or abusing drugs, you blame them.”
What Putnam really wants, Kosnoff told the jurors, “you don’t have the power to give … to be made to feel like he is not garbage.”
Rights panel poorly understood 
skeugster on February 09 at 6:35 p.m.
For some ideas about juries see http://www.washcourts.com/?p=375
skeugster on February 09 at 7:52 p.m.
Judge O’Connor’s jury instructions and the responsibility of Ashley Knoedding, Judicial Assistant, for the protection of the jury and its work — http://www.washcourts.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=382&message=7
concernedspokanite on February 10 at 6:43 a.m.
If the jury bases its decision soley on Michael Clarkes testimony they are looking at the wrong person. He is a hibitual liar and thief. Clarke is currently in prision, again, and his testimony is should be thrown OUT! I do not know if the charges of abuse are valid or not but to listen to a felon who seeks attention at any cost is wrong.
MichaelAlanJR on February 24 at 3:43 p.m.
The “concernedspokanite” stated Michael Clarke is a “felon who seeks attention at any cost”, he may be a felon but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t sexually molested. Just because he has lied in the past doesn’t mean anything, maybe he wouldn’t be so screwed up if the parental figures and mentors at the ranch didn’t pervert his mind and corrupt his heart.. Before you are to quick to make a retraction let me say this, I’m defending what I know to be right and what I have SEEN to be RIGHT.
I base my theory on fact and I’ve decided to do everything I can for the men taking a stand against Joe W., I offer full and complete support to the victims of Rev. Joe, and anything I can do to help the case I plan on doing.
I feel the need to say this too; I have a city theft on my record from two years prior and with your quickness to jump at someone’s public record I thought that would be useful information. (someone’s criminal record or poor choices made in the past should not be used to determine the truth of what’s happening now)