Should a Florida man's church confession be evidence in a criminal case?

Gonzalez said he believed the girl’s mother would be present at the meeting and that everyone else would just be witnesses.

“No,” the pastor said. “The thing is that you were going to apologize to everyone, to all the church.”

Gonzalez pointed directly at the camera, noting that he was being recorded. The girl’s uncle responded, “I have the right to complain about it.”

Gonzalez then divulged more.

The pastor urged him to repent for his sins. He said the church did not want him to leave, but that he could no longer be a leader there.

A few months passed before Gonzalez was charged. Thereafter, his attorneys asked to throw out the video of his confession, citing clergy-penitent privilege.

Think of it the same way that a Catholic parishioner might approach the confession of sins to a priest — a practice that’s done quietly, with the understanding that the confession remains a private matter between the confessor, the priest and God.

The matter became the subject of a court hearing last fall, which featured testimony from the pastor and others who attended the church meeting.

Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Phillippe Matthey ruled in favor of the defense, heeding arguments that Gonzalez’s statements were intended to stay within the church.

Prosecutors appealed Matthey’s ruling. In arguments last fall before the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Tannen asserted that what Gonzalez said to his church leaders was not a private communication, but a public apology. He also noted that the Gonzalez was aware he was being recorded on video.

“What reasonable expectation of privacy would a person have if he was videotaped?” Tannen told the court. “None. The camera was right in front of him.”

Frank Bane, an attorney for Gonzalez, argued in an appellate brief that the trial court’s ruling upheld the First Amendment’s protections that ensure churches and their congregants can practice their faith “without fear that a sincere search for God’s forgiveness will not be turned against them in a criminal court proceeding.”

A three-judge appellate panel ruled for the state.

Their opinion, authored by Judge Robert Morris, and joined by Judges Andrea Teves Smith and Matthew Lucas, concluded that what Gonzalez told his church was not private. They also found that the meeting’s purpose was to “resolve the problem,” as the pastor said, and not just to further spiritual advice. They found it significant that it was the pastor who sought out Gonzalez, not the other way around.

The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. A new hearing is set for March.

_____