Bishop Robert Finn says the law as applied to him is vague and unconstitutional (2-16, A4, “Bishop’s team fights charges”). The law seems clear to me.
Any person, especially in authority, is obligated by the church and civil law to report suspicious child abuse. Defense claims the grand jury falsely implied a legal duty on Bishop Finn under the reporting statute.
Because the church has a reporter agent, Bishop Finn is relieved of any further obligation?
So now would that mean the reporter, and not the bishop, must bear the brunt?
Who knows? Maybe this false argument would fly with a jury, but I find it indefensible.