Canon Law Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Internal Practices of the Catholic Church

This case arises from the alleged sex abuse of minors by Father Walter Emala. Gregory Valancius alleged that sometime in 1968 or 1969, he was sexually abused by Emala while he was employed by the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Valancius brings this case alleging multiple tort claims against the Diocese of Nashville because he believes it had knowledge of Emala's sexual abuse of minors as early as 1958, but the Nashville Diocese failed to warn the Archdiocese about Emala.

The Catholic Diocese of Nashville filed a motion to exclude Gregory Valancius' expert witness Robert W. Zilliox's testimony at trial.

Canon Law Expert Witness

Robert Warren Zilliox has an advanced degree in canon law from The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Since 2023, Zilliox has been asked to offer an expert opinion in numerous cases of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults in the context of religious organizations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church.

Want to know more about the challenges Robert Zilliox has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Based upon his education and experience within the Catholic Church, Zilliox applied Canon Law to Valancius' allegations of sexual abuse by William Emala. His expert witness report summarizes the career of Emala and the accusations of sexual abuse of minors, including Plaintiff. Then, Zilliox provided a historical review of the Catholic Church legal system, documenting the development of Canon Law and how the standard of care and ordinary care apply within the Catholic Church, especially regarding child sexual abuse. Zilliox explained that the standard of care is incorporated in Canon Law based on the Sixth Commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery. He concluded that Emala violated the Sixth Commandment based upon Valancius' allegations of sexual abuse by Emala. According to Zilliox, "the policies and procedures of the Catholic Church consider Emala's behavior not only immoral but also criminal."

Based on his understanding of Canon Law, Zilliox opined that the policies and procedures of the Catholic Church at the time Valancius was allegedly abused by Emala required that the Diocese of Nashville investigate and take action against Emala. After reviewing documents between the Diocese of Nashville, the Archdiocese of Baltimore, and Emala, Zilliox concluded, among other things, that:

1. The Diocese of Nashville was on notice of Emala's sexual misconduct of boys since 1958.

2. Notwithstanding its notice, the Diocese of Nashville made no investigation.

3. The Diocese of Nashville "grossly violated the standard of care" by encouraging Emala to seek therapy, which allowed him to continue ministering.

4. In his professional opinion, "the Diocese of Nashville failed to exercise the standard of care with respect to the knowledge and actual notice of abuse by" Emala.

5. The "most likely scenario is that the Diocese of Nashville did warn Baltimore about Emala."

6. There was a coordinated effort between Nashville and Baltimore to allow Emala to obtain a new assignment.

7. The abuse to Valancius "could have been prevented" had the Diocese of Nashville applied the standard of care.

Analysis

The Court found Zilliox's expert witness testimony problematic. First, Zilliox usurps the role of the Court to instruct the jury on the applicable law. There is no doubt that it is singularly "the sole province" of the Court to instruct the jury on the law.

Second, Zilliox usurps the role of the jury to determine the facts, apply the law, critically determine the credibility of witness testimony, and weigh the documents presented at trial.

Third, allowing Zilliox to opine on Canon Law and the internal practices of the Catholic Church relative to reports of child sexual abuse based on the Catholic Church's view of the Sixth Commandment violated the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Here, the expert testimony of Zilliox would inject Canon Law into the jury's resolution of this case. But precluding his testimony would ensure that Plaintiff's claims are resolved solely on neutral legal principles. As the Plaintiff recognizes, Zilliox "grounds his standard-of-care opinions on identified, pre-1968 canonical sources—particularly the 1917 Code, the 1962 Crimen sollicitationis, and the Holy See's 1961 Instruction—uses them to analyze the specific documents in this record, consistent with his training as a canon lawyer and tribunal judge." By doing so, he upsets the balance created by the Tennessee Supreme Court. If the Court allowed Zilliox to do so, the ecclesiastical bar is implicated.

Turning to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Court is required to determine if Zilliox's testimony "is the product of reliable principles and methods." To do so, the Court must consider and evaluate Canon Law and its application by Zilliox to support his opinion. This would result in conversion of Valancius' tort claims into an "assault on the religious doctrines, practices, and customs of the Roman Catholic Church." As a result, the Court would no longer apply neutral laws to resolve the alleged tort claims. Again, the result is to exclude Zilliox's testimony at trial.

Held

The Court granted Catholic Diocese of Nashville's motion to exclude Gregory Valancius' expert witness Robert W. Zilliox testimony at trial.

Key Takeaway

Expert opinions must stop short of embracing the legal terminology that frames the ultimate legal conclusion that the jury must decide.

Case Details: