BBM
I think it is the bolded part above, that is the most problematic for the prosecution now. This woman was in their presence, when the defendants thought she was their attorney. And so they would speak very candidly, in a way they would not if she were NOT representing them. And then she testifies against them, using what she heard earlier, by misrepresenting herself. That shady incident could taint the entire Grand Jury proceedings, imo.
All of that is very troubling. I am not sure it happened that way exactly, but I bet the defense team will try and paint it that way.
A small part of me wonders if perhaps she heard what the defendants said about their actions, and she was so horrified that she too it upon herself to speak the truth. I can understand her feelings, but it is not the right thing to do. Our Justice System depends upon firm rules, many which seem to protect the defendants. But if YOU are the one on trial, they would preserve your rights as well. Innocent people do go to trial too.
ETA: From the link above:
"She has since turned state's evidence, gone before the same grand jury as a witness, and testified about what the trio told her - in what they thought was confidence. Baldwin is helping to make the state's case against Curley, Schultz and Spanier much to the shock and dismay of their lawyers."
I have been very critical of Baldwin's role in the scandal ever since I read that she offered to write "talking points" for Paterno before he testified to the Grand Jury, an offer that he refused. To me, that seemed like she was trying to coordinate all of the men's testimonies. Paterno was also wise enough to take his own representation, unlike Curley and Schultz, two educated men who somehow both had the mistaken belief that Baldwin was representing them.
After all, all she did was drive them to the GJ appearance "as a courtesy", sat with them as they testified, didn't correct either of them or correct the record when each announced that they were accompanied by their counsel Cynthia Baldwin, and if she offered to write talking points for Paterno, it is hard to imagine that she didn't similarly prep Curley and Schultz for their testimony.
It is reflected in the transcript of their testimonies:
Good morning, my name is Tim Curley. Do you have counsel with you? Yes I do.
My counsel is Cynthia Baldwin. Schultz was asked: You are accompanied today by counsel, Cynthia Baldwin. Is that correct? That is correct.
Yet this bright legal mind, formerly a state Supreme Court Justice, apparently wasn't paying attention or didn't think it was important enough to interrupt the proceedings to correct either of them.
Also, to return to the thread topic of Spanier, several trustees told the New York Times that Baldwin and Spanier briefed the board of trustees together, and Baldwin told the gathering that the investigation concerned the Second Mile, not Penn State. This occurred in May, after she had personally received the subpoenas for Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz and had listened to their testimony to the Grand Jury.
If she somehow escapes this situation without some form of bar sanction for ethics violations, I have to think it could only be due to skillful backroom politics on her behalf. Of course, the Second Mile leadership, DPW, Atty Courtney, and many others have so far avoided too much scrutiny, so her cooperation with the Grand Jury and the Attorney General's office might be enough to keep her out of the line of fire.
MOO
