• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Disgraced Former Penn State DC Jerry Sandusky (convicted child molester)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
LightningRod;2169083; said:
I believe Heath v Alabama remains precedent today which would permit Texas to proceed without any need to wait for a hung jury unless there is something in the Texas statutes or constitution that prohibits the state from proceeding.
Click to expand...
As much as this whole case disgusts/infuriates me, I've only really been following it here. Has there been any discussion, re: Texas, making a move on this?
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: Did lawyers make right decision in keeping accused sex offender off witness stand?

It was going to be the biggest day for the biggest show in town.
Jerry Sandusky was finally going to address the child sex abuse charges against him, under oath.
Inside, stately Courtroom One in the Centre County Courthouse was packed.
Outside, a man in a teddy bear suit was mocking pedophiles for all who cared to listen.

But defense attorney Joe Amendola kept Sandusky off the witness stand. He rested the defense case before noon Wednesday. The defense team likely kept Sandusky off the stand to bury the notorious Bob Costas interview from November once and for all.
If Sandusky were to testify that he never molested a child, the prosecutors could have dredged up a damning unaired portion of the Costas interview. Sandusky uttered what could be interpreted as an admission when he said, ?I didn?t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I?ve helped.?
So Sandusky didn?t get the chance to sway any jurors. But prosecutors don?t get a chance to pin another near-admission on the former Penn State football defensive coordinator.
If that was the defense team?s thinking, Widener law professor Wes Oliver called it a ?reasonable trade.?
There?s another interpretation for the defense team keeping Sandusky off the stand. It might feel it has raised reasonable doubt.
Whatever the true reason Sandusky didn?t take the stand, the decision apparently wasn?t made early.
Amendola indicated in his opening statement last week that Sandusky would testify. He could be heard in court Wednesday telling the small knot of Sandusky loyalists that he had spent most of the night preparing for all eventualities and got just two hours of sleep.
Though Judge John M. Cleland will instruct jurors they can?t hold Sandusky?s decision to not testify against him, jurors want to hear both sides of a story, said Christopher Mallios, a former head of the Philadelphia district attorney?s family violence and sexual assault division.
The defense had to weigh the pros and cons of putting him on the stand and how susceptible he would be to cross-examination by state Deputy Attorney General Joe McGettigan, a skilled former homicide prosecutor, Mallios said.
?It could have been a disaster,? he said. ?I?m sure they had a lot of discussions about this.?
Sandusky?s performance when he was grilled by Costas in the televised interview might have led to a final conclusion by his attorneys that he would not hold up well under cross-examination.
?If that was a preview of how he would testify at trial, you don?t want to have him on the stand,? said Steven Breit, a criminal defense attorney based in Lancaster County. ?You don?t call him.?
John E.B. Myers, a professor at the University of the Pacific?s McGeorge Law School, noted that not testifying is the safe bet for defendants.
?Most of the time you?re not going to put your guy on the stand unless you?re sure he?s going to do a dynamite job,? Myers said.
In Sandusky?s case, he added, ?It seems to me it is not worth risking it if he is going to give answers like he did to Costas.?
But there are some who think Sandusky should have testified.
Carlisle attorney Jay Abom said that given the ?mountain of evidence? in the prosecution case, ?I would think the jurors would want to hear him say: ?I?m a good person and I didn?t do this, and I want you to believe me.??
Abom acknowledged it?s akin to a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game. But he said he thinks that?s what Sandusky needs.
Sandusky?s attorneys might feel they damaged the prosecution?s case with a tape recording of state police investigators prompting one of the alleged victims to be more forthcoming in a police interview.
In that tape, the police are heard telling him that they?ve interviewed nine other Sandusky accusers, and that some of those accusers had said touching led to oral sex and, in at least one case, anal rape.
Outside observers have differed on the weight of that tape. Some argue it is appropriate for police to let victims of child sexual abuse know that they are not alone and that they will be believed.
?I don?t think the police did anything wrong in that interview,? said Jennifer Storm, director of Dauphin County?s Victim/Witness Assistance office.
Some of the Sandusky supporters who have faithfully attended the trial expressed shock that their guy didn?t take the stand.
Joyce Porter, a longtime friend of the family?s from State College, said she was disappointed.
Porter said she thought Dottie Sandusky, the wife of the former coach, ?was a very strong witness and I thought Jerry could be the same thing.?
Dottie Sandusky, who did testify Tuesday, was not in court Wednesday, though at least two of the couple?s adopted children were.
?I wanted him to get up there and say something,? said Connie Boland, a school guidance counselor from Avis, Clinton County. She has referred many children to programs run by The Second Mile, the children?s charity Sandusky founded.
She lined up at 3:15 a.m. Wednesday for a seat in the courtroom in her personal search for answers.
The fact that she didn?t get any answers from Sandusky, she said, felt like ?another punch to the gut.?
Whatever went into the decision to stay off the stand, when it was over, Jerry Sandusky seemed at peace with the choice.
Before leaving the courtroom, he engaged in light banter with his lawyers and their paralegal, and lined up a ride home. His normal driver, Amendola, had to stay on to prepare for today?s closings.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: Closing arguments could make the difference in case that relies on credibility, experts say

Poet Robert Frost is credited with saying: A jury consists of 12 persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.

This morning, the lawyers in the Jerry Sandusky molestation trial will make their final pitches to the Centre County jury charged with deciding the ex-Penn State football coach?s fate.

What they say or don?t say during their final arguments could make the difference in a case that relies heavily on credibility, legal experts say.

Sandusky?s attorneys, Joe Amendola and Karl Rominger, will need to explain to jurors how the eight alleged victims have all given similar and, at times, gripping testimony, according to Christopher Mallios, a former defense attorney and head of the Philadelphia district attorney?s family violence and sexual assault division.

?They?re going to say the police coached these victims and told them what to say,? Mallios said. ?The problem is we?re talking about adults here. We?re not talking about children.?

In Pennsylvania, juries can acquit someone based on character testimony alone, something the judge will likely inform jurors.

For three days this week, the defense paraded character witnesses ? neighbors, friends, co-workers of Sandusky and former Second Mile children ? who spoke of the 68-year-old?s reputation for being an honest, law-abiding person.

The defense might remind jurors about the witnesses that spoke highly of Sandusky.

However, the prosecution can also use that testimony in its final arguments by saying Sandusky used his nice-guy image to lure his victims.


?The public Jerry Sandusky had this persona associated with this iconic football program and [his charity, The Second Mile] intended to help disadvantaged children, but the other Sandusky is a serial sex offender,? Mallios said. ?I would expect some version of that to come out in the prosecution?s closing argument.?

Sandusky, who maintains his innocence, is charged with 51 counts of sexually abusing 10 children, eight of whom have been identified.

Some of the most compelling testimony from alleged victims happened early last week when the prosecution opened its case.

Prosecutors Joe McGettigan and Frank Fina might want to highlight some aspects of their case the jury may have forgotten about or not picked up on, said Amy Eyster, who frequently prosecutes child abuse cases in York County.

For example, many of the alleged victims have said Sandusky?s abuse began when he would put his hand on their knee while they were in his vehicle together.

?In general, during closing arguments you want to try to highlight the core evidence, witness statements, facts, the pattern of how he violated one child in an atmosphere and created the same type of atmosphere for other children,? Eyster said. ?Focus on the fact that in these types of cases, you don?t need DNA evidence to prove the case and you can do it on the testimony of a child victim alone.?

Presenting the jury with a timeline of events is an effective method, she said.

Following the closing arguments, Judge John Cleland will give the jury its instructions, going into great detail about what elements need to be proven for each count to support a guilty verdict.

Dauphin County Chief Deputy District Attorney Sean McCormack, who handles most of the county?s child abuse cases, said he typically tells the jury the facts and how they match up to the charges.

It?s also important to concentrate on debunking the defense?s argument, since that?s the last thing they?ve heard.

For instance, part of Sandusky?s defense is that the alleged victims are fabricating the accusations in hopes of suing for big bucks in forthcoming civil suits. They?ve also argued the alleged victims changed their stories after prodding by police investigators.

?I would educate [jurors] as to how child victims really are,? McCormack said. ?They don?t necessarily come out right away and tell everyone what happened, especially when you have boys as victims. Even when they do talk to police, the victims will minimize what happened to them.?

McCormack said he will often sit in the witness box during closing arguments, explaining to jurors how difficult it can be for victims to tell their stories sitting only feet away from the person accused of abusing them.

?It?s your last opportunity and you want to end strong,? McCormack said. ?The prosecution gets the last word.?
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
3 felony counts dismissed.

Counts 16, 18 and 19 dropped with prejudice.

16 and 19 pertain to victim 4 and included "facts" that were not testified to by victim 4.

Count 18 apparently was basically the same as another count. So it was dropped as being redundant.

If I got some of this wrong, I apologize. Typing as they were explaining on In Session. A written report will soon be coming I imagine...
 
Upvote 0
Typing while listening to report...

Judge's instructions to jury apparently require them to only consider the "intent" of Sandusky. Showering, soaping up, back cracking not necessarily criminal without a "sexual intent".


JESUS FUCKING CHRIST they are gonna let him walk!!
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top