Archive

ShareThis Page
Former Lower Burrell priest waives sex assault charge to court | TribLIVE.com
Valley News Dispatch

Former Lower Burrell priest waives sex assault charge to court

Tribune-Review
| Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:18 p.m
vndjohnsweeney092017
Chuck Biedka | Tribune-Review
The former Rev. John Thomas Sweeney leaves district court in Allegheny Township on Wednesday Sept. 20, 2017, after he waived to court a charge of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy 25 years ago.

A former Lower Burrell priest accused of molesting a Catholic school student 25 years ago waived the charge to court Wednesday, but his attorney insists the case will end because the legal statute of limitation has expired.

The retired Rev. John Thomas Sweeney , denies he sexually assaulted a 10-year-old boy who attended St. Margaret Mary Church school between September 1991 and June 1992. Sweeney was church pastor.

Court documents state the alleged victim didn’t report the abuse until last year after watching “Spotlight,” the Academy Award-winning movie about sexual abuse by Catholic priests.

Sweeney, 74, is charged with one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

Sweeney told reporters Wednesday, “no comment.”

He was most recently assigned to Holy Family Parish in West Newton before he retired in December.

Sweeney’s attorney, Francis R. Murrman, said his client is having a tough time. Sweeney is toward the end of life and under stress, he said.

According to Daniel J. Dye, senior deputy state attorney general, the alleged victim is a 35-year-old man on military deployment.

If a preliminary hearing had been held Wednesday, Dye would have asked an attorney general’s agent to read the alleged victim’s grand jury testimony into the court record. “That is allowed at this level,” Dye said.

The alleged victim, however, would be required to testify in Westmoreland County Court if the case goes to trial.

Outside district court, Murrman said the charging papers don’t list the birth date for the alleged victim.

“It appears that the charge was filed five years past the statute of limitations,” Murrman said.

The state changed the age when a victim can file charges.

Murrman is arguing that the state’s amended child abuse law only gave the alleged victim in this case until age 30 to contact prosecutors.

However, the chief prosecutor in this case contends lawmakers set the age in this case at 50.

“I am asking the attorney general (Josh Shapiro) to review this, and if he agrees to dismiss the charge,” Murrman said.

Otherwise, Murrman said he will file a motion to have a county judge dismiss the charge.

The state Legislature’s last amendment of the law gives victims up to age 50 to go forward with child sexual assault allegations.

So Murrman believes in this case, the law would allow the alleged victim to be up to 30 years old before reporting an accusation, not 50.

“We are ready to go to trial,” Dye said.

A grand jury concluded that Sweeney’s alleged actions supported charges of indecent assault and corrupting the morals of a minor, but Dye said the statute of limitations pertaining to those charges expired before the incident was reported to police.

Chuck Biedka is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-226-4711, cbiedka@tribweb.com or via Twitter @ChuckBiedka.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.