Attorneys in County Attorney's Office (Utah County) Notifying Church of Bishops' Letters to Judges in Criminal Cases

[smac97]

First, from the Church Handbook:

Quote

38.8.24.1

Involvement or Documents in Legal Proceedings

Church leaders should not involve themselves in civil or criminal cases for members in their units without first consulting with Church legal counsel. This same policy applies to speaking with or writing to lawyers or court personnel, including through email.

Leaders should speak with Church legal counsel if, in their Church capacities, they:

• Believe they should testify or communicate in a legal matter.
• Are being required by legal process to testify or communicate in a legal matter.
• Are ordered to provide evidence.
• Are asked to provide documents or information voluntarily.
• Are asked to communicate with lawyers or civil authorities about legal proceedings, including sentencing or parole hearings.

However well intentioned, Church leaders sharing information in legal proceedings can be misinterpreted and damaging. Such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families. Following the Church’s policy also helps keep the Church from being inappropriately implicated in legal matters.

This policy is a prudent, protective safeguard that reflects both good legal judgment and wise pastoral practice. Here’s why it is reasonable and necessary:

1. Local Leaders Are Not Lawyers

Most bishops, stake presidents, and other Church leaders are volunteers with no legal training. When they speak or write to lawyers, courts, prosecutors, or parole boards — even with the best of intentions — their words can easily be taken out of context, twisted, or used as evidence in ways they never anticipated. Requiring consultation with Church legal counsel ensures that any involvement is handled by professionals who understand the legal risks and can provide clear guidance.

2. Protects Victims and Their Families

The handbook explicitly notes that “such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families.” Church leaders often hear highly sensitive, confidential information in interviews. If that information is shared in a legal proceeding (even innocently), it can retraumatize victims, breach trust, or interfere with ongoing investigations or prosecutions. The policy prioritizes the well-being of the vulnerable over any desire to “help” in court. 

3. Prevents the Church from Being Dragged Into Litigation

When a Church leader voluntarily inserts himself into a civil or criminal case (by testifying, writing letters, or providing documents), it can create the appearance that the Church is taking sides or has official involvement. This can expose the Church to:

• Subpoenas and discovery demands
• Claims of vicarious liability
• Public relations damage
• Unnecessary entanglement in secular legal disputes

The policy keeps the Church from being “inappropriately implicated in legal matters.”

4. Maintains Clear Boundaries Between Ecclesiastical and Civil Roles

The Church is not a court of law. Its leaders’ primary role is spiritual and pastoral. This rule helps preserve that distinction and prevents leaders from being pulled into adversarial legal processes where their statements could later be used against the Church, the member, or the victim.

5. Simple, Consistent, and Easy to Follow

The rule is straightforward: When in doubt, call Church legal counsel first. It applies whether the leader is volunteering information or being asked/ordered to provide it. This single, bright-line policy reduces confusion and protects both the leader and the institution from well-meaning but legally dangerous actions.

In short: The policy is not about hiding information or being uncooperative. It is about ensuring that any involvement in legal proceedings is thoughtful, legally sound, and does not cause unintended harm to victims, members, or the Church itself. It is a classic example of institutional wisdom that protects everyone involved.

Today in the Salt Lake Tribune:

When Latter-day Saint bishops write letters for criminal defendants, some Utah County prosecutors alert the church’s law firm

Quote

For more than a decade, some Utah County prosecutors have quietly informed lawyers for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after area bishops submitted letters supporting defendants in criminal cases — a practice the county’s top prosecutor says he didn’t know about and may move to stop.

This is a difficult topic.

Imagine that a large and well-known nonprofit group specializing in humanitarian aid has a director of operations in a state who, specifically referencing his position with the nonprofit group, writes letters on behalf of criminal defendants asking the judge for leniency in sentencing.  Further imagine that the person being sentenced has been convicted of a serious crime against a minor.  Further imagine that the minor's family has previously supported this nonprofit group, but now finds out that its state director is intervening in the criminal matter in which their child is the victim, and the intervention is on behalf of the now-convicted defendant. 

Would the nonprofit group be justified in enacting policies prohibiting its employees from involving themselves in such legal proceedings in relation to their position with the nonprofit group? 

Now, let's further imagine that the prosecutor, having learned of the director's letter asking for leniency (in which, again, the director is specifically writing in his capacity as the nonprofit group's state director), contacts the nonprofit group and asks if the nonprofit group is aware of what the state director is doing.  Is that an appropriate or inappropriate thing for the prosecutor to do?  It seems like the latter.

Quote

When bishops or other church leaders have written to judges asking for leniency — sometimes in cases involving serious sex crimes — prosecutors would notify the church’s outside law firm, Kirton McConkie, according to the Utah County Attorney’s Office. Church attorneys would then ask the bishop to retract the letter, in line with the faith’s policy that leaders not voluntarily weigh in on criminal cases.

Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said he learned of the practice only after The Salt Lake Tribune asked about it. His office said in a statement that he’s “considering how best to address” the issue, citing concerns that prosecutors could be interfering with what information reaches a sentencing judge.

This prosecutorial practice is what Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray is now “considering how best to address.” It raises legitimate concerns:

• Prosecutors (as officers of the court) were helping one party (the Church) retract information that the defense wanted the judge to see.
• A legal ethics expert quoted in the article (see below) calls this “wholly inappropriate” and compares it to a defense lawyer improperly inducing a witness not to testify.

Importantly, this prosecutorial notification practice is not required or authorized by the handbook. The handbook only tells Church leaders to consult legal counsel before they get involved. It does not instruct the Church to set up an informal surveillance system inside prosecutors’ offices.

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has discouraged local leaders from intervening in criminal cases. In its handbook, it tells church leaders that they should not involve themselves in civil or criminal cases for members of their congregation. They’re instructed to speak with church lawyers if they are subpoenaed or ordered to provide evidence in a case.

“However well intentioned, Church leaders sharing information in legal proceedings can be misinterpreted and damaging,” the handbook reads. “Such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families.”

The church echoed similar language in a statement to The Tribune, adding that when the church becomes aware that a leader has not followed this policy, “the Church contacts the leader and ensures he is aware of the policy and its purpose.”

Yet, bishops and other prominent members have continued to send letters on behalf of defendants — including a letter last summer from a dean at Brigham Young University.

In that letter, the dean wrote in support of a man accused of possessing child sexual abuse materials whom he had known because the man’s wife is the dean’s administrative assistant. The dean called the defendant a “deeply religious man” who followed all of the teachings of the Latter-day Saints faith.

“In our interactions he was always honest, kind, and trustworthy,” the letter reads. “I was completely shocked by his arrest.”

The prosecutor in that case did not alert church lawyers to the dean’s letter.

Here's a link to the story about the BYU dean: A BYU dean wrote in support of a man charged with child sex abuse crimes. It’s not an isolated case.

From this article:

Quote

Charged with 41 felonies tied to allegations that he possessed child sex abuse materials, the 44-year-old Utah County man had submitted letters to the court from those who knew him, and who assured a Utah County judge that he would be no risk to the community if he were released, despite the serious charges he was facing.

One was written by a Brigham Young University dean.

Grant Jensen began his letter by introducing himself as the dean of the College of Computational, Mathematical and Physical Sciences at BYU, the university owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He wrote about how he had known the defendant for 16 years, beginning when the man’s wife worked as his administrative assistant.

For as long as Jensen had known him, he wrote, the man had gone to church every Sunday — and followed all the teachings of the LDS Church, “avoiding all alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, smoking, drugs, etc.”

“I have no reason to believe he was not completely faithful to his wife,” Jensen wrote. “I believe he contributed generously (a full tithe). He accepted many assignments and served well. In our interactions he was always honest, kind, and trustworthy.”

What unfolded in that Utah County case reflects a broader practice in which Latter-day Saint bishops and other people connected to the church have vouched for defendants accused of serious crimes — even as the church itself has discouraged such interventions as potentially harmful.

The bishops and the BYU dean who wrote these letters were doing precisely what the handbook forbids: voluntarily inserting themselves into criminal proceedings by sending character letters to judges without first checking with Church legal. The policy does not prohibit the letters outright — it requires prior consultation so the Church can evaluate the risks.

I wonder whether these bishops (and the BYU dean) are doing this A) in knowing contravention of the Church's policy quoted above, or B) in ignorance of the policy.  If the former, then I think these bishops should be strongly reprimanded.  If the latter, then the Church needs to do much better in training bishops, perhaps including follow-up trainings to address common breaches of the Church's policies by bishops.  

Back to the original article:

Quote

But for about 15 years, some Utah County prosecutors have notified church attorneys when bishops submitted similar letters supporting defendants, according to the county attorney’s office. The practice began after lawyers with Kirton McConkie asked prosecutors to flag such letters, the office said.

Officials stressed there was never an “official policy” implemented, but acknowledged that some prosecutors have continued to comply with the request since, particularly if the bishop’s document was sent on church letterhead.

"The practice began after lawyers with Kirton McConkie asked prosecutors to flag such letters, the office said."

Wow. 

Quote

Bruce Green, who teaches legal ethics at Fordham University’s law school, said that it is “wholly inappropriate” for prosecutors to induce church leaders to withdraw letters that may have valuable information that a judge should consider at sentencing.

“If a defense lawyer engaged in analogous conduct — for example, inducing a witness not to give truthful testimony — prosecutors would be up in arms,” he said. “They would accuse the defense lawyer of professional misconduct, and perhaps even accuse the defense lawyer of obstruction of justice.”

Gray agreed that the practice “raises concerns about a defendant’s ability to present information to the sentencing court,” according to his office’s statement.

“Now that he is aware of the issue,” the statement reads, “Mr. Gray is considering how to best address it.”

To sum up: KM's "request" created an informal, one-way information pipeline from the prosecutor’s office to the Church’s legal team. Key problems with this practice:

1. It gives the appearance of collusion or favoritism. Prosecutors are supposed to be neutral officers of the court. Helping one party (the Church) suppress or retract information that the defense wants the judge to see at sentencing looks like the government is tilting the scales in favor of the Church.
2. It interferes with the sentencing process. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray himself acknowledged that this “raises concerns about a defendant’s ability to present information to the sentencing court.” Character letters from community leaders are generally considered legitimate mitigation evidence. Having the prosecution quietly help remove them undermines the defendant’s right to present relevant information.
3. Legal ethics concerns. The Fordham University legal ethics professor quoted in the article called the practice “wholly inappropriate,” comparing it to a defense lawyer improperly inducing a witness not to testify. Prosecutors inducing or facilitating the withdrawal of evidence that could benefit the defense is ethically dubious, even if no “official policy” existed.
4. The Church initiated the request. The article makes clear that Kirton McConkie asked prosecutors to start flagging these letters. From the Church’s perspective, this was perhaps seen as a reasonable risk-management step to enforce its handbook policy quickly. But it also created the very entanglement the handbook policy is designed to avoid.

I bet there have been some discussions between the Church and the KM lawyers about this.  Here's my preliminary assessment of what should happen, "Best Practices"-wise:

1. Utah County Attorney’s Office – Immediate Action Required

I think the County Attorney should formally end the informal notification practice immediately and put it in writing.

• Issue a clear internal directive to all prosecutors and staff: Do not notify Kirton McConkie, Church legal, or any other outside party when a bishop or Church leader submits a character letter.
• Treat such letters the same as any other mitigation evidence: evaluate them on their merits and let the judge decide.
• This restores neutrality and eliminates the appearance that the government is helping one religious institution suppress evidence in criminal cases.

This is not only the ethical thing to do — it is the legally safer course. As the County Attorney has already acknowledged, the practice raised legitimate concerns about defendants’ rights to present relevant information at sentencing.

2. The Church – Shift to Internal Accountability

The Church has every right to maintain and enforce Handbook § 38.8.24.1. However, I think that asking state prosecutors to functionally act as a sort of enforcement arm of the Church for this policy was a serious misstep.

I think this is a better way for the Church to go:

• Strengthen training and accountability for bishops and stake presidents. Make the policy crystal clear in training materials, emphasize the reasons (protecting victims, avoiding misinterpretation, preventing entanglement), and treat repeated violations as a serious leadership failure.
• When a bishop writes a letter in violation of the policy, the Church should handle it internally — contact the bishop directly, require retraction if appropriate, and address any pattern of non-compliance through ecclesiastical channels.  I also think violation of this policy should be construed as a serious breach of the bishop's duties to the Church, perhaps even warranting being released from the calling (same goes for the BYU dean and his job).
• Stop asking prosecutors (or any other government officials) to flag or notify them about these letters. That request created the very appearance of improper coordination the handbook policy is meant to avoid.

The Church’s current approach (contacting the bishop once they learn of the letter) is fine when they discover it legitimately. The problem was the proactive “tip line” arrangement with prosecutors.

Why This Combined Solution Works

• Restores proper separation: Prosecutors stay neutral; the Church enforces its own rules through its own channels.
• Protects victims: The handbook policy’s core purpose (avoiding damaging or misinterpreted Church involvement in criminal cases) is preserved without compromising the criminal justice process.
• Respects everyone’s rights: Defendants can still present mitigation evidence; the Church can still maintain its internal standards; victims are shielded from unintended Church statements in court.
• Reduces future scandals: Ending the informal pipeline removes the fuel for stories like this one.

Bottom Line

The Church has the right to its policy, but asking state actors to help enforce it was inappropriate and ultimately counterproductive. The County Attorney should shut down the notification practice, and the Church should double down on training its leaders rather than outsourcing enforcement to government officials.

Thoughts?  Some questions to get the ball rolling:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the Church's policy and its rationale?

2. Do you agree or disagree that Kirton McConkie should not have "asked prosecutors to flag such letters"?

3. Do you agree or disagree that the prosecutor's office should should formally end the informal notification practice?

4. Do you agree or disagree that the Church should take the steps in the bulleted list above (under "Shift to Internal Accountability")?

5. Do you think a bishop should be able to write a letter to a judge (such as those noted in the article) as long as he makes no reference to his ecclesiastical calling?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 8 by smac97

[webbles]

Your last question is hard.  I think ward leaders and stake leaders should be able to write a letter in their personal capacity with no reference to their church callings.  I don't think area leaders or higher should.  That's because an area leader is usually called for a much longer time while ward/stake leaders have shorter times.  So you could have a person who was the bishop during the actual crime but is no longer a bishop.  Should he be prevented from writing a letter?  He is no longer the bishop.

I do think Kirton McConkie shouldn't have asked for prosecutors to flag the letters.  That feels wrong and the prosecutors shouldn't have sent them the letters.

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

Your last question is hard. 

Yep.  Particularly if the bishop is being asked to submit a letter because of his calling.  Not disclosing or referencing it as the basis for the intended purpose (requesting leniency based on the bishop being a "character reference" of sorts) would seem to be dishonest.  But disclosing it contravenes the Church's (prudent) policy.  So regarding my last question, I lean towards a generalized "No, a bishop whose relationship with the defendant arises by way of the ecclesiastical relationship should not write a letter in any capacity."

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think ward leaders and stake leaders should be able to write a letter in their personal capacity with no reference to their church callings. 

I can see how this could work in limited circumstances.  I have lived in my ward for 20+ years, so I could be a good character reference for neighbors I have known a long time.  But if I were, while serving as bishop, to write a letter in my "personal capacity" and make no reference to my calling, and if the defendant's victim heard about the letter, would the potential for damage still be there?  Might the victim not parse out the "I wrote the letter in my personal capacity, not as the bishop" distinction?

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think area leaders or higher should.  That's because an area leader is usually called for a much longer time while ward/stake leaders have shorter times.  So you could have a person who was the bishop during the actual crime but is no longer a bishop.  Should he be prevented from writing a letter?  He is no longer the bishop.

Once he is no longer the bishop, the representative capacity ceases, so writing a letter is fine.

45 minutes ago, webbles said:

I do think Kirton McConkie shouldn't have asked for prosecutors to flag the letters.  That feels wrong and the prosecutors shouldn't have sent them the letters.

Yes, I agree with you there.  I think whoever asked at KM probably did not think through the ramifications when presenting the request.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quoting article:  For as long as Jensen had known him, he wrote, the man had gone to church every Sunday — and followed all the teachings of the LDS Church, “avoiding all alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, smoking, drugs, etc.”

“I have no reason to believe he was not completely faithful to his wife,” Jensen wrote. “I believe he contributed generously (a full tithe). He accepted many assignments and served well. In our interactions he was always honest, kind, and trustworthy.”

And Jensen obviously had no clue on how abusers hide behind a facade and use that to get into positions in which they have greater access to victims  or they could even be a good person in one way, but have uncontrolled compulsions in another.  And just because one controls himself with smoking and drinking doesn’t mean he controls himself in all other ways. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

If the latter, then the Church needs to do much better in training bishops, perhaps including follow-up trainings to address common breaches of the Church's policies by bishops.  

If it happens as often as it appears, circumstances seem to lean towards needs much more training imo.  
 

PS:  I find yours and weebles’ comments quite reasonable, so just assume my conclusions follow yours as far as the questions go besides the comment below. 

Edited May 8 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

.  Particularly if the bishop is being asked to submit a letter because of his calling.  Not disclosing or referencing it as the basis for the intended purpose (requesting leniency based on the bishop being a "character reference" of sorts) would seem to be dishonest. 

Just because someone is being asked to contribute because of their position (current or former) doesn’t mean they are acting in that position when they choose to act. Why would it be dishonest therefore not to mention they had or have a significant position?

A bishop is a human being and can give a reference on that basis.  He should of course inform the person asking he will only do it in a personal capacity and they are not to mention his position or former position.  That seems to cover the necessities for honesty as far as I can tell.  
 

Did I miss something (about why it was dishonest)?

Added to address something else:  thought I had read to the end. Hadn’t. Yes, it is a massive problem that a current bishop is almost inherently seen at least by members as always a representative of the Church, it’s a 24/7 calling where authority is never set aside makes it difficult for a current bishop not to be seen as a representative.  

Are these letters just read by the judge or do they read them in court?  If in court, I lean towards no appearance since the victim will, if present, have the visual memory of someone protecting their abuser who they believe for very good reasons should be protecting them.  

I also feel like there is a difference between sentencing and bail requests (I assume that was what the Dean’s letter was about).

I would say if it’s obvious that he is being asked solely because of his duties, for example because that was where his main interaction with the defendant came from or he’s one of the few people being asked to submit a letter, it shouldn’t be approved.

 If however, he has been a friend for years and interacted outside of church more than within and is one of many who was asked to contribute, then it becomes more iffy.  Seems like he should have a right to if he really wants to, but also needs to consider the victim, especially if a member of the ward.  Maybe that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. 
 

If it’s primarily about protecting the victim(s) or even an alleged victim in a case that hasn’t gone to trial, my inclination is to ban current bishops from participating.  But I wouldn’t ban them from speaking for the victim, so that doesn’t seem moral, legally balanced.  Hope I am never in a position to have to decide such a thing for myself.

Edited May 8 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If it happens as often as it appears, circumstances seem to lean towards needs much more training imo.  

Seems like more emphasis, and perhaps more cautionary exhortations and actual consequences for recalcitrant behavior, could also help.   

Serving as a bishop is tough job, and a very important one.  I took my five year stint quite seriously.  Having previously served in the military, and having spent many years as an attorney and a member of the bar, I had ample experience in subordinating my personal preferences in favor of fulfilling my duty to obey the law, and lawful orders, and maintain my fiduciary responsibilities.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 8 by smac97

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just because someone is being asked to contribute because of their position (current or former) doesn’t mean they are acting in that position when they choose to act. Why would it be dishonest therefore not to mention they had or have a significant position?

My comment about dishonesty pertained to a bishop not disclosing or referencing his then-in-place ecclesiastical position when writing the letter.  If the bishop is being asked to write a letter requesting lenience because of his ecclesiastical position, then I think it is unseemly, and perhaps dishonest, for the bishop to not disclose that to the judge.

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

A bishop is a human being and can give a reference on that basis.  

I suppose that depends on the circumstances.  Can you see, for example, how a bishop using his ecclesiastical position to bolster his request for lenience by be a problem?  The Church does not want that to happen.  Some victims may strongly resent a bishop "taking sides" in a civil or criminal dispute.

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

He should of course inform the person asking he will only do it in a personal capacity and they are not to mention his position or former position.  That seems to cover the necessities for honesty as far as I can tell.  

Perhaps.  But then we're still left with the violation of the Church's policy and the potential adverse impact on or reaction from the victim.

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did I miss something?

I'm not sure.

Today we have news that a Utah Supreme Court judge is resigning because there is a risk of the appearance of impropriety (and perhaps actual impropriety):

Utah Supreme Court justice resigns amid misconduct investigation

Quote

Utah Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen announced her resignation on Friday following allegations of misconduct and a pending investigation from top state leaders.

Hagen submitted her resignation to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. It is effective immediately. Hagen denied allegations of wrongdoing, citing concerns for her family as the reason for her decision.

In her brief letter, Hagen said she has upheld her “oath to the constitution and the ethical obligations” of serving in the judiciary during her time on the appeals and high courts.

Hagen framed the resignation as an effort to protect the privacy of her family and friends, and to avoid public scrutiny of the details surrounding her recent divorce.

“I would love nothing more than to continue serving the people of Utah as a Supreme Court Justice, but I cannot do so without sacrificing the privacy and well-being of those I care about and the effective functioning and independence of Utah’s judiciary,” she said.

There's quite a back story to this, so whether or not she actually did something wrong is still unclear to me.  However, even if she did nothing wrong, the risks associated with just the appearance of impropriety were, it seems, sufficient to require her to resign.

Quote

What are the allegations?

Tension between Utah’s executive, legislative and judicial branches of government reached a new high earlier this month when Cox and legislative leadership announced they would launch an investigation into alleged misconduct by Hagen.

A complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission contained allegations that Hagen had engaged in an improper relationship with an attorney who argued before the court in the case challenging the Legislature’s congressional map.

Hagen denied any wrongdoing, saying she recused herself from the redistricting case to avoid a potential conflict of interest. The court issued a statement saying the complaint was dismissed and should never have been released.

Cox suggested during a televised press conference last month that the Judicial Conduct Commission — composed of several appointed state lawmakers, judges, lawyers and members of the public — had not taken the allegations seriously enough.

In a joint statement on Friday, Cox, state Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz and Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Durrant addressed concerns about the state of judicial accountability in the state of Utah.

“The judicial, executive, and legislative branches are committed to working together on potential reforms to the Judicial Conduct Commission — ensuring it upholds the highest standards of accountability and earns the confidence of the people of Utah," the statement said.

Adams and Schultz said in a separate statement that they appreciated Hagen’s decision to resign, which they said was best for the institution. There will no longer by a further investigation related to the specific allegations, the statement said.

During his press conference last month, Cox said a timeline for the investigation into Hagen’s conduct was still uncertain. But, depending on the results, Cox said he would be willing to consider voting “no” in her retention election or supporting her impeachment.

“When you sign up to be a judge in this state, you get held to a higher standard. Period. Everyone knows this. This is part of the deal. If you want your personal life to always be personal, then don’t be a judge.” Cox said.

"Ensuring it upholds the highest standards of accountability and earns the confidence of the people of Utah."

Should we similarly hold bishops to a separate and higher "standard of accountability" while they are visibly functioning in that capacity?

"When you {accept a calling as a bishop}, you get held to a higher standard. Period."  Is that a correct and reasonable statement in your view?

Quote

Based on conversations with Hagen’s ex-husband, Tobin Hagen, the complaint alleged the justice and attorney David Reymann exchanged “suggestive” texts. Hagen and Reymann denied there was an inappropriate relationship.

However, Hagen cited close friendships, including with Reymann, as the reason for later voluntarily disqualifying herself from the case.

Note how Judge Hagen denied wrongdoing but recused herself anyway.  I think that is because it was not enough for her to avoid actual impropriety, she also had to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Perhaps bishops should similarly "recuse" themselves from writing letters that might constitute actual impropriety or even the appearance of it.  What are your thoughts about that?

Quote

Reymann has represented plaintiffs before the Utah Supreme Court in the redistricting case that resulted in new electoral boundaries last fall. Reymann has also worked as an attorney for the Deseret News and for the Utah Media Coalition, of which Deseret News is a member.

State Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, has since come out to say Hagen and Reymann’s relationship was a well known fact in Utah’s legal community, and one that Hagen did not try to hide at multiple social gatherings.

At the Utah Republican Party’s nominating convention in April, GOP chair Rob Axson launched a campaign to mobilize members to vote “no” on Hagen and Justice Jill Pohlman’s upcoming retention elections in November.

"Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, has since come out to say Hagen and Reymann’s relationship was a well known fact in Utah’s legal community, and one that Hagen did not try to hide at multiple social gatherings."

Hmm.  The "appearance of impropriety" is in play here.

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Added:  thought I had read to the end. Hadn’t. Yes, the problem that a current bishop is almost inherently seen at least by members as always a representative of the Church, it’s a 24/7 calling where authority is never set aside makes it difficult for a current bishop not to be seen as a representative.  

I'm not sure if there is an expectation of 24/7 bishopness.  But maybe the "risk of the appearance of impropriety" is itself enough to warrant bishops totally abstaining from writing such letters while serving in that calling, even if he withholds references in the letter to his calling.  The risk of implicating the Church is still there.  The risk of victims misunderstanding things is still there.

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it’s primarily about protecting the victim(s) or even an alleged victim in a case that hasn’t gone to trial, my inclination is to ban current bishops from participating.  But I wouldn’t ban them from speaking for the victim, so that doesn’t seem moral, legally balanced.  

I think the bishop overtly and publicly taking sides either way can create problems, hence the value of the policy instructing bishops to seek guidance on this issue form the Church.

While serving as my ward's bishop I encountered a very difficult circumstance, a genuine dilemma.  I called the Church's legal counsel and the helped me navigate the issue well.  I, an attorney myself with many years of experience, was grateful for this guidance.  

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hope I am never in a position to have to decide such a thing for myself.

I think the policy is a sound one.  Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can you see, for example, how a bishop using his ecclesiastical position to bolster his request for lenience by be a problem?  The Church does not want that to happen.  Some victims may strongly resent a bishop "taking sides" in a civil or criminal dispute.

I certainly do. 

If a bishop is using his position or recognizes someone else intends to, then I agree it is problematic to not be forthright on it, though my preference would be to refuse to submit a letter if the position was intended to make a difference. I don’t think it should be allowed for a bishop in his position as bishop except in cases where known harm will be done and no one would be pleading for leniency hopefully in that case, but for stronger measures. 
 

Quote

Perhaps.  But then we're still left with the violation of the Church's policy and the potential adverse impact on or reaction from the victim.

Yes, but I don’t see it as dishonest , only inappropriate (in most cases…what if the accused is a close family member, should not the bishop be able to speak for his son or daughter as a father or wife as a husband, parent as a child?).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps bishops should similarly "recuse" themselves from writing letters that might constitute actual impropriety or even the appearance of it.  What are your thoughts about that?

I agree with this. If the defendant only has a bishop to speak for him, seems like there might be a good reason for the bishop not to speak as maybe he is not as familiar with the defendant as he thinks.  If he has other people to speak for him, he doesn’t need a bishop speaking as a neighbor, not a bishop, to speak for him enough to take the risk of implying official church backing somehow.  Let the others do it.

Again, I would still allow a bishop to speak for a family member or someone he was part of the caregiving team for because I can imagine cases where the only ones able to speak up for someone would be a caregiver/family member. My daughter is one of those people.  No one else interacts with her enough on a frequent basis (she has great not so frequent contact relationships with doctors and extended family), so if by chance my husband was a bishop and somehow my daughter was accused of something, it makes sense for him to be a character witness.  

Curious if you (or anyone else) thinks a bishop should ask to be released if choosing to testify/write letters for a family member?  The level of stress alone would justify resigning imo because family will need his attention.  Now if a family member is found guilty and the bishop supported him for leniency claiming the family member was a good person and no risk when or was repentant and would never abuse again, I would find it hard to trust the bishop to be blunt as that is not a safe prediction in many cases.  
 

But if the case is not yet decided, I am not sure.  Probably trust would be based on whether or not I think his relative is guilty. 

Life is complicated. 

Edited May 9 by Calm

[longview]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Curious if you (or anyone else) thinks a bishop should ask to be released if choosing to testify/write letters for a family member?

A bishop asking to be released for the purpose of supporting a member has the appearance of impropriety. For a family member? Still questionable. The bishop needs to be faithful in deferring to higher church authorities and exercising patience and forebearance.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

For a family member? Still questionable. The bishop needs to be faithful in deferring to higher church authorities and exercising patience and forebearance.

So if you were a bishop and your son or daughter were arrested and charged with something you believed was false or at least not as bad as charged (maybe driving recklessly, but not DUI), you wouldn’t testify for them if your leaders told you they didn’t approve?

Not challenging you, just curious about the way you think about this. 

Edited May 9 by Calm

[longview]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

So if you were a bishop and your son or daughter were arrested and charged with something you believed was false or at least not as bad as charged (maybe driving recklessly, but not DUI), you wouldn’t testify for them if your leaders told you they didn’t approve?

It would be meaningless to try to influence the judge. Better to work closely with the defence team to expose the falsehoods and finding witnesses to "clear the air". If my child were proven to be guilty I would NOT stand in the way of the consequences. If the punishment imposed was too severe, there is always appeal.

I would listen to church authorities to best defend the reputation of the Lord's work for saving souls. Shawn Merriman (the infamous Mormon Madoff) was brought to justice and the Church did not try to blunt the bad publicity but stood by.

Edited May 9 by longview

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's a link to the story about the BYU dean: A BYU dean wrote in support of a man charged with child sex abuse crimes. It’s not an isolated case.

From this article:

 

Quote

Charged with 41 felonies tied to allegations that he possessed child sex abuse materials, the 44-year-old Utah County man had submitted letters to the court from those who knew him, and who assured a Utah County judge that he would be no risk to the community if he were released, despite the serious charges he was facing.

One was written by a Brigham Young University dean.

Grant Jensen began his letter by introducing himself as the dean of the College of Computational, Mathematical and Physical Sciences at BYU, the university owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He wrote about how he had known the defendant for 16 years, beginning when the man’s wife worked as his administrative assistant.

For as long as Jensen had known him, he wrote, the man had gone to church every Sunday — and followed all the teachings of the LDS Church, “avoiding all alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, smoking, drugs, etc.”

“I have no reason to believe he was not completely faithful to his wife,” Jensen wrote. “I believe he contributed generously (a full tithe). He accepted many assignments and served well. In our interactions he was always honest, kind, and trustworthy.”

What unfolded in that Utah County case reflects a broader practice in which Latter-day Saint bishops and other people connected to the church have vouched for defendants accused of serious crimes — even as the church itself has discouraged such interventions as potentially harmful.

If I were the judge and got a letter like this I would discount it as worthless. There is a weird dichotomy where many people imagine that people that do horrible things are some kind of ‘breed apart’ from the rest of society and they are obvious. That they imagine that not drinking alcohol and coffee and tea and doing a good job in a volunteer position and paying tithing is somehow proof that someone is no danger when they have child porn is just silly.

I have seen a lot of people (in and out of the church) who will talk about how pedophilia and rape and embezzlement and the like are horrible crimes but as soon as someone they like or are close to is caught doing it the excuses start coming out. There is a kind of invisible line where criminal is a designation for a type of person, usually a member of an outgroup. Crimes done by people in the ingroup are anomalies whereas crimes by the outgroup are to be expected and even anticipated.

Criminal becomes a label for a type of person and becomes unrelated to whether the person is actually committing crimes.

Edited May 9 by The Nehor

[let’s roll]

In most cases, I doubt judges ever see the letters.   While in law school (in the ‘80’s)I interned in the AG’s office for a couple of years and for part of that time worked with Adult Probation and Parole which, at that time, prepared Presentencing Reports for judges.  My understanding was that any correspondence sent to a judge’s chambers was forwarded, unopened, to APP for review.  APP would evaluate what portion of that correspondence, if any, would be included in the report.   In my experience in preparing roughly 50 PRs, there were letters submitted by Bishops in 3 or 4 of those.  We chose not to include any text from any of those but included a reference to the letter in a list of submitted character reference letters.  The letters were returned to the judges chambers with a copy kept by APP.

I also received a few phone calls from Bishops.  My recollection of those calls was that in each case the Bishop indicated that the convict’s family had requested the Bishop reach out.  I suspect all of those calls were made first to the judge’s chambers, with the judge’s staff then directing them to APP.  I would listen and let the Bishop know that I was sure the family would be grateful that he reached out.  I handled those as I did the letters.  The call was listed in the report but no detail was included.

[rpn]

I don't understand how church leaders can be so naive as to write on any member's behalf except about things s/he has actual knowledge about (I suppose he can look at how many times the rolls say he attended Sunday School, if his ward keeps such records) (and he can't do that to the extent he learned if from the perp's confession and/or the victims report).  Doing lots of good things doesn't give you a pass when you do really bad things.    Bishops who cave in to this sort of thing are just incredibly ill informed or equally wicked.   It is so unkind and unhelpful to assist an errant member from avoiding the natural consequences of their bad choices (even if, or maybe especially if they have juice in a community that means someone will take them seriously.   And when it happens it severely distresses the victims.

 

Edited May 9 by rpn

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

I don't understand how church leaders can be so naive as to write on any member's behalf except about things s/he has actual knowledge about (I suppose he can look at how many times the rolls say he attended Sunday School, if his ward keeps such records) (and he can't do that to the extent he learned if from the perp's confession and/or the victims report).  Doing lots of good things doesn't give you a pass when you do really bad things.    Bishops who cave in to this sort of thing are just incredibly ill informed or equally wicked.   It is so unkind and unhelpful to assist an errant member from avoiding the natural consequences of their bad choices (even if, or maybe especially if they have juice in a community that means someone will take them seriously.   And when it happens it severely distresses the victims.

 

I don't think bishops who do this have to be either ill informed or wicked, but I agree with everything else you've said.  

[The Nehor]

On 5/8/2026 at 11:53 PM, longview said:

It would be meaningless to try to influence the judge. Better to work closely with the defence team to expose the falsehoods and finding witnesses to "clear the air". If my child were proven to be guilty I would NOT stand in the way of the consequences. If the punishment imposed was too severe, there is always appeal.

I would listen to church authorities to best defend the reputation of the Lord's work for saving souls. Shawn Merriman (the infamous Mormon Madoff) was brought to justice and the Church did not try to blunt the bad publicity but stood by.

This very much assumes that the justice system will somehow inevitably do the right thing and reach the right conclusion.

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This very much assumes that the justice system will somehow inevitably do the right thing and reach the right conclusion.

So true. For example, the O.J. Simpson trial was abominable. Lead prosecutor Marcia Clark behaved shamefully, always preening for the camera.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, longview said:

So true. For example, the O.J. Simpson trial was abominable. Lead prosecutor Marcia Clark behaved shamefully, always preening for the camera.

So you decided to go with a misogynistic take when coming up with an example of what is wrong with the justice system. Classy. Very classy.

[longview]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So you decided to go with a misogynistic take when coming up with an example of what is wrong with the justice system. Classy. Very classy.

You are taking a warped view. It was NOT the sex of the lead prosecutor but the behavior that was SO disappointing. It was blatantly embarrassing.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

You are taking a warped view. It was NOT the sex of the lead prosecutor but the behavior that was SO disappointing. It was blatantly embarrassing.

No, it wasn’t. There was a misogynistic media attack against her for things that the men involved would not have been harassed about. This is widely accepted.

Her choices of hair style and clothing were ruthlessly mocked and criticized. When, after the criticism, she changed her hairstyle, the change was criticized. She was demeaned by defense attorneys and by the judge.

You are being very very weird.

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You are being very very weird.

You are being very very very warped. 😗

Edited May 14 by longview

[MustardSeed]

Hm.  When I think of the oj case being bumbled I automatically go to Furman planting evidence.  
plenty of blame to go around on the mishandling of that case.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

You are being very very very warped. 😗

No, I brought up problems in the judicial system and your mind immediately went to a weird misogynistic take on a female lawyer where everyone was judging her clothing and hair choices and held her up as an example of what is wrong with the system. That is weird and warped and a bunch of other adjectives.