Court TV Host: Twenty-six years after the killing of Sr. Margaret Ann Pahl in a hospital chapel, a jury has found the Rev. Gerald Robinson, the chaplain at the time, guilty of her murder. Discuss the verdict with former public defender David Harris, now a professor at the University of Toledo Law School.

Court TV Host: Our guest was on Court TV a little earlier today, and he's graciously consented to join us here online now. Thanks, David Harris, for being our guest today.

David Harris: Hello, everyone -- I'm glad to have the opportunity to take your questions.

Question from Babs: Prof. Harris, thanks for joining our chat today. What will happen to the bonds, etc., posted by the parishioners in the Father's parish?

David Harris: The bonds will essentially expire, though that is not the formal term. Each person who posted a bond will have the bond released, and they are now free to use their property in any way they want. It is no longer legally encumbered.

Question from tara: Mr. Harris, Welcome. What do you think the deciding factor was for the jury to find him guilty?

David Harris: We won't know this for sure unless one or more of the jurors decides to talk to the media, and so far, none of them have. They left without making any statement. But in my opinion, the most important factor was probably the stain on the altar cloth that seemed very similar to the medallion on the letter opener. If they believed the letter opener was the murder weapon, that tied him to the crime very directly.

Question from Renee: Do you agree with the verdict in this trial?

David Harris: Renee, this is the rare trial in which I do think that the facts could support a reasonable jury verdict in EITHER direction. There was enough evidence to support a verdict by a reasonable juror that Fr. Robinson was guilty, but also enough for a juror to say that he was not guilty and should be acquitted. Thus to me, this was an almost perfect jury case in the sense that both sides really must say that they respect the verdict. And, if you saw the post-trial press conferences on CTV, you saw both the prosecutors and the defense attorneys saying exactly that. Even though the defense attorneys said they disagreed, they also said they respected what the jury did. So you will not have editorials or op-ed articles that say things like what you saw in the Moussaoui case -- "the jury was wrong!" I think everyone has got to respect what they did, agree or not.

Question from Babs: It was reported that there were accusations of four previous sexual assaults, one including S&M behaviors -- how could the judge declare this inflammatory and not relevant to this case?

Question from kiara: David Harris, why did the judge not deem the book on Satanism and the 500 pix of people in caskets relevant to the character of the defendant and hence admissible?

David Harris: Both good questions, and I think a lot of people may be wondering the same thing. In courts, we never try the defendant's character; we try the defendant for what he did or did not do. That's an iron clad rule, and one that I think makes a lot of sense. We would not want to be judged by whether what we were accused of is consistent with some aspect of our character, but on whether in fact we did what we were charged with. So generally speaking, judges keep extraneous evidence -- evidence having nothing to do with the charges themselves -- our out of the case. The other thing is that certain types of evidence can be judged too inflammatory to do any good in the case in terms of a search for the truth. We aren't afraid of evidence that is prejudicial because all evidence against the defendant is prejudicial by nature. Rather what we are concerned about is evidence that is more prejudicial than probative -- in other words, evidence that produces more heat than light. And clearly, while extremely creepy, this outside evidence really says nothing about whether the priest was there that morning and used that murder weapon. Final point on this: I don't know if you saw it, but prosecutor Chris Anderson was on CTV earlier, and he said that the police had actually checked out some or all of these allegations, and found that they were not substantiated. So while these facts are very juicy and all, they did not stand up to examination by the police.

Question from kiara: But in the Westerfield case, it was revealed that Westerfield did something inappropriate during a kid's sleepover...prior bad acts?

David Harris: Yes, we do admit testimony about prior bad acts. But if my memory of that rule of evidence serves me well, the prior acts have to resemble the current charges very closely -- enough so that when we look at both together, we effectively see the defendant's "signature" on both. Here, 1) remember, these were accusations that, to the police, did not check out, and 2) there was no murder in the other accusations.

Question from hi: Will there be an appeal?

David Harris: In the defense attorneys' news conference, Alan Konop said that there would certainly be an appeal. I would take him at his word; what with the defendant really facing the rest of his natural life in prison, there is nothing to lose. However, I don't see an appeal as likely to be successful. Appeals can only be on legal issues -- did the judge rule correctly at such and such a time? Were the jury instructions correct? Things like that. There is no way to appeal the facts; the jury saw them, and has had its say on them. The only possible factual type appeal is really a legal issue: was the verdict against the weight of the evidence? Effectively, the question there is whether there was enough evidence that a reasonable juror could -- not necessarily should, but could -- convict? While this is a possible basis, I can't see it succeeding.

Question from Terry: Since there wasn't DNA which convicted him, what was the new evidence now which the prosecution didn't have 26 years ago to go for a conviction?

David Harris: That 's a great question, and there was a lot of testimony and a lot of commentary on CTV about how different forensics are now, compared to 26 years ago. The basic thing that the prosecution had now, that it did not have then, was not DNA -- in fact, they did find DNA here, and it actually excluded the priest. The thing that the prosecution had this time that was new was called blood-pattern transfer analysis. They brought in experts to talk about the pattern of blood on the altar cloth that was laid across the victim's body, and to testify that those blood patterns were consistent with the letter opener, which the prosecution said was the murder weapon. This forensic technique is relatively new, and, in my own opinion, fairly subjective. In any case, this comparison was not done 26 years ago -- in fact, I don't think the science existed as such 26 years ago. So that was the thing that, in my opinion, was most important in terms of forensics that they couldn't do 26 years ago.

Question from Babs: In your opinion, why would Fr. Robinson repeat what the now dead other Father said: "Tell them what you know, tell them the truth. Isn't this very self-incriminating? Shouldn't the defense counsel have had this redacted?

David Harris: Babs, I don't know if Father Robinson did repeat this. I do remember that Father Robinson was the one who told the police that the other priest accused him on the morning of the killing; the police said that they found this very damning, because they knew (presumably from talking to the other priest years ago, before he died) that the other priest had not, in fact, said that.

Question from lovelaw: Terry: Were the nuns who testified at this hearing questioned 26 years ago as to what they observed when they found the Sister's body?

David Harris: Yes, they were questioned 26 years ago. What apparently slipped through the cracks 26 years ago, that played (in my opinion) a big part in the case currently were the statements of several civilian witnesses, who said that they saw Fr. Robinson or someone who looked just like him around the chapel at precisely the same time that he said he was still in his quarters. The nuns who testified were interesting, but didn't add anything new.

Question from hi: Will he get special treatment in prison?

Question from Babs: Will Father Robinson be in general population, or for his own protection, be put in segregation?

David Harris: What will happen is that he will be put first into a processing and classification center, where the Ohio Dept. of Corrections will test him, assess his background, his health, etc., and then they will decide what prison is most suitable for him. He will not get special treatment, but can request protective custody; I believe prison or classification authorities can also make such a request. If he is in protective custody, this will limit his opportunities to participate in many aspects of prison life -- programs, time outside with others, etc. -- but an inmate truly in danger will often feel the tradeoff is worth it. The dangers he will face in prison are real, even if he is in protective custody. He's an old man, physically weak in an environment that demands strength, and he'll be considered a celebrity -- therefore, other inmates will look at him as a trophy, and there will be people gunning for him. Not to say we should feel sorry, or not; that's just the reality of prison life.

Question from Babs: Is there a chance Father Robinson can get time off for good behavior?

David Harris: Yes, under the law that applies in his case, his sentence will be reduced one day for every two days of good behavior in prison. That was how the law was when the crime was committed, and so that is the law that applies to him. In 1996, the Ohio Legislature changed the law, so that if the new law applied, he'd serve at least 15 years. Keep in mind also that 10 years is the first time he'd be eligible for parole; he wouldn't necessarily get out. He'd just be considered by the parole board. So the countdown is to parole eligibility in his case.

Question from greenacres: How hard is it for a jury to convict anyone, much less a priest, without a clear motive?

David Harris: Very good question indeed. A jury always wants to hear a motive; that's just human nature -- to want to know not just what someone did, but why. But the law is quite specific on this: no motive needs to be proved; it's not among the things that the prosecution must show. So there is no need to do it, legally. However, any time I as a prosecutor can show a motive, I'm that much further ahead. I think your instinct is right -- it was probably harder to convict him without some good, strong motive. But the prosecutor told the jury he didn't have to do that, and they apparently took it to heart.

Court TV Host: Thanks for being our guest today. Please come back again soon!

David Harris: My pleasure. I enjoyed it.