Sacred Law and Secular Courts: Exorcisms That Became Cases (2020–2025)

Introduction — Why exorcisms enter secular courts

Over the last half-decade (2020–2025) courts across multiple jurisdictions have had to confront painful collisions between religious practice and secular law. This article surveys recent criminal prosecutions and civil claims that began as exorcisms or deliverance rituals, highlights legal themes (child protection, criminal liability, First Amendment limits, and civil remedies), and explains how courts have resolved — or are resolving — these disputes.

The cases summarized below were selected for their clear public records, press coverage, and relevance to policy and practice for clergy, clinicians, journalists, and counsel.

Recent high‑profile cases (2020–2025) — summaries and outcomes

1. Duxbury, Massachusetts — Baptism‑style exorcism and a manslaughter conviction (June 2021 → April 25, 2024)

In one of the most widely reported cases in New England, a young man said he was performing a baptism‑style exorcism when he repeatedly submerged his father's head in a pond in June 2021. A jury in Plymouth Superior Court convicted the son of involuntary manslaughter on April 25, 2024. Coverage and court records show prosecutors treated the incident as a homicide despite the defendant’s spiritual explanation.

2. San Jose, California — 3‑year‑old killed during alleged church exorcism (Sept. 24, 2021; 2022–2024 criminal filings)

Authorities allege that a 3‑year‑old died during a prolonged exorcism ritual inside a small Pentecostal church. By 2022 family members were charged with child abuse leading to death; a Santa Clara County judge found sufficient evidence in May 2024 to order the case to trial. The case is being prosecuted as child abuse resulting in death; court papers emphasize the absence of emergency medical care and grievous physical injuries.

3. Pakistan (Sindh province) — Faith healer admits 'exorcism' torture causing death (2024 reporting)

Press reports from South Asia documented incidents where alleged faith healers (pirs) subjected youths to violent exorcism rituals that culminated in death. Police accounts and local reporting in 2024 describe arrests and confessions by accused healers in multiple criminal investigations. These matters illustrate how criminal statutes (homicide, torture, grievous bodily harm) are used against non‑medical traditional practitioners.

4. Forced exorcism civil suits and First Amendment litigation — key precedent and recent appellate posture

Civil claims tied to alleged forced exorcisms or abusive deliverance rites have repeatedly reached state and federal courts. Historical jury awards for abuse and false imprisonment have been reversed or narrowed when appeals courts concluded that deciding the suit would require excessive entanglement with church doctrine. In one recent procedural posture, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a long‑running forced‑exorcism civil dispute, leaving intact appellate holdings about the difficulty of separating doctrinal questions from actionable misconduct in certain contexts.

Legal patterns and doctrinal takeaways

From these cases several legal patterns emerge:

• Criminal liability turns on conduct, not belief: When actions (strangulation, prolonged restraint, failure to seek medical care, violent physical coercion) cause injury or death, secular criminal law typically applies regardless of the perpetrator’s spiritual rationale. Courts and juries examine intent, recklessness, and causation using ordinary criminal statutes.
• Child‑protection and mandatory reporting are decisive: Cases involving minors attract heightened statutory and prosecutorial attention because child‑abuse laws impose duties to protect and seek medical care; failure to do so is often charged as felony abuse or manslaughter.
• First Amendment limits matter — but do not provide blanket immunity: Courts will guard against entanglement with doctrinal issues, but they also uphold neutral laws of general applicability (criminal law, child protection, assault/battery, negligent infliction of harm). Plaintiffs and prosecutors must frame claims in secular, provable terms (bodily injury, deprivation of care, confinement) rather than asking judges to decide theological disputes.
• Civil remedies are available but often contested: Survivors and families pursue negligence, assault, false imprisonment and emotional‑harm claims; defendants invoke religious freedom and burdens‑of‑proof defenses. Appellate outcomes often hinge on whether adjudication will require interpreting religious doctrine.

These principles explain why some prosecutions proceed (the facts show physical harm) while some civil verdicts are reduced or overturned (courts aim to avoid resolving religious doctrine).

Implications for clergy, clinicians, journalists, and courts — practical guidance

For clergy and lay deliverance practitioners:

• Adopt written safeguards and consent protocols; call emergency services immediately for medical distress.
• Train teams in recognizing medical and psychiatric emergencies and in when to suspend ritual activity.

For clinicians and child‑protection workers:

• Document injuries carefully, obtain chain‑of‑custody for any multimedia recordings, and coordinate with prosecutors when criminal conduct is suspected.

For journalists and researchers:

• Rely on court filings, official press releases, and medical examiner reports rather than third‑hand accounts; be precise about dates, charges, and judicial outcomes.

For courts and policymakers:

• Clarify training for judges and juries about distinguishing doctrinal belief from demonstrable conduct; consider specialized instructions and expert witnesses where cultural or religious context affects interpretation of behavior.

Finally, if you need the primary documents for any case (indictments, dockets, sentencing orders), start with local court portals and press offices; FOIA/CPRA requests and archival dockets are often required for a complete public record.

Selected primary press sources used in this review: Boston Globe reporting on the Duxbury case; AP and local reporting on the same matter; Los Angeles Times and CBS News coverage of the San Jose case; reporting from Dawn on South Asian incidents; and Legal Newsline on First Amendment and forced‑exorcism civil litigation.