Sandusky (and Dorothy) Future

[J. J. in Phila]

Maybe Amendola will appeal on the grounds that he (Amendola) should have defended Jerry as insane.

No, he is claiming that there was not enough time to prepare.

 

[Reader]

Jerry Sandusky's victims said to be largely satisfied with sex abuse sentence

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...abuse-sentence?lite&google_editors_picks=true

............"They have confidence that Judge (John) Cleland took his obligations seriously," Casey said in an interview with NBC 10 of Philadelphia. "Jerry Sandusky is never going to get out of prison."

Casey acknowledged that the sentence was shorter than he had expected, saying, "If you walk through the individual accounts, there may be some sentences that we might take issue with."

But "the man is going to die in prison," he said. "That he will never be able to do this to anyone else probably was the most important part of this for our clients.".............

Fritz told NBC News that all of the young men continue to undergo counseling, but he said it was time to stop calling them "victims."

"What's important to note today is these are victims that are transitioning into survivors, and they're no longer victims," he said. "They are doing what they can to move on with their life as best they can, despite the horror."


I agree....Why don't we start calling them survivors too.....they have prevailed and are now more powerful than JS....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I know that it essentially is a life sentence for him, but symbolically, I would have suggested the following sentence:
Take each survivor's age at the time the abuse started and Jerry should get one year for every year of that individual's life up until the age they were when they bravely testified. 10 young men whose abuse typically started around age 10, with youngest survivor being 18, would have rendered a longer verdict and, as I mentioned, been a strong symbolic statement to serial pedophiles. He robbed them of those years...let us as a society take those same amount of years (at a minimum) back.

You can't do that in PA. The sentenced would be overturned.

Also, the appellate courts could regard a harsher sentence as evidence of the judge being biased. It is twice as much as I thought it would be.

 

[StellarsJay]

A 40-year-old career con brought up in the Bay State is claiming he, too, was sexually molested by Jerry Sandusky while attending a weeklong camp at Penn State for athletically gifted high school football players in 1988, his lawyer said yesterday.

Boston attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who represented victims of the Catholic Church sex-abuse scandal, told the Herald his client — who wishes to remain anonymous for now — was interviewed by Pennsylvania State Police in January.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061166518

 

[gitana1]

You can't do that in PA. The sentenced would be overturned.

Also, the appellate courts could regard a harsher sentence as evidence of the judge being biased. It is twice as much as I thought it would be.

I disagree. The judge himself stated he could have sentenced sandusky to centuries. What ndps is suggesting is about 100 years. Not too far off from the 30-60 he received.

Now perhaps sandusky would have more grounds for appeal if he was sentenced to 500 years, but 100? Further, just because he may have something he can base an appeal on does not mean the sentence (or conviction) would be overturned. It's very hard to win an appeal. My prediction is that no way will sandusky win an appeal. No way. And he would lose even if the judge had sentenced him to one year per year of his victim's lives from the time of molestation to sentencing.

Finally, I know his sentence is twice as much as you thought it would be. You made that very, very clear after he was convicted. But, that doesn't support your statement about what this judge could have legitimately sentenced sandusky to. Because every single legal expert that spoke about what sandusky faced contradicted what you stated he was likely to receive.

In any event, sandusky will never see the outside of prison again. he will die there. I am very satisfied to know that. I think justice prevailed. I hope those boys (now men) get stronger and happier and more whole, every day that sandusky rots with his "memories".

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I disagree. The judge himself stated he could have sentenced sandusky to centuries. What ndps is suggesting is about 100 years. Not too far off from the 30-60 he received.

Centuries is not life.

Now perhaps sandusky would have more grounds for appeal if he was sentenced to 500 years, but 100?

I have never heard of a 100 year sentence in PA. This is actually the second longest for child molestation that I've read about.

Further, just because he may have something he can base an appeal on does not mean the sentence (or conviction) would be overturned. It's very hard to win an appeal. My prediction is that no way will sandusky win an appeal. No way. And he would lose even if the judge had sentenced him to one year per year of his victim's lives from the time of molestation to sentencing.

Right now, Amendola is claiming inadequate time to prepare, which was in the purview of the judge. If he could show that the judge was biased, like by handing him an excessive sentence, he has a case. So, if there was this sentence that you want, it could be tossed out. Some of the judges decisions were judgments and another judge could easily strike even more charges. Right now, the charges that Sandusky was acquitted of or that were dismissed, are off the table. Sandusky can never be charged on those. So, if this goes back to court, the prosecutor would have less to work with.

Finally, I know his sentence is twice as much as you thought it would be. You made that very, very clear after he was convicted. But, that doesn't support your statement about what this judge could have legitimately sentenced sandusky to. Because every single legal expert that spoke about what sandusky faced contradicted what you stated he was likely to receive.

There are sentencing guidelines that, while not bind, require the judge to give a written explanation of if exceeded. Somebody on the Internet thinking it should be more is not a good reason. http://www.penn-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1831194.html

In Sandusky's case you had no priors, which was a major factor.

In any event, sandusky will never see the outside of prison again. he will die there. I am very satisfied to know that. I think justice prevailed. I hope those boys (now men) get stronger and happier and more whole, every day that sandusky rots with his "memories".

This is another factor. Sandusky wasn't a 20 year old; he was 68. They all know that it is very unlikely that Sandusky will be paroled (and I think he would have to admit guilt).

 

[gitana1]

Centuries is not life.

That's right. Centuries is more than life. The judge stated he could have sentenced Sandusky to centuries. What the poster was suggesting was closer to 100 years, which is less than centuries.

I have never heard of a 100 year sentence in PA. This is actually the second longest for child molestation that I've read about.

Just Because you have not heard of it does not make it unreasonable or impossible. Again, essentially every legal expert commenting felt sandusky
was never going to leave prison. And again, the judge stated he had the discretion to sentence sandusky to centuries. He didn't. He sentenced him to 30-60. But that's not too far off from 100 years. It was at the court's discretion. he made a decision. he could have made a different one.

Right now, Amendola is claiming inadequate time to prepare, which was in the purview of the judge. If he could show that the judge was biased, like by handing him an excessive sentence, he has a case. So, if there was this sentence that you want, it could be tossed out. Some of the judges decisions were judgments and another judge could easily strike even more charges. Right now, the charges that Sandusky was acquitted of or that were dismissed, are off the table. Sandusky can never be charged on those. So, if this goes back to court, the prosecutor would have less to work with.

No. Being sentenced to what you feel is an "excessive sentence" is not enough to show bias. You have to prove that bias resulted in the sentence handed down. You have to actually be able to show how the judge was biased by comments, etc., not just that the sentence was too great.

Bias is extremely hard to prove. Extremely. A good example would be specific evidence that the judge hates black people, like derogatory comments, coupled with unfair treatment of black attorneys, allowing every black potential juror to be kicked off the jury, and then a much higher sentence for the black defendant than he has ever sentenced any white person for, for the same crime.

Defense attorneys often bat around inflammatory or ridiculous statements about how they are going to win on appeal, after they just got their rears handed to them at trial. I advise you to compare those statements to their pre-trial statements about how they are going to prove 100% that their client is innocent. Just because a defense attorney states he has grounds for an appeal does not make it so.

IMO, no way will sandusky ever win any appeal.


There are sentencing guidelines that, while not bind, require the judge to give a written explanation of if exceeded. Somebody on the Internet thinking it should be more is not a good reason. http://www.penn-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1831194.html

In Sandusky's case you had no priors, which was a major factor.

No one said that the judge should have sentenced sandusky to more based on what someone on the internet felt. Again, the judge himself stated he could have sentenced sandusky to centuries. Do you not believe him? And if you think the judge did not give a written explanation of his sentencing, you have another thing coming. Almost every such sentence is followed by a written explanation. It's a heavy sentence in a high profile case. This judge dotted his i's and crossed his t's. He had good reasons for what he decided. If he had chosen a stiffer sentence, I believe he would have had good reasons for that as well. It could have gone in many different directions. It was an educated choice. Having to write down his reasons would not have deterred this judge or most judges.

This is another factor. Sandusky wasn't a 20 year old; he was 68. They all know that it is very unlikely that Sandusky will be paroled (and I think he would have to admit guilt).

My responses in red, above.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

"That's right. Centuries is more than life. The judge stated he could have sentenced Sandusky to centuries. What the poster was suggesting was closer to 100 years, which is less than centuries. "

And that would make it excessive, prohibited by both the US and PA Constitutions. S right there, you get his sentencing tossed.

"No. Being sentenced to what you feel is an "excessive sentence" is not enough to show bias. You have to prove that bias resulted in the sentence handed down. You have to actually be able to show how the judge was biased by comments, etc., not just that the sentence was too great. "

You can show it through his actions and rulings. Go in and read the guidelines. I think this where your entire argument fails. This was in line with the guidelines and will probably keep Sandusky locked up for life, but it is not enough to throw in the possibility of bias.

Amendola does have some appealable issues, but bias probably can't be shown.

 

[gitana1]

"That's right. Centuries is more than life. The judge stated he could have sentenced Sandusky to centuries. What the poster was suggesting was closer to 100 years, which is less than centuries. "

And that would make it excessive, prohibited by both the US and PA Constitutions. S right there, you get his sentencing tossed.

"No. Being sentenced to what you feel is an "excessive sentence" is not enough to show bias. You have to prove that bias resulted in the sentence handed down. You have to actually be able to show how the judge was biased by comments, etc., not just that the sentence was too great. "

You can show it through his actions and rulings. Go in and read the guidelines. I think this where your entire argument fails. This was in line with the guidelines and will probably keep Sandusky locked up for life, but it is not enough to throw in the possibility of bias.

Amendola does have some appealable issues, but bias probably can't be shown.

Hey friend, I'm just telling you my opinion based on my experience and knowledge as an attorney. Back when he was convicted I stated: "Sandusky can get concurrent sentences and can be sentenced to no more than 20 years, but due to the notoriety of this case, the pervasiveness of what he did - the multiple victims - the fact that he used his position of power to commit and cover up his crimes, the nationwide outrage, it is highly unlikely that he would a) be sentenced to less than 60 years, or; b) ever be granted parole prior to serving 20 years in state prison (unless he was very sick and incapacitated by such illness and even then...)"

You disagreed with me and with all the legal experts who followed the case who said he'd never get out of jail alive. You stated it would be no more than 20. That alarmed a lot of people. But it was wrong.

I'm telling you that you are also wrong now. The court could have sentenced sandusky to more without creating an appealable order. A 10 year sentence may not be typical but is not necessarily "excessive." Specific evidence of bias would have to be shown, not just a stiff sentence. You have none of that here.

But, the judge has spoken and I am satisfied with his ruling. I am also satisfied that sandusky has nothing that will result in a successful appeal.

 

[LNL]

The retiremeny system notified Sandusky by letter Wednesday that his crimes triggered forfeiture of the pension. The former Penn State assistant football coach was sentenced Tuesday to at least 30 years in prison for molesting 10 boys.

Jerry Sandusky's lawyer says that Sandusky will fight to keep his $59,000 annual pension.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121010_ap_pamovestorevokesanduskyspension.html


I read somewhere else that if it was revoked, Dottie will not get anything. As a Pennsylvania taxpayer, I say HURRAY!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Hey friend, I'm just telling you my opinion based on my experience and knowledge as an attorney. Back when he was convicted I stated: "Sandusky can get concurrent sentences and can be sentenced to no more than 20 years, but due to the notoriety of this case, the pervasiveness of what he did - the multiple victims - the fact that he used his position of power to commit and cover up his crimes, the nationwide outrage, it is highly unlikely that he would a) be sentenced to less than 60 years, or; b) ever be granted parole prior to serving 20 years in state prison (unless he was very sick and incapacitated by such illness and even then...)"

And, as someone who does watch sentencing in PA, tell you that these types of sentences are not given in PA. I can also post the guidelines judges generally follow in PA.

You disagreed with me and with all the legal experts who followed the case who said he'd never get out of jail alive. You stated it would be no more than 20. That alarmed a lot of people. But it was wrong.

I actually said 30 (out in 15), looking at the charges and grid.

I'm telling you that you are also wrong now. The court could have sentenced sandusky to more without creating an appealable order. A 10 year sentence may not be typical but is not necessarily "excessive." Specific evidence of bias would have to be shown, not just a stiff sentence. You have none of that here.

And I'm telling you that, in PA, you are wrong. These 150 sentences are not given.

But, the judge has spoken and I am satisfied with his ruling. I am also satisfied that sandusky has nothing that will result in a successful appeal.

I think the sentencing helped lessen a ground for an appeal. Amendola's main ground for an appeal is the time factor.

 

[HMSHood]

Centuries is not life.



I have never heard of a 100 year sentence in PA. This is actually the second longest for child molestation that I've read about.



Right now, Amendola is claiming inadequate time to prepare, which was in the purview of the judge. If he could show that the judge was biased, like by handing him an excessive sentence, he has a case. So, if there was this sentence that you want, it could be tossed out. Some of the judges decisions were judgments and another judge could easily strike even more charges. Right now, the charges that Sandusky was acquitted of or that were dismissed, are off the table. Sandusky can never be charged on those. So, if this goes back to court, the prosecutor would have less to work with.



There are sentencing guidelines that, while not bind, require the judge to give a written explanation of if exceeded. Somebody on the Internet thinking it should be more is not a good reason. http://www.penn-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1831194.html

In Sandusky's case you had no priors, which was a major factor.



This is another factor. Sandusky wasn't a 20 year old; he was 68. They all know that it is very unlikely that Sandusky will be paroled (and I think he would have to admit guilt).

What is the longest in Pennsylvania than?

 

[gitana1]

And, as someone who does watch sentencing in PA, tell you that these types of sentences are not given in PA. I can also post the guidelines judges generally follow in PA.

I actually said 30 (out in 15), looking at the charges and grid.

And I'm telling you that, in PA, you are wrong. These 150 sentences are not given.

I think the sentencing helped lessen a ground for an appeal. Amendola's main ground for an appeal is the time factor.

I know what you're telling me. But with respect, you made similar arguments when stating there was no way he'd get much more than 20 years.

I think understanding the legal system from the inside can be different sometimes from knowledge you gain from observation alone.

My guess is that it will be 20-25 years and parole possibly in 10-12.5. Don't be too upset with that. Sandusky will be in his late 70's to mid 80's, if he lives that long, and not be around young children if he makes parole. Libidos tend to fade in males with age. Worry about the guy who gets the same sentence at 25 (even if he went to Pitt).

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091978&postcount=2226"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky Trial #11 (Verdict - GUILTY!)[/ame]


ETA: From your link about Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines:

Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences

If you were convicted of multiple offenses in the same case, the trial judge has discretion to run the sentence concurrent or consecutive. Let’s say you went to trial and were convicted of Simple Assault (M-2) and Recklessly Endangering Another Person (M-2) in the same case. One possibility is the judge could sentence you to 2 years probation on each charge and run them concurrent. Therefore, your total time on probation would be 2 years. The offenses would be running “concurrently” or at the same time. Another possibility is the judge could run the charges consecutive and give you 2 years probation on each, totaling 4 years probation.


Aggravating/Mitigating Factors

If you notice, on the right side of the sentencing matrix there is a section that reads “AGG/MIT.” This stands for aggravating/mitigating factors. An aggravating or mitigating factor can be anything. Let’s say John Doe gets in a fight at a bar and punches out Bruno. Bruno has to go to the hospital and get plastic surgery. John pleads guilty to Aggravated Assault. The surgery costs $50,000. Before sentencing, John Doe pays Bruno’s entire doctor’s bill. The sentencing judge could consider the fact that John Doe paid full restitution a mitigating factor. Let’s say John Doe’s sentencing guidelines were 12-18, AGG/MIT +/-6. The judge could cut John a break and mitigate his sentence by 6 months and sentence John to 6 months in prison rather than 12 months. This can work the opposite way. Let’s say John didn’t pay Bruno’s doctor bill. The judge could consider the amount of restitution and the fact that the injuries were serious an aggravating factor and sentence John to 18 months in prison.

http://www.penn-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1831194.html

IMO, an aggravating circumstance can include the number of victims, the heinousness of the acts committed, etc.

 

[HMSHood]

Sandusky’s wife defends him and trashes son
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121010_Sanduskys_wife_defends_him_and_trashes_son.html

Dottie Sandusky showing her true colors.

 

[Rlaub44]

What is the longest in Pennsylvania than?

The Patriot-News had an article today about a molester who was sentenced to 150-300 years; however, keep in mind he had been convicted twice previously as well.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...auphin_county_child.html#incart_river_default

 

[Reader]

The retiremeny system notified Sandusky by letter Wednesday that his crimes triggered forfeiture of the pension. The former Penn State assistant football coach was sentenced Tuesday to at least 30 years in prison for molesting 10 boys.

Jerry Sandusky's lawyer says that Sandusky will fight to keep his $59,000 annual pension.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121010_ap_pamovestorevokesanduskyspension.html


I read somewhere else that if it was revoked, Dottie will not get anything. As a Pennsylvania taxpayer, I say HURRAY!

Woop! Dottie doesn't have any income of her own, does she? Will she have to get a job to support herself if this goes through? I'm pretty sure she would have to sell the house but who would want it? I remember Pensfan saying she would end up living in a tent, lol...On what basis would JS have to fight for the pension if the law/policies say it is forfeited due to his crimes? This will be interesting....

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Woop! Dottie doesn't have any income of her own, does she? Will she have to get a job to support herself if this goes through? I'm pretty sure she would have to sell the house but who would want it? I remember Pensfan saying she would end up living in a tent, lol...On what basis would JS have to fight for the pension if the law/policies say it is forfeited due to his crimes? This will be interesting....

There is the argument that it wasn't truly "job related." Curley's and Schultz's would be.

I think they changed the law, but there would be an argument that it interfered with a contract (the ex post facto law argument is useless on the federal level).

 

[Reader]

Unapologetic Jerry Sandusky should have gotten maximum sentence in Penn State sex abuse case

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/unapologetic-sandusky-maximum-sentence-article-1.1178920

BELLEFONTE, Pa. — In the end, Jerry Sandusky remained unrepentant and unapologetic, a monster still unwilling to admit his horrific crimes.............

Sandusky could have faced close to 500 years in prison and should have received the max, if only to send a message that his horrific crimes fly in the face of decency. He figures to die in prison. His victims will have to live with what he did to them for the rest of their lives.

More at link....

 

[Reader]

Case doesn't end with Jerry Sandusky's sentencing

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/10/jerry_sandusky_2.html#incart_hbx

.............In addition to Sandusky appealing his conviction on 45 counts of molesting 10 boys during a 15-year period, there are the continuing prosecutions of two high-level university administrators, an ongoing criminal investigation and a host of civil lawsuits. ............

Duquesne University law professor Wes Oliver, who has been following the Sandusky case for NBC, said Tuesday that he does not think any of the defense arguments have a good chance of success, in part because of the care with which Cleland managed the trial. .............

Meanwhile, state and federal investigators are continuing to explore other aspects of the Sandusky scandal, including whether other top university leaders might have lied during the state investigation or been involved in attempts to conceal evidence.

Asked about that on Tuesday, McGettigan, speaking for Attorney General Linda Kelly’s office, said only that “we have an ongoing investigation which we’re not going to discuss.” 

More at link.... 

 

[Reader]

There is the argument that it wasn't truly "job related." Curley's and Schultz's would be.

I think they changed the law, but there would be an argument that it interfered with a contract (the ex post facto law argument is useless on the federal level).

Looks like the state has that all covered:

Pennsylvania's pension forfeiture law, originally passed in 1978, primarily applies to public employees convicted of a financial crime related to the office "or when his public employment places him in a position to commit the crime."

Since 2004, it has also applied to any public school employee convicted of a sex crime against a student.

In its letter to Sandusky, the retirement system said it had determined that two of the criminal charges of which Sandusky was convicted — involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent assault — fell under the forfeiture law.

It also said Sandusky maintained extensive ties to Penn State after his 1999 retirement, qualifying him as a "de facto" employee subject to forfeiture for crimes committed even when he was no longer on the university's payroll.............

Rominger argued in part that since Sandusky wasn't convicted of molesting a Penn State student, the forfeiture law does not apply to him. Sandusky's young victims came to him through The Second Mile, his charity for troubled youth.

"It did not involve students where he worked, and that's going to be the crux," Rominger said.

But Philadelphia attorney Alaine Williams, an expert on public employee labor law, said courts have broadly construed the forfeiture law.

"I think he's got a very serious problem," she said ahead of the retirement system's announcement.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/c...9-000-pension-article-1.1179765#ixzz28xmbbrWl

All those close ties between the school and SM that JS used to groom the boys he abused are really backfiring on him now...all the dinners, games, hotel stays, ALL THE SHOWERS WITH BOYS IN THE SCHOOL FACILITIES, out of town game trips.....de facto....love it....

I hope it holds up...this is the way dear Dottie can pay some too...by loss of her life style...maybe she'll lose some of that arrogance that let her laugh at and deny what she knows to be true...children were molested in her own home and she turned her haughty head and closed her eyes so she could continue to live the way she wanted....