PA’s Backward Expert-Witness Law Creates Advantage for Jerry Sandusky
Though the grand jury report outlining allegations that former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky routinely raped young boys entrusted in his care is damning, when it comes to the trial, Sandusky and his lawyer Joe Amendola have a few home-court advantages here in Pennsylvania.
For one thing, thanks to a bizarre statement buried in standard jury instruction,
the trial judge will instruct jurors to factor in how quickly the alleged victims reported the abuse to authorities while gauging the veracity of their claims.
From Section 4.13A of the standard Pennsylvania juror instruction, titled “Failure to Make Prompt Complaint in Certain Sexual Offenses”: “The evidence of [name of victim]’s [failure to complain] [delay in making a complaint] does not necessarily make [his] [her] testimony unreliable, but may remove from it the assurance of reliability accompanying the prompt complaint or outcry that the victim of a crime such as this would ordinarily be expected to make.”
This “prompt complaint” instruction is included despite the fact that there is no proven correlation between delay in reporting assault and an alleged victim’s likelihood to tell the truth. In fact, it is common for a sexual assault victim to not report an assault right away, especially if perpetrated by a trusted authority figure—as is the case with Sandusky, who founded the Second Mile, a charity for at-risk youth.
Pennsylvania jurors are not instructed to weigh promptness of contacting authorities in cases of any other kinds of physical assault, or any other crime for that matter.
The Sandusky defense could also take advantage of the fact that Pennsylvania prohibits expert testimony in sexual-assault cases.
http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com...ess-law-creates-advantage-for-jerry-sandusky/
