Superior Court rules for E.P. City Councillor Joseph Larisa, overturning Ethics Commission

Superior Court Associate Justice Susan McGuirl has issued a decision, reversing the Ethics Commission's finding against former East Providence City Councillor Joseph Larisa. The Commission had found a violation of the Ethics Code because Larisa, while still serving on the City Council, had appeared on behalf of a client before the East Providence Probate Court. Larisa filed an administrative appeal to the Superior Court. Judge McGuirl reviewed the convoluted set of regulations upon which the Commission relied and concluded that there was no knowing and willful violation. It should be noted that Larisa appeared in the Probate Court pro bono. Judge McGuirl's decision was released on September 4, and the Ethics Commission has the right to seek review SCORI by way of a petition for certiorari.

My interview on Sean Herriott's Podcast, "Faith as a Second Language"

Sean Herriott interviewed me for today's edition of his podcast Faith as a Second Language. The topic was the certiorari petition filed by the Diocese of Baton Rouge, seeking review of a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that required a local priest to break the sacramental seal of the confessional.

Louisiana Diocese asks SCOTUS to protect priest from breaking seal of confessional

The Diocese of Baton Rouge has filed a Petition for Certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a decision that would require a priest there to reveal the contents of a young girl's confession. The case involves the duty of "mandatory disclosure" that can apply when an adult is aware of the abuse of a child. This case involves an allegation that the girl informed the priest of abuse committed by a parishioner. The Diocese maintains that priests are strictly forbidden from revealing matters disclosed in the confessional, on pain of severe ecclesiastical penalty. Given the posture of the case -- the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings -- certiorari at this stage may be more of a long shot than usual. h/t Howard Bashman

Indecent exposure for wearing see-through "compression shorts?"

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has held that, even though the defendant's buttocks and genitals were covered, they were visible through his "see-through" compression shorts. That's indecent exposure under the "open and gross lewdness" statute, and the conviction was therefore affirmed. Commonwealth v. Coppinger