Attorneys for a Roman Catholic congregation of priests and brothers want a judge to exclude the word “grooming” from being employed in the case of an upcoming trial alleging sexual abuse by a priest, saying the term was not in use at the time of the 1970s events.
The plaintiff is identified only as John SB Roe LA in his Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit brought against the Oblate Fathers Western Province Inc., a corporate entity associated with the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate.
Roe alleges he was sexually molested by the Rev. Ruben Martinez, a former assistant pastor at Holy Family Catholic Church in Wilmington.
According to the lawsuit filed in January 2022, the alleged abuses occurred in 1973-75 when Roe was 9 to 13 years old. His attorneys’ court papers state that the plaintiff was groomed by Martinez and that the priest convinced the plaintiff into going into the rectory along with other altar boys under the pretext of being shown new wrestling moves.
Roe contends that once inside the rectory he and the other altar boys were forced to strip down and either lie on the floor blindfolded or wrestle each other in their underwear while Martinez took photos of them.
Roe did not tell anyone about the alleged abuse until 1996, three years after Martinez had already been removed from any contact with children, the defense lawyers write in their court papers.
Defense attorneys further state that the term “grooming” should not be utilized by the plaintiff’s lawyers to describe Martinez’s alleged initial tactics with the plaintiff because allowing them to do so would be a “retroactive application of some additional duty” owed by the Oblates that is improper as a matter of law and evidence.
The use of the term “grooming” was not adopted by society or even the FBI until 1979 or later, long after the relevant time frame of Roe’s alleged molestations, making the type of testimony irrelevant and prejudicial, according to the Oblates’ attorneys’ court papers.
“Even if this court were to find some arguable relevance — which (the Oblates maintain) that it should not — the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues and misleading the jury is overwhelming,” the Oblates’ lawyers further write in their court papers.
The limited probative value of such evidence, if any, derives only from showing the “evolution of societal expectation,” not from establishing whether the Oblates’ conduct at the time of the alleged actions was reasonable under the then-existing norms, the Oblates’ attorneys state in their pleadings.
Trial is scheduled Monday. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is not a defendant in the lawsuit.