Judge rules in favor of Pace school officials on trial for meal prayer

PENSACOLA (FBW) – Delivering a stern warning before issuing a ruling finding two Santa Rosa County School District employees innocent of willfully disobeying a lawful order, U.S. District Judge Margaret C. “Casey” Rodgers called the debate over their trial “healthy,” but warned America is a “democracy” and not a “theocracy” and the court is not a church, mosque or a temple.

“At the end of the day in this court,” it’s the opinion of the United States Supreme Court that decides the constitutionality of prayer in schools, Rodgers said.

Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman were charged with criminal contempt of court at risk of jail time and a fine after Rodgers cited them with violating a court order stemming from a mealtime blessing last winter at the school.

The blessing, a short “Christian” prayer by both men’s admission, occurred when Lay asked Freeman to pray before a lunchtime gathering Jan. 28 in a newly constructed field house at the high school where about 30 boosters were invited to celebrate the completion of the new athletic facility.

Rogers said the prayer, occurring just nine days after she had issued a temporary injunction against such activity, still appeared to be spontaneous and not a willful violation of her order. Lay and Freeman, along with witnesses who testified on their behalf, said they believed because the event was for adults it fell into a different category and was exempted from the types of school-sponsored activities in which prayer was expressly forbidden.

The temporary injunction forbidding district employees from “promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school sponsored events,” arose from claims by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2008 that teachers and administrators in the school district “endorsed religion.”

On the steps of the federal court building, Lay and Freeman thanked supporters for their prayers after the lengthy trial in which 12 witnesses testified. Nearly 500 supporters waited outside the courtroom through torrential downpours and steamy temperatures, marching, praying, reading, and waving American flags.

“I got you covered,” Lay told dozens of cheering students from Pace High School wearing yellow t-shirts with “Lay’s Supportive Patriots” over the image of a potato chip. Throwing students a “thumbs up” sign, he said he is thankful to be able to get back to school.

A deacon at Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Lay thanked Pastor Ted Traylor and his church family.

“Above all, I want to thank the chief counsel, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit,” he said.

Freeman added his thanks for the American judicial system, and the lawyers who represented the men, Horatio Mihet, senior litigation counsel for Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, and Barry Beroset of Pensacola.

“Let’s give God the glory,” Freeman said.

INSIDE THE COURTROOM

Judge Rodgers told a packed courtroom, where about 90 family members and friends of Lay and Freeman sat with a few people wearing ACLU badges, the case received a lot of attention she did not expect. Departing from her usual procedure, she said, Rodgers gave a summary of the civil proceedings involving the ACLU’s complaints, her issuance of the preliminary injunction, her issuing the contempt charges against the men and Michelle Winkler (who was also found innocent last month), and finally, the court’s entering as record a detailed 12-page consent decree outlining how district employees are to avoid any appearance of engaging in “religious” behavior.

The consent order has led to other legal maneuvers related to the case. Judge Rogers, in her summary, referred to a video she viewed of a youth rally where Lay expressed an opinion about the decree and its effect on teachers, and on students who, he said, in later testimony because of the decree, were not allowed to speak at Pace High School graduation ceremonies.

Liberty Counsel is representing Christian Educators Association International in a motion to intervene on behalf of its members, some of whom are employed in the district, a move both the district and the ACLU oppose.

Differences in how some school board members and district employees view personnel matters and respond to the ACLU and litigation in this matter surfaced in testimony by four-term school board member Jo Ann Simpson.

One of four witnesses testifying for the government against Lay and Freeman, Simpson said she believed the district should admit liability to the ACLU when there are complaints to “avoid legal fees,” and said she was “totally shocked” when Lay asked Freeman to pray at the lunch to which she was an invited guest.

Simpson said she did not indicate to anyone there, however, it would be inappropriate to pray—even as a board member—but testified she called the district superintendent’s office and the district’s attorney to report Lay’s actions after returning home.

“I have made the statement, that’s when he should have been suspended,” Simpson said, under cross-examination. Emphasizing there were culinary arts students serving a meal in the room, it was still unclear after her testimony whether Simpson believed it was the presence of students which caused Lay and Freeman to violate the judge’s order or the act of praying.

Lay testified later one of Simpson’s children had attended Pace High School and he would not have knowingly violated an order in front of the board member. “That’s not someone I would have wanted to bust out and make a point” in front of, he said.

District Superintendent Terry Wyrosdick testified he met with Lay and Freeman Feb. 2 in Lay’s office and both men readily admitted the prayer took place at the luncheon. He asked them for a written explanation and received it and placed a memorandum in their personnel files, accepting their explanation it was spontaneous.

Though issuing what the Assistant U.S. Attorney Randall J. Hensel characterized as a “letter of reprimand,” Wyrosdick lauded them both for their “honesty,” “character,” and “leadership” in the letter was not out of line considering “both of them are effective leaders at Pace High School.”

Louis Lynn, assistant superintendent for human resources in the Santa Rosa County School District, testified he took notes at the Feb. 2 meeting. In that meeting, Lay said his request of Freeman was one of longstanding habit between friends of more than 40 years.

“I didn’t think about it,” Lynn’s notes reflected Lay’s response to Wyrosdick’s question about why he asked Freeman to pray, in spite of a judge’s order to not pray at school events.

Both Freeman and Lay later disputed a second clause attributed to Lay about repeating his behavior. Lynn, upon cross-examination said he believed in the meeting Lay was clear about his intent.

“He wasn’t meaning to violate any rule,” Lynn said of Lay.

Six witnesses testified on behalf of Lay and Freeman, including current and retired educators, an officer from the Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s department and a retired probation officer.

Pace resident, Steven Townley, who retired from the United States Probation Office in 2007, said he has known both men personally for over 20 years. Of Lay, who he has known since the 1970’s, he said: “He is the epitome of a law-abiding upright, honest person to deal with.”

FREEMAN, LAY AND CLOSING ARGUMENTS

Taking the stand in his own defense, Freeman, in his 40^th year in the district, said he simply asked the blessing when prompted.

“It was a reflexive, traditional thing,” Freeman said, explaining he was raised in a family that prayed and it was “mostly out of tradition and thankfulness.”

Freeman said since the Feb. 2 meeting with the superintendent, he has understood the judge’s order and the fuller ramifications and has complied, “absolutely,” ending prayer before eating pizza at monthly meetings and offering a prayer at sports banquets. This took place before the contempt order was filed against him, he testified, and once he learned the prayer at the Jan. 28 lunch was illegal.

“I would not knowingly violate the injunction,” Freeman said. “My life’s passion is my family and my faith and I love young people.”

Lay said he, too, was following tradition in regards to “blessing the food.”

Citing “old habits,” he testified he did not think beforehand about the order or violating it, that he believed it referenced influencing students, and didn’t recall seeing any in the room.

“I wasn’t thinking along those lines,” he said.

Speaking about an event in June, months before, a sports banquet, at which he had been asked to pray, Lay testified he refused, knowing there were more than 250 students at the school-sponsored event, held at Olive Baptist Church.

At the lunch in January, Lay said, “we would have called a time out and stopped” had he realized he was in danger of violating the court’s order.

“If we would have to do it over again, we wouldn’t do it,” he said.

Listing a number of school events that occurred even before the judge’s order was issued, or the consent decree, at which there has traditionally been prayer, but there is no longer any prayer, Lay reiterated he wouldn’t have called on his friend, Freeman, to bless the food knowing it would break the law.

Admitting the ACLU angers him, Lay told Hensel in cross-examination he believes doing what is right also means using appropriate legal channels to get things done.

“At that time I meant conviction to do what was right,” he said in response to Hensel’s question about what he meant when he told people at a rally to fight the ACLU. Whether he encouraged them to defy a court order, Lay adamantly denied, “No, I did not!”

The judge sustained Mihet’s objection of Hensel’s question to Lay asking if he viewed his role as a public school administrator differently from that of a principal at a religious school. Earlier he goaded Lay, reminding him he wasn’t the principal of “Pace Bible Institute,” and reminded him it is a public school.

In his closing arguments, Hensel argued Lay and Freeman acted deliberately and intentionally.

“It was uncanny how you hear this is the way we’ve always done it,” Hensel said.

Citing both men’s advanced academic degrees, he said because they indicated they received the judge’s order, they must have known their prayer—even one, let alone where “three or more” were gathered, violated the law.

Mihet argued criminal intent cannot be inferred from a single, isolated incident and there was only one in the case where “intent is a critical issue,” he said.

Otherwise the men “beautifully complied” with the court’s preliminary injunction, Mihet said, other than a “fleeting, spontaneous prayer.”

“The law does not demand perfection,” Mihet said.

JUDGE ISSUES DECISION

Before giving her decision, Rodgers spoke on the merits of contempt orders and what she called “mischaracterizing of the facts” in reporting on the case concerning Lay and Freeman, which she said suggests the court has “criminalized prayer.”

“No student is subject to any order entered by this case,” Rodgers emphasized.

Noting again the government must prove the order was willfully violated, Rodgers said she accepted Freeman’s explanation that “when asked to do so,” he prayed. “On automatic,” she said.

Lay’s conduct is a “closer” question of “intent,” she said, citing his position as principal at Pace High School and his admission of liability in the original ongoing civil litigation resulting in the consent decree between the ACLU and the school district.

Nevertheless, noting a potential disagreement about whether intent can be inferred from a single isolated incident, and the “extremely high burden of proof” in a criminal case, Rodgers said where there’s “ambiguity” in criminal law, a ruling in the defendant’s favor is appropriate.

In her reasons for ruling in his favor, Rodgers noted Lay declined to pray at an earlier event; he subjected a close friend to charges; and he said in the Feb. 2 meeting he did not “think about it” before asking Freeman to pray.

REACTION TO DECISION

On the steps outside the courthouse, Mihet said he is reminded of Sept. 17 being Constitution Day.

“God is good. Today is a great day for the Constitution,” Mihet told Florida Baptist Witness. “Today, we rejoice in the victory that God has given us. Tomorrow, we get busy to try and make sure that the constitutional rights of students, teachers, and staff in Santa Rosa county are going to be protected under the consent decree and under all of the future orders that come out of this court.”

Eddie Eaton, pastor of West Pittman Baptist Church, sat through the entire trial, with many others from area churches.

“It was amazing,” Eaton said. “But I did get nervous there at the end.”

After listening to testimony and closing arguments until well after 5 p.m., Eaton said he felt the judge would return with a favorable decision until right before her speech on democracy versus theocracy.

“She ruled on the law, however, and she stayed true on what she said she was going to do and it was an amazing decision,” Eaton said. “The decision should tell our churches and our pastors that we shouldn’t fear anything—that we need to take a stand and allow God to do what God does and have the faith that we say we have and put it in His hands.”

Eaton said he was overwhelmed each time he looked outside from the windows of the court house to see the hundreds of supporters below hanging on, even in the midst of “monsoon” rains to be there and celebrate at the very end.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said, noting people from dozens of Florida Baptist churches and several area associations throughout the crowd.