Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #6

[LRinCA]

This may have been mentioned and I missed it - and I'll preface this by saying that I've never been in a courtroom other than to explain why I wouldn't be a good choice for a jury; that said, is it possible that Sandusky and Crew wanted to sniff out or see which ones were there today to testify against him? Would the defense team have had a list of who was there to testify? I haven't been following this very closely the last few weeks but it came to mind a few minutes ago.

 

[Pensfan]

The college players at Juniata College are out of Sandusky’s age preference, but Juniata College operates football camps for boys starting in first grade up through high school. Their brochure states that each child receives individual attention. Ugh. Sandusky was hoping to become a fixture on campus so he could show up at summer camps where there were younger boys.
http://www.juniata.edu/services/conferences/documents/FootballCampsBrochure_004.pdf

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This may have been mentioned and I missed it - and I'll preface this by saying that I've never been in a courtroom other than to explain why I wouldn't be a good choice for a jury; that said, is it possible that Sandusky and Crew wanted to sniff out or see which ones were there today to testify against him? Would the defense team have had a list of who was there to testify? I haven't been following this very closely the last few weeks but it came to mind a few minutes ago.

I think the prosecution has to disclose the list.

 

[Pensfan]

What possible motive could McQueary have for lying under oath? That's a powerful question. I wonder if Amendola will attempt to address it or just go with the Rashomon defense: what McQueary thought was an anal rape was actually just horsin' around.

He may not have lied. The Grand Jury Report is essentially a summary from the district attorney of what was found during the witness' testimonies showing that Sandusky should be arrested and put on trial. It didn't mention the nephrologist's testimony because it is only a summary and not a transcript of everything that was stated. Notice that there are not any quotations showing precisely what witnesses stated in front of the Grand Jury.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...dusky-grand-jury-report-penn-state/51710718/1

 

[Reader]

Good article explaining in detail the decision to waive the preliminary hearing today:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/13/why-would-sandusky-waive-preliminary-hearing/?hpt=hp_t2

Turns out Amendola told prosecutors last night of the decision, so it couldn't have been due to seeing somebody in court this morning.

Thanks! Strange decision and not surprised the lawyers have different opinions.

Here is another with some more viewpoints from other defense attorneys with one I've haven't seen before:

Analysis: Waiving hearing was Sandusky's best option: experts

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...IR20111214?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

...............By waiving his right to a preliminary hearing, Sandusky declined to challenge whether the government had enough evidence to proceed to trial.

Though Sandusky told reporters after the hearing that he and his lawyers intend "to stay the course, to fight four quarters," his actions contradicted that statement, said Steven Fairlie, a criminal defense attorney based in North Wales, Pennsylvania who is not involved in the case. Sandusky gave up a chance to cross-examine his accusers, said Fairlie. In essence, Sandusky "skipped a quarter," said Fairlie.
------

But dispensing with the hearing may have been the best option, experts said. Sandusky's public image, which has already suffered from the charges, could have taken another hit if alleged victims had told emotional stories.

While no television broadcasts or photos were to be allowed in the courtroom, media would have reported the stories extensively.


IMO though both JS and JA both tried to portray this as a fighting move, it was essentially throwing in the towel.

 

[Reader]

He may not have lied. The Grand Jury Report is essentially a summary from the district attorney of what was found during the witness' testimonies showing that Sandusky should be arrested and put on trial. It didn't mention the nephrologist's testimony because it is only a summary and not a transcript of everything that was stated. Notice that there are not any quotations showing precisely what witnesses stated in front of the Grand Jury.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...dusky-grand-jury-report-penn-state/51710718/1

Thanks for that and I agree. I'm going also with Concerned Papa's point that the GJ specifically stated McQueary's testimony was very credible and that Curley and Schultz lied when they watered down his statement.

I'm thinking that IF this doctor testifed before the GJ that they probably thought he was lying or watering down MM's statement also (for whatever his own purposes are) but did not charge him because he had no authority over what to do about JS.

But really, I see this as just a last minute desperate move by the defense to influence the news and perhaps try to intimidate MM before the prelim. When MM stayed quiet and didn't fold, the plan failed.

 

[Reader]

Do some of Sandusky's adopted male children not believe in his innocence? Today only Sarge and one son, EJ, were at his side.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-13/sandusky-hearing-sex-charges/51866460/1

This article says there were 4 of his children there, although some in the background maybe:

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/20...s-in-preliminary-hearing/?partner=rss&emc=rss

........ As he entered the courtroom, it immediately went quiet. His wife, Dottie, soon entered with a dozen supporters, including four of the family’s adopted children.
------

Also interesting:

But lawyers for one of Sandusky’s accusers said they believed the waiver of Tuesday’s hearing increased the likelihood of a plea arrangement. A law professor who attended the hearing said Amendola had probably received a signal from prosecutors that they were willing to offer an acceptable plea deal.

Otherwise, waiving the hearing and losing a chance to cross-examine witnesses and perhaps establish some inconsistencies in their testimony “was a lousy tactic” by Amendola, said Wes Oliver, an associate professor of law at Widener University in Harrisburg, Pa.

Oliver predicted any plea arrangement would probably call for a sentence of 12 to 15 years. This would allow accusers to avoid having to testify publicly about being sexually molested, Oliver said, and given Sandusky’s age, might amount to a life term while also giving him some hope of spending his final days outside prison.


I hope they don't do a plea deal...JS should have to hear face to face in court these men tell exactly what he did..and it would be healing for them also, to confront him and get the truth out.

 

[StellarsJay]

"Oliver predicted any plea arrangement would probably call for a sentence of 12 to 15 years."

How long would this actually be before parole? I want to see him get 20 in-jail years.

 

[ohiogirl]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/

Amendola on Today show this a.m.
Not really anything new.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

This article says there were 4 of his children there, although some in the background maybe:

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/20...s-in-preliminary-hearing/?partner=rss&emc=rss

........ As he entered the courtroom, it immediately went quiet. His wife, Dottie, soon entered with a dozen supporters, including four of the family’s adopted children.
------

Also interesting:

But lawyers for one of Sandusky’s accusers said they believed the waiver of Tuesday’s hearing increased the likelihood of a plea arrangement. A law professor who attended the hearing said Amendola had probably received a signal from prosecutors that they were willing to offer an acceptable plea deal.

Otherwise, waiving the hearing and losing a chance to cross-examine witnesses and perhaps establish some inconsistencies in their testimony “was a lousy tactic” by Amendola, said Wes Oliver, an associate professor of law at Widener University in Harrisburg, Pa.

Oliver predicted any plea arrangement would probably call for a sentence of 12 to 15 years. This would allow accusers to avoid having to testify publicly about being sexually molested, Oliver said, and given Sandusky’s age, might amount to a life term while also giving him some hope of spending his final days outside prison.


I hope they don't do a plea deal...JS should have to hear face to face in court these men tell exactly what he did..and it would be healing for them also, to confront him and get the truth out.

I want it to go to trial but I believe Sandusky will enjoy hearing the victims tell about his predatory hunts and successes. Retelling of the hunt.

The people who knowingly let this animal to act with impunity are the ones that will hate to hear the testimony. They will suffer as they should.


This animal needs to spend the rest of his life in prison, he will be the same predator amongst the kids if he is let lose.

 

[ohiogirl]

Truthfully, I would really rather he plead it out. If the victims want their day in court, though, I am all for it. It is going to be extremely hard on them to be cross examined by the defense and have their character and truthfulness attacked. If they want this, great. If they would rather not go through it, I would certainly understand.

 

[hornswoggled]

Okay, I just searched Twitter to see if I could find a better description of what was said (and I did).

"Sandusky's co-council claims that his client is mentally/emotionally closer to a teenager than a 60yr old."


That's pretty much word for word.

Another tweet that offers a better description than I did:

Chronological age vs mental age may perhaps be the reason for being comfortable with kids rather than older ppl.

BBM

From watching him blathering on and having that stupid grin on his face, I agree that he is closer mentally/emotionally to a 16 year old - or perhaps a 14 year old. If that is true, how is it that no one at Penn State could see that? It is beyond reasoning that he could have been in his position for as long as he has and not one person could discern that he is an obviously extremely mentally immature individual who has no place on any college campus. :waitasec:

 

[Mamabear1963]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/

Amendola on Today show this a.m.
Not really anything new.

Some one called him the Jose Baez of PA...maybe they weren't far off.

Also...maybe they figure it worked in FL it will work here...blah.

 

[wfgodot]

Sports Illustrated's sports law prof guy takes a look:

Lawyer uses bizarre tactics in defense of Jerry Sandusky

 

[Mamabear1963]

Sports Illustrated's sports law prof guy takes a look:

Lawyer uses bizarre tactics in defense of Jerry Sandusky

Some of the points reminded me of what the TH were saying about Jose in the Casey Anthony case.

ineffective counsel, fighting the battle in the media etc...it worked in FL...I pray it doesn't work here!!!

 

[hornswoggled]

When the Sandusky issue comes to trial, I daresay the jurors will think long and hard before acquitting him. I do believe after the fiasco in Orlando that future jurors, no matter where they are hearing a case, will weigh the evidence more carefully and examine everything available to them. That is the only way a jury can say that they have done their duty. And that is all we have ever wanted. A jury that does what they are supposed to do. Listen, weigh, question when there is doubt, examine and decide.

 

[Mamabear1963]

When the Sandusky issue comes to trial, I daresay the jurors will think long and hard before acquitting him. I do believe after the fiasco in Orlando that future jurors, no matter where they are hearing a case, will weigh the evidence more carefully and examine everything available to them. That is the only way a jury can say that they have done their duty. And that is all we have ever wanted. A jury that does what they are supposed to do. Listen, weigh, question when there is doubt, examine and decide.

Let's hope! But things are changing...people want things spelled out more clearly...critical thinking and abstract thought are not skills taught or maybe learned as often these days.

 

[katydid23]

I heard the defense atty on CNN this morning. He said that the reason they deferred, basically, was to prevent the bond from going up or being revoked. Could that be true? Maybe one reason, but not the only reason, imo.

 

[StellarsJay]

Article on Amendola strategy: http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/c...endola-s-session--flips-the-day-.html?nav=742

Here in Canada most sentences only amount to about 1/3 of the time in jail before probation is possible and they used to have a "faint hope" rule for fixed sentences with the idea that this will cut down prison violence, but I think that has now been cancelled. What is likely for Sandusky?

 

[Pensfan]

When the Sandusky issue comes to trial, I daresay the jurors will think long and hard before acquitting him. I do believe after the fiasco in Orlando that future jurors, no matter where they are hearing a case, will weigh the evidence more carefully and examine everything available to them. That is the only way a jury can say that they have done their duty. And that is all we have ever wanted. A jury that does what they are supposed to do. Listen, weigh, question when there is doubt, examine and decide.

Florida allows felons to serve on a jury and many of Casey's jurors had criminal records. IMO, many of the most persuasive jurors at Casey's trial had grudges to settle with LE and they resolved their anger by freeing Casey. In Pennsylvania, those convicted of a felony are not allowed to serve on a jury. In some counties in Pennsylvania if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor, you are not obligated to serve as a juror.
http://www.buckscounty.org/courts/courtinfo/juryduty/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx