Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.
- Thread starter OXLion
- Start date
Someone once said don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrelful. Well "They" own the judiciary, state government, and the press. It's not a fight you can win.
We all disagree here many times, and that's a good thing. If people have different opinions, do not castrate them for doing so. We all truly care for Penn State. Try not to forget that in your comments. I'll be watching the board for you know what. In the end, We Are Penn State. Let's not forget what that means. It's bigger than all of us.
Will you please stop with your common sense! You make great points. I simply feel We Are is far bigger. That's just me. I may be wrong. I don't know.
Bob only believes anyone that thinks like he does. Everyone else is afraid of the truth. Passing the blame at this point is cute, but what will these guys do when these guys take the stand against GS. They will get the hatorade in just a few weeks if that occurs.
Yes, but what did they plead guilty to? Did they admit that MM told them about anal rape? Did they admit that they covered things up in order to protect football? Did they admit that Joe was part of a conspiracy or that Joe told them not to report to authorities? I don't think that they admitted to any of that. I think they simply admitted that they should have reported and failed to do so. Am I wrong?
It's cost us recruits? You've got to be kidding me. Who cares about the recruits?
The only thing it cost us is money.
In the real world, again, haters still hate--at the end of the day, nothing that's happened will change this. If an employer isn't going to hire a PSU grad because of this scandal, then the PSU grad is the fortunate one.
Doesn't matter. When the public hears "guilty", they believe it all.... True or not.
Ha --- like you wouldn't be driving your boot up MY ass if you were proven correct?
If you think Penn State is what it was pre-2011, you are full of absolute sh!t.
Yes, I would say the wording of the statute is quite important to a court's ruling.
Fair enough.
People can try to spin it, but Curley & Schultz pled guilty to child endangerment today. Their own words. It's damn tough to spin that.
Sounds like "the Penn State grad" should have picked another school. If there's even that minute a possibility, why the heck go to Penn State?
That is the shame. The narrative is PSU admins and Joe covered up for JS so the PSU football machine could continue to win. Freeh, BOT, and ESPN made and sealed that narrative. Other than those two partially quoted emails in Freeh's report that had not context, every other evidence points to nothing of the sort. C/S are taking a plea deal as to essentialy saying they didn't report what they heard to CYS/Police.
Even if you sat on the jury, I don't believe you could conclusively say whether they were guilty or not. Juries sometimes get it wrong.
Some of the rulings *I've* seen lately make me think otherwise. Not just in this case. The only import the wording has is how they can twist it to say what they want it to say.
Considering the original charges brought against both of them, the end result of only two misdemeanor pleas has to be considered a monumental failure by the prosecution. It's damn tough to spin that.
Correct, but they're not saying what they heard.
It's also amazing that MM, JM, Dranov, and Raykovitz (among others) haven't been found liable. Perhaps they should have been but the state wanted to make an example of the big dogs so they didn't worry about the others.
Looking at the evidence from what has been available, I was of the opinion that the charges would be dismissed. Almost all the charges have been dismissed. With today's news, it looks like a win-win. The state gets a guilty verdict and CS plead guilty to a misdemeanor and don't have to risk a trial. The ones that do not win are those who were hoping that some more details would be revealed in court, but if you put yourself in CS shoes, you would probably take the deal. Now the devil is in the details and the clock is ticking on Spanier. Rather than speculate, let's see how this plays out.
I agree but the announcement says they could still spend 5 years in jail. I'm not sure what they gained in return for their plea. It's puzzling to think somebody like Shultz would accept such a plea. How old is he?
I personally haven't tried to spin it. But, I have read posts from those I respect such as Cincy, fairgambit (both attorneys) as well as others who do offer viable reasons for a plea such as this. My only answer is that I don't know. I will say that were I in this position and certain of my innocence, I like to think that I'd want to fight it to the bitter end. In any event, despite our huge difference of opinion on this whole mess, you and I have manged to stay relatively civil in our exchanges.
Hotshoe, when I read your first post I tended to agree. As i continue to read your end of the world scenario's I disagree more and more. They plead guilty to a misdemeanor. 4 or 5 felonies have been dropped and they plead to one misdemeanor. not the end of the world. I just happened to mention this to my wife at lunch because she knows I have been following this [she isn't a Penn Stater and isn't really interested] and her immediate comment was "a misdemeanor? that's like nothing right?" Just sayin may not be the end of the world although I was very disappointed today.
Quit trying to figure this out. It defies logic.
That wasn't my quote. But it's too bad that Curley and Schultz are taking the hit so as to cover up for EXPONENTIALLY more culpable individuals.
There's more to this Gricar theory that's floating around out there than that Pitt troll is leading us to believe. The Second Mile was the logical explanation as to what Gricar was referring to. Unless someone WAAAAAAYYYYYY above him told him to back off. No one from the Penn State Administration or Athletic Program had that kind of power.
Something to think about:
Getting co-defendants to plead guilty on the eve of trial in an endangering the welfare of a minor case is exactly what happened in the archdiocese case to Msgr. William Lynn
In the Phila archdiocese case, when the transcript of the pleadings was pulled, it was found that the prosecutor and the judge never asked the co-defendant, former priest Ed Avery, if he actually did it.
Getting co-defendants to plead guilty on the eve of trial in an endangering the welfare of a minor case is exactly what happened in the archdiocese case to Msgr. William Lynn
In the Phila archdiocese case, when the transcript of the pleadings was pulled, it was found that the prosecutor and the judge never asked the co-defendant, former priest Ed Avery, if he actually did it.
There have alumni and students that have spoken against what they did. There are alumni that that we some of the investigators, provided information, and even broke the story.
There were a lot of people that stood up, when it counted, some of them were students and alumni, Let's remember that as well.
And from TLI :
Two former Penn State administrators facing criminal charges over their handling of serial child molester Jerry Sandusky have pleaded guilty to child endangerment charges. The deals will likely have a large impact on the upcoming trial of ex-Penn State president Graham Spanier, the only remaining co-defendant in the case, criminal defense attorneys said.
According to a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts, former athletic director Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, ex-senior vice president for business and finance, each pleaded guilty to one count of endangering the welfare of children, a first-degree misdemeanor, in Dauphin County Court on Monday morning.
Although the agreement drops the classification of the child endangerment charge from a third-degree felony, AOPC spokesman James Koval said Judge John Boccabella, who is presiding over the case, is not bound by anything in the plea agreements regarding sentencing for the two defendants. The two face a maximum of five years in prison, along with a $10,000 fine.
The pleas come just one week before the two men were set to go before a jury on the charges, and nearly two weeks after Boccabella denied attempts by the defendants to have an intermediate appellate court review whether they could be charged under the child endangerment law.
Spanier is still scheduled to go before a jury next week on related charges, with his trial set to begin March 20.
Tom Farrell of Farrell & Reisinger and Pittsburgh solo Caroline Roberto, who are representing Schultz and Curley, did not return calls seeking comment. Spanier's attorney, Samuel Silver of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, declined to comment, and a spokesman with the state Attorney General's Office said he could not comment pursuant to a court order.
There was no indication Monday that Curley and Schultz entered their plea deals in exchange for testimony against Spanier, but white-collar defense attorney Ellen Brotman said those deals, intended to curry favor at sentencing, are not unusual.
According to Brotman, the two defendants could be in a unique position to provide key testimony for prosecutors about what Spanier knew or understood in connection with the allegations. However, given that they have been asserting their innocence ever since they were charged more than five years ago, the recent pleas could also give Spanier's defense team ample material to attack their credibility on the stand.
"It puts more pressure on the remaining defendant [to plead guilty] if the pleading co-defendants are testifying, but every case is different," Brotman said. "In a case where there's a long history of people saying these aren't the facts, it's hard to know how much value a cooperating defendant would have."
According to federal prosecutor-turned-defense attorney Jeff Lindy, regardless of whether the two are testifying, the plea deals are a win for the prosecutors pursuing Spanier.
"If they're cooperating that's a huge deal. Now they get so-called insiders testifying against the one that's left," said Lindy, a partner with Philadelphia's Lindy & Tauber. "If they don't testify, it just makes the prosecutors' job easier, since they don't have to fight on three fronts. It's just one."
The three former administrators have faced a long and contentious legal battle since being charged several years ago, and defense lawyers have succeeded in whittling down the case. In early 2016 the state Superior Court tossed numerous perjury-related charges stemming from statements they made before investigative grand juries. In February, the trial court also narrowed the case against the three by quashing charges of failure to report child abuse as being barred by the statute of limitations.
Attorneys said the recent deals could lead Spanier to request a continuance, at least in part to avoid any chance of the recent news tainting the Dauphin County jury pool. But Brotman said having the trial on the heels of the pleas could help them question Curley and Schultz's credibility, and would give prosecutors little time to prepare the former co-defendants, who might not yet be settled in their cooperative roles.
Either way, she said, the issue will likely come up in voir dire.
Along with the looming trial date, another motivating factor may have been Boccabella's decision to block their latest appeal in the case.
Much of their appeal centered around similarities between their case and the child endangerment case that had been brought against the former secretary of clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Monsignor William Lynn.
In Lynn's case, the clergyman had argued that the pre-2007 version of the child endangerment law could not apply to him because he did not have any direct contact with children who were molested by priests that he oversaw. The state Supreme Court, however, rejected Lynn's arguments, and said the law applied to him since his job involved "supervising the welfare" of the children.
As part of their bid for an immediate appeal, the defendants noted that appellate courts have not yet weighed into the ramifications that the Lynndecision may have on their and similar child endangerment cases.
Numerous attorneys have maintained that the Penn state defendants would have a strong argument on appeal since, like Lynn, they were charged under the earlier version of the law that did not explicitly say it applied beyond direct supervisors. But the prospect of avoiding jail time could have been more persuasive, according to attorney.
"Any lawyer would love to be litigating that issue on appeal," Brotman said. "But who knows how it's going to go. I always saw that a good result is better than a good issue for appeal."
Two former Penn State administrators facing criminal charges over their handling of serial child molester Jerry Sandusky have pleaded guilty to child endangerment charges. The deals will likely have a large impact on the upcoming trial of ex-Penn State president Graham Spanier, the only remaining co-defendant in the case, criminal defense attorneys said.
According to a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts, former athletic director Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, ex-senior vice president for business and finance, each pleaded guilty to one count of endangering the welfare of children, a first-degree misdemeanor, in Dauphin County Court on Monday morning.
Although the agreement drops the classification of the child endangerment charge from a third-degree felony, AOPC spokesman James Koval said Judge John Boccabella, who is presiding over the case, is not bound by anything in the plea agreements regarding sentencing for the two defendants. The two face a maximum of five years in prison, along with a $10,000 fine.
The pleas come just one week before the two men were set to go before a jury on the charges, and nearly two weeks after Boccabella denied attempts by the defendants to have an intermediate appellate court review whether they could be charged under the child endangerment law.
Spanier is still scheduled to go before a jury next week on related charges, with his trial set to begin March 20.
Tom Farrell of Farrell & Reisinger and Pittsburgh solo Caroline Roberto, who are representing Schultz and Curley, did not return calls seeking comment. Spanier's attorney, Samuel Silver of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, declined to comment, and a spokesman with the state Attorney General's Office said he could not comment pursuant to a court order.
There was no indication Monday that Curley and Schultz entered their plea deals in exchange for testimony against Spanier, but white-collar defense attorney Ellen Brotman said those deals, intended to curry favor at sentencing, are not unusual.
According to Brotman, the two defendants could be in a unique position to provide key testimony for prosecutors about what Spanier knew or understood in connection with the allegations. However, given that they have been asserting their innocence ever since they were charged more than five years ago, the recent pleas could also give Spanier's defense team ample material to attack their credibility on the stand.
"It puts more pressure on the remaining defendant [to plead guilty] if the pleading co-defendants are testifying, but every case is different," Brotman said. "In a case where there's a long history of people saying these aren't the facts, it's hard to know how much value a cooperating defendant would have."
According to federal prosecutor-turned-defense attorney Jeff Lindy, regardless of whether the two are testifying, the plea deals are a win for the prosecutors pursuing Spanier.
"If they're cooperating that's a huge deal. Now they get so-called insiders testifying against the one that's left," said Lindy, a partner with Philadelphia's Lindy & Tauber. "If they don't testify, it just makes the prosecutors' job easier, since they don't have to fight on three fronts. It's just one."
The three former administrators have faced a long and contentious legal battle since being charged several years ago, and defense lawyers have succeeded in whittling down the case. In early 2016 the state Superior Court tossed numerous perjury-related charges stemming from statements they made before investigative grand juries. In February, the trial court also narrowed the case against the three by quashing charges of failure to report child abuse as being barred by the statute of limitations.
Attorneys said the recent deals could lead Spanier to request a continuance, at least in part to avoid any chance of the recent news tainting the Dauphin County jury pool. But Brotman said having the trial on the heels of the pleas could help them question Curley and Schultz's credibility, and would give prosecutors little time to prepare the former co-defendants, who might not yet be settled in their cooperative roles.
Either way, she said, the issue will likely come up in voir dire.
Along with the looming trial date, another motivating factor may have been Boccabella's decision to block their latest appeal in the case.
Much of their appeal centered around similarities between their case and the child endangerment case that had been brought against the former secretary of clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Monsignor William Lynn.
In Lynn's case, the clergyman had argued that the pre-2007 version of the child endangerment law could not apply to him because he did not have any direct contact with children who were molested by priests that he oversaw. The state Supreme Court, however, rejected Lynn's arguments, and said the law applied to him since his job involved "supervising the welfare" of the children.
As part of their bid for an immediate appeal, the defendants noted that appellate courts have not yet weighed into the ramifications that the Lynndecision may have on their and similar child endangerment cases.
Numerous attorneys have maintained that the Penn state defendants would have a strong argument on appeal since, like Lynn, they were charged under the earlier version of the law that did not explicitly say it applied beyond direct supervisors. But the prospect of avoiding jail time could have been more persuasive, according to attorney.
"Any lawyer would love to be litigating that issue on appeal," Brotman said. "But who knows how it's going to go. I always saw that a good result is better than a good issue for appeal."
I'm a life member of the Penn State Alumni Association. I've never attended Pitt.
The telling part is that, in all the e-mails from 1998, they talk about what DPW is doing, not if Sandusky will be prosecuted.
Now, we also have that 10/13/98 meeting with Gricar, Sloane, Ralston, and Schreffler meeting Ganter in his office. Related? Well 4 of the 5 are still around.
And Schreffler and Ralston appear to be straight arrows from what I can tell.
Yes, in the non-sensical world that is PA law - they are guilty of Endangering the Welfare of Children for failure to report, but the SOL had tolled on the failure to report charge.
Reality hit us like a brick wall 5 years ago when our Board of Trustees fired Joe Paterno without so much as speaking to him. That pretty much painted everyone involved as guilty and condemned the University at large as cult members and CSA enablers. This is just confirming to the low information type what they already knew. But the reality here is that the Office of Attorney General in Pennsylvania will do anything it can to secure a conviction and the judges don't seem to want to make the calls that should be made. Even if they're guilty as hell these charges were past the Statute of Limitations and should have been tossed. Since they weren't, this leaves it up to a jury and they had some ridiculous felony charges hanging over their heads. They could take their chances, likely be found guilty at trial and maybe go another 2-5 years on appeals, but I think they were not going to be covered for legal fees on an appeal.
I think they were probably guilty of negligence, but not criminal negligence. But I would not like their chances in front of a Dauphin County jury right now if I was their counsel.
We may be hit with some real reality bricks next week when/if they testify, but today to me is nothing about guilt or innocence but rather them playing the percentages and playing the best card offered until I'm shown otherwise.
Let's also remember that it's a little premature for your victory lap, Mr. Jacobs.
