Penn State Sandusky Trial #10

[Quiche]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-21-09-38-13

The judge overseeing Jerry Sandusky's child sex abuse trial has thrown out three of the 51 charges in the case, leaving the former Penn State assistant football coach facing 48 counts.

Oh no! 48 isn't enough!

I do feel bad for the victim of those counts though-- but, I hope he knows his bravery and tenacious will was instrumental in bringing this monster to justice, no matter which counts were "proven" out. :rose:

 

[Quiche]

You know everyone-We have seen & heard about Jer & Dottie antics throughout this trail & how all their supporters thinks the victims are lying..
I wish all the victims & their families could gather up the courage and walk in that courtroom today-with their heads held up high in a massive show of solidarity-to let Jer-Dottie & all the enablers know-We are here to watch you all go down!!! Not only would that bring tears to my eyes-it would rock!!!

This will probably happen at sentencing... jmo.


eta:

A total of 4 #sandusky charges have been dropped...3 felonies for accuser 4, one felony for accuser 7.....total now is 48 charges
by 8CumbCoReport via twitter 6:47 AM

Read more: http://livewire.wgal.com/Event/WGALs_Jerry_Sandusky_trial_coverage#ixzz1yR540VNx

 

[Quiche]

udge expects #Sandusky attorney Joe Amendola to take 60 to 90 minutes for closing arguments.
by cvmikesisak via twitter 6:45 AM

Judge Cleland walks jurors through their duties, how to evaluate evidence and witnesses, and elements of crimes. #Sandusky
by cvmikesisak via twitter 6:45 AM

Judge Cleland completes jury instructions. #Sandusky now facing 48 counts after three dismissed.
by cvmikesisak via twitter 6:44 AM

Read more: http://livewire.wtae.com/Event/Jerry_Sandusky_Trial_2#ixzz1yR5V1UCZ

 

[costalpilot]

I don't understand.

why would the SA NOT want Sandusky to testify? This makes NO sense to me. Ryan from In Session explained in his chat yesterday that atty's dream of the opportunity to cross examine a defendant. We have already seen how JS comes across in an interview situation, and its definitely NOT GOOD for him. Plus it is evident from his demeanor througout this trial, in addition to his attitude in the NBC interview, that JS would be an easy touch for a skilled atty.

SO, why in the world would the state take a strong witness like a son off the table to not have Sandusky testfy?

Any ideas?

 

[Quiche]

Dottie's wardrobe choice has more of an air of youth compared to yesterday's minty green pastel (which made her appear deathly ill, imo). Jerry sportin' the same hangdog expression he's always wearing-- and following through with expectations, he's clopping along like he doesn't even know his wife (Dottie's lookin' like: Hey! Is that that man I marries several decades ago??).

 

[Quiche]

I don't understand.

why would the SA NOT want Sandusky to testify? This makes NO sense to me. Ryan from In Session explained in his chat yesterday that atty's dream of the opportunity to cross examine a defendant. We have already seen how JS comes across in an interview situation, and its definitely NOT GOOD for him. Plus it is evident from his demeanor througout this trial, in addition to his attitude in the NBC interview, that JS would be an easy touch for a skilled atty.

SO, why in the world would the state take a strong witness like a son off the table to not have Sandusky testfy?

Any ideas?

I think it's because Jerry would simply admit to loving little boys, they're so sweet and warm and friendly! I think he would overtly defend himself and his actions rather than his freedom. jmo

 

[Quiche]

The judge also explained to the jury what each category of crime Sandusky faces means.

The jury sat through the instructions looking intently. Around 9:30 a.m., juror 7, the soon-to-be PSU senior, and youngest on the jury, starts to fidget. He had been leaning forward with his fist under his chin. Now he is sitting upright, chewing on his finger, eyes wandering.

The judge also said that on counts 36 to 40, which included the hearsay evidence of janitor Jim Calhoun (the one with dementia who did not testify) is not evidence alone to convict on those charges, but circumstantial evidence can support the hearsay and be enough to convict.
by WGAL 7:05 AM

Of the witnesses, the jury must ask: Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case that would affect its testimony.

The jury was told to -- Draw on your own experience, your own common sense and you and you alone as the sole witnesses of the facts should hear the testimony.

Jurors are free to disregard either/both testimony of the testimonies of the psychologists.

Judge: If you think Sandusky did criminal acts, you can’t use the personality disorder as a reason to say he’s not guilty….the disorder is not a defense of the charges.
by WGAL 7:02 AM

It was explained to the jury that -- it is NOT a crime for an adult to touch a child. Examples were given – such as a teacher putting an arm on a child’s shoulder if he’s crying. It was further explained that is a crime if a man forces a boy to have oral sex.

The judge also said it is not necessarily a crime for a man to take a shower with a boy -- poor judgment in and of itself does not amount to criminality. It’s also not a crime if an adult’s actions make child feel uncomfortable. The judge said -- a display of innocent affection is not a crime. However, if it was performed with the intent of sexual gratification, it is a crime.
by WGAL 7:00 AM

This morning, the Judge John Cleland explained to the jury how they’re going to be deliberating and the charges they must consider. He told jurors to apply their own, good common sense. He said -- We all rely on your integrity and good judgment.

It was explained that the defendant is presumed to be innocent…it’s not the defendant’s burden to prove he’s not guilty, it’s the prosecution’s burden to prove he’s guilty…but does not have to prove beyond “all” doubt, just a reasonable doubt.
by WGAL 6:58 AM

Read more: http://livewire.wgal.com/Event/WGALs_Jerry_Sandusky_trial_coverage#ixzz1yR8tA5bn


(read from the bottom up )

 

[Quiche]

Dottie Sandusky was sitting in the first row of the seats allotted for the defense. Amendola came up to her and gave her a kiss on the cheek. He then went 2 rows back and hugged Joyce Porter , a Sandusky family friend who testified on his behalf on Day 6.
by WGAL 6:57 AM

Read more: http://livewire.wgal.com/Event/WGALs_Jerry_Sandusky_trial_coverage#ixzz1yR953oUR

 

[costalpilot]

wow Jean C. thinks that the judges instruction that JS's intent while he was cracking a kids back is crucial is a big deal, and that the jurors will have a hard time figgering that one out.

good point Jean...flash...we dont know what Jerry really had in mind in the shower or while massaging a chiild.

How about when he was raping the child? Or forcing fellatio? Or performing fellatio? Any idea what his intent was then Jean?

OH I'm just torn? Was it sexual when he played with the childs penis and forced the child to play with his, or not?

no wonder Jean is so breathless on how difficult a desision that instruction will impose.


maybe placing a hand on there knees weren't sexual acts? jean just said it. maybe his intent wasnt sexual?


I must be in a different reality than her.

 

[Quiche]

wow Jean C. thinks that the judges instruction that JS's intent while he was cracking a kids back is crucial is a big deal, and that the jurors will have a hard time figgering that one out.

good point Jean...flash...we dont know what Jerry really had in mind in the shower or while massaging a chiild.

How about when he was raping the child? Or forcing fellatio? Or performing fellatio? Any idea what his intent was then Jean?

OH I'm just torn? Was it sexual when he played with the childs penis and forced the child to play with his, or not?

no wonder Jean is so breathless on how difficult a desision that instruction will impose.


maybe placing a hand on there knees weren't sexual acts? jean just said it. maybe his intent wasnt sexual?


I must be in a different reality than her.

Oh boy, I'm glad I'm not listening to her! It drives my blood pressure through the roof to hear such stupidly argued defense points. :banghead:

Now, I know they are there to provide both sides, but really, did she even work it out? It can only serve to illustrate the absurdity of believing Jer innocent of the charges. It's all so blatant. imo

 

[believe09]

Maybe she is just trying to create suspense. Any guesses as to how long they will take to render a verdict? We need someone to start a poll.

 

[Bravo]

wow Jean C. thinks that the judges instruction that JS's intent while he was cracking a kids back is crucial is a big deal, and that the jurors will have a hard time figgering that one out.

good point Jean...flash...we dont know what Jerry really had in mind in the shower or while massaging a chiild.

How about when he was raping the child? Or forcing fellatio? Or performing fellatio? Any idea what his intent was then Jean?

OH I'm just torn? Was it sexual when he played with the childs penis and forced the child to play with his, or not?

no wonder Jean is so breathless on how difficult a desision that instruction will impose.


maybe placing a hand on there knees weren't sexual acts? jean just said it. maybe his intent wasnt sexual?


I must be in a different reality than her.

No kidding!!!! I'm sure that was all part of the grooming process. Innocent touches at first then.........:banghead:

 

[costalpilot]

i'd disregard dr atkins testimony except the part that indicated none of what he said really mattered, when the SA got him to admit that just because he might have HPD wouldnt preclude a pschosexual disorder.

disregard atkins testimony as typical bought and paid for professional bs,paid for opinion.

 

[Hbgchick]

"The judge also explained to the jury what each category of crime Sandusky faces means"


Read more: http://livewire.wgal.com/Event/WGALs_Jerry_Sandusky_trial_coverage#ixzz1yRBxylpR


Does anyone know the details of exactly what those are?

 

[Quiche]

I find this bolded blurb interesting:

The judge also explained to the jury what each category of crime Sandusky faces means.

The jury sat through the instructions looking intently. Around 9:30 a.m., juror 7, the soon-to-be PSU senior, and youngest on the jury, starts to fidget. He had been leaning forward with his fist under his chin. Now he is sitting upright, chewing on his finger, eyes wandering.

The judge also said that on counts 36 to 40, which included the hearsay evidence of janitor Jim Calhoun (the one with dementia who did not testify) is not evidence alone to convict on those charges, but circumstantial evidence can support the hearsay and be enough to convict.
by WGAL 7:05 AM

Read more: http://livewire.wgal.com/Event/WGALs_Jerry_Sandusky_trial_coverage#ixzz1yRC5G6iT

That body language suggests to me that this juror may have arrived thinking good old Jerry was likely innocent and now is nervousing because he's going to have to vote guilty and put the man in prison for the rest of his days. (just a gut reaction)

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Maybe she is just trying to create suspense. Any guesses as to how long they will take to render a verdict? We need someone to start a poll.

Agreed! Who knows how?

 

[Quiche]

No kidding!!!! I'm sure that was all part of the grooming process. Innocent touches at first then.........:banghead:

Directly from his private "play book." mo

 

[costalpilot]

Maybe she is just trying to create suspense. Any guesses as to how long they will take to render a verdict? We need someone to start a poll.

hopefully thats it, for her own sense of reality. if she actually believed that drivel, wow, just wow....probably was all for ratings.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I think Jean Carasez is a bit overly dramatic in her presentation. I always take what the legal comentators and run it through my own sense of things. I do know they attempt to be impartial in their analysis and when the evidence is piling up against the defendant, they want to show their fair-mindedness by their interpretations. I'm sure she could have argued the opposite with fervor.

In the end, with the jury as uell as us... it's our own common sense that counts.

 

[Quiche]

"The judge also explained to the jury what each category of crime Sandusky faces means"


Read more: http://livewire.wgal.com/Event/WGALs_Jerry_Sandusky_trial_coverage#ixzz1yRBxylpR


Does anyone know the details of exactly what those are?

Here's a look at the Judge's instructions to the jury:

You will have list by child with each crime, and a worksheet with each crime and a list of questions you must enter before reaching verdict. Verdict sheet, too.

Instructions on law you must apply - Defense argument first, then prosecution case.

1) The verdict must arise from own independent review of facts and application of law, good common sense, oath you you. We all rely on integrity and good judgment.

2) The defendant is presumed to be innocent. He is assumed to be innocent throughout this trial unless and until you conclude that the Commonwealth has proven to your satisfaction he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense is not required to present any evidence or prove anything. Commonwealth has burden.

If they have failed, your verdict must be Not Guilty.
by Shaun Ganley/Staff edited by Shaun Ganley/Staff 7:23 AM

Read more: http://livewire.wtae.com/Event/Jerry_Sandusky_Trial_2#ixzz1yRDv8RGt

From judge: Reasonable doubt is not an imagined doubt…

Not enough that evidence cast doubt on innocence of doubt….to find guilty, you must be convinced of guilt to same degree…

You may not find guilty based on mere suspicion. Must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

You will have to confront question, when does innocent conduct become criminal? Not necessarily a crime to touch a child. Ski coach, wrestling coach demonstrates moves, teacher puts comforting arm around crying child.

Is a crime for man to have oral sex with boy? If you believe the testimony in this case, you may find defendant guilty. But other forms of contact more problematic – not necessarily crime to take shower, lather boy’s hair, shoulders, give back rub. Might just be poor judgment, but not criminal. Not necessarily a crime for adult to make child feel uncomfortable. Intent with which it is done makes it a crime.

Different between family affection from lust. Display of affection not lust. But when performed with sexual motive at expense of child, that is a crime.
Test is not what child felt then or now, critical issue not child feeling uncomfortable. Issue is what the defendant intended…

If you decide defendant has engaged in various behaviors, must decide which acts committed to satisfy own sexual behavior. If he did not act out of sexual behavior, no crime, just poor judgment.

Must review each charge – was there criminal intent?

Read more: http://livewire.wtae.com/Event/Jerry_Sandusky_Trial_2#ixzz1yRE1Xahf