ILNews

Little court guidance on repressed memory litigation results in trial court split

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Reaching into a person's mind to revive repressed memories is an issue that's settled law in one sense, but what remains unsettled is how such memories are used during litigation and whether a lawsuit should be tossed or allowed to proceed to trial.

The Indiana Supreme Court said these memories are reliable enough to be taken to a jury, but in the decade since the court ruled, it's yet to happen. Judges throughout the state and country have been divided in their findings about the time that should be allowed to file a lawsuit once memories are recovered about possible molestation that happened to someone during childhood, decades after the abuse may have happened.

Now, in the context of Catholic priest abuse cases, questions that have lingered within Hoosier caselaw since the early 1990s could be closer to a final bright-line resolution. That is, if attorneys decide to appeal a recent ruling from Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer, who on Jan. 20 declined to grant summary judgment in a Catholic priest abuse case. The trial judge's decision allows a jury to consider those repressed memories and keeps the Archdiocese of Indianapolis as a defendant.

Analyzing the issues involving repressed memories that are the subject of the Marion County cases and others statewide and nationally, Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington professor Alex Tanford said this might be the time for Indiana appellate courts to offer more guidance on the practical aspects of repressed memory cases. While it's settled law that repressed memory validity is something for a jury's consideration, he said state courts haven't yet worked out a bright line for the admissibility of this type of expert testimony or how those memories were actually recovered.

In John Doe RG v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, et al., No. 49D10-0509-CT-035390, a 44-year-old man claims that during the 1970s when he was a 10-year-old parishioner at St. Andrew Catholic Church, he was repeatedly molested by former Indianapolis priest Harry Monroe. He kept quiet about it until later in life, but when he started experiencing problems at work and in relationships, he began counseling in 2003. That's when an initial "image flash" of one of the abuse instances came to light, and more detailed memories followed before he eventually hired legal counsel. RG filed a lawsuit against the archdiocese in 2005 after going through counseling and rediscovering what had happened, and he accused the church of keeping the priest's abuse hidden.

Arguing for summary judgment, the archdiocese filed multiple motions - one that stated RG filed the suit past the twoyear statute of limitations that exists once he turned 18. But Judge Dreyer's ruling keeps the claims alive, finding that the man took due diligence in filing the suit after the memories resurfaced.

Judge Dreyer wrote that the man experienced a "tumultuous journey" after that initial image flash, and the subsequent confusion and avoidance all led up to his eventual lawsuit being filed just before the two years expired from the time the memories were initially recovered.

The guiding standard on whether repressed memories about childhood abuse can be used during litigation comes from the Indiana Supreme Court case of Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, 718 N.E.2d 738, 748 (Ind. 1999). Justices established a five-prong test that any adult plaintiff must meet when asserting a claim of tortious conduct committed against him or her as a child, and when that action is beyond the typical statute of limitations period for someone who isn't a parent.

A person must: show a parent didn't know about the conduct or worked to conceal it; prove what happened; show the defendant breached a duty to inform or engaged in wrongful conduct preventing the plaintiff from discovering what happened within that statutory timeframe; provide expert opinion supporting the repressed memory validity; and show the plaintiff exercised due diligence in commencing the action after a reasonable time of recovering memories.

That fifth prong is one of the most significant aspects of Judge Dreyer's ruling: whether due diligence was taken. Other judges throughout the state, including Marion Superior Judge John Hanley, have ruled opposite of what their colleague did in priest abuse cases involving repressed memories and due diligence. Allen Circuit Judge Alan Levine in August 2009 made a similar finding to what Judge Dreyer now has, finding that a client there used due diligence despite a lack of guidance from higher courts on what that means. That Fort Wayne case is still ongoing, though Judge Levine last year dismissed the archdiocese as a defendant.

Meanwhile, Judge Hanley in Marion County ruled in late 2007 that a litigant there wasn't diligent in filing a suit against a Catholic priest 25 years after alleged abuse; repressed memories led to re-discovering the abuse in November 2001 but the person waited more than 16 months to file the suit.

But in analyzing due-diligence standards on which other jurists have ruled differently, Judge Dreyer in the RG decision turned to the standards used to determine due diligence in medical malpractice cases.

"On the other hand, Indiana common law also shows an analogous bright line rule from some medical malpractice cases, that is, if the 'discovery' date is more than two years beyond the occurrence, the patient has two more years after discovery within which to file the action," he wrote. "There is no evidence of tardiness in this tale."

Aside from the issue of repressed memories, Judge Dreyer's ruling also deals with the church's respondeat superior: whether the archdiocese can be held liable for conduct of one of its employees, the priest. He ruled that Indiana precedent shows there is a factual question about whether there was any duty or fraudulent concealment, and that's something a jury should decide.

Judge Dreyer issued another ruling on a different case, John Doe CT v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, et al., No. 49D10-0509-CT-037304, that doesn't involve repressed memories but does relate to whether the archdiocese can be held liable. In that case, he decided differently and granted summary judgment on the respondeat superior claims but denied dismissal on duty and fraudulent concealment.

Attorneys expressed reactions that were consistent with the parties they represent in this litigation, but it's clear all sides are forced to handle the issues on a case-bycase basis because of the little guidance currently available.

Minnesota attorney Pat Noaker, who's representing RG and all 13 plaintiffs suing Father Monroe and the archdiocese, said this reinforces Indiana's tradition of letting cases go before a jury.

"Most other states allow repressed memory cases to go before a jury, and if that happens here, it could be the first time in Indiana," he said. "But the archdiocese has left no stone unturned in filing motions in this litigation, so it's tough to say what will happen next."

Indianapolis attorney John S. "Jay" Mercer, who represents the archdiocese, said a decision hasn't been made about whether to file an interlocutory appeal. He has until mid-February to make a decision.

"This does come as a surprise, particularly when a judge right across the hall has reached a different conclusion," he said about Judge Dreyer's ruling. "He doesn't make a final decision about repressed memory being reliable but that he'll allow that at this stage. I think it says that at this summary judgment stage, there's a lower standard of reliability than what you might have in court at trial. I'm not sure if this is a change in the law or not, but it's significant when you're bringing a new science into courts about how reliable that is."

Following the ruling, Mercer filed a motion for bifurcation so that a jury could split the issue of statute of limitations and then decide whether to proceed once that decision has been reached.

Mercer added that the church's position remains that repressed memory use is a new science that's heading in the direction of not being a recognized theory, and that it's being discredited. He also said a question could arise about whether repression expert witnesses will be allowed to testify or how reliable their theories might be, but that falls under the Evidence Rule 702 standard on expert witnesses.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT