During that Jan. 31 courtroom session to discuss a jury questionnaire, Sarmina rejected a question proposed by Lynn's lawyers that would have asked prospective jurors if they believed child-sex abuse was a "widespread" problem in the church.
She called the question overly broad, adding: "Anyone that doesn't think there was widespread sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is living on another planet."
Lynn's attorneys, Jeffrey Lindy and Thomas Bergstrom, seized on the remark, arguing in a motion that it showed Sarmina "harbors a firm predisposed opinion against the Catholic Church and its representatives." They said she lost the perception of impartiality and should step aside.
Sarmina said the lawyers misquoted her - a mistake she said was perpetuated in The Inquirer - and misrepresented the setting.
"It was a work session, which called for give-and-take and candor, and even playing devil's advocate, as we strove to come up with the best language to help identify the biases of prospective jurors," the judge said.
Sarmina said her comment referred to past reports of abuse and didn't reflect on current clergy, including the hundreds of Philadelphia priests "laboring under an unfair cloud of suspicion not of their making."
She added: "Whether there was widespread sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic Church is not an issue to be decided in this trial."
Lindy took issue with the judge's ruling, insisting he did not misquote her.
Minutes later, he was again treading the same ground, this time a bit loudly. He said a separate ruling by the judge was "fundamentally unfair" and said her decisions in the last six months repeatedly stacked the deck against the defense.
