Judges will say this all the time. There's not a plea deal I ever worked where the judge didn't articulate to the defendant at the plea what the maximum sentence is and that there are no promises other than what charges he'll plea to. This despite us just agreeing to the sentence in chambers and the defense attorney checking with his client to make sure that's ok. The judge does retain discretion to sentence the person as he/she pleases, so it isn't untrue. But he/she always sticks to the original agreement.
Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.
- Thread starter OXLion
- Start date
Judges will say this all the time. There's not a plea deal I ever worked where the judge didn't articulate to the defendant at the plea what the maximum sentence is and that there are no promises other than what charges he'll plea to. This despite us just agreeing to the sentence in chambers and the defense attorney checking with his client to make sure that's ok. The judge does retain discretion to sentence the person as he/she pleases, so it isn't untrue. But he/she always sticks to the original agreement.
Well, they did beat all of the charges save one misdemeanor count of EWOC....
Do you think any of the accusers were untruthful? What about the one in 1976 who claimed he told Joe Paterno (but nobody else) and claimed that Paterno told him to "get away, i have football games to worry about"
Refreshing to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Too much idle speculation on this board.
Well sure, but that's a given when you're testifying as a state's witness and already pled to the underlying charges. No agreement necessary for that.
My conviction? You read this site everyday and while the writing on the wall isn't crystal clear...the letters sure look like they are starting to form pretty clearly. At some point it may not be what some thought it was. Either GS pleads out or these two will probably be testifying against him soon enough...not sure how much more people really need to see. Maybe I'm way off base there, but it certainly doesn't scream of running from a big bad jury at this point in time as popular as it is on this site to say it.
According to the sentencing matrix with no proofs at worse it is likely house arrest. They may lose their pension.
Pnny lion gives 2 thumbs up
Mods, take this down and get this a**hole out of here.
Possible, but how many kids? At what point can we stop this dance of "maybe" it was just the trial or the victims?
Or your lawyer tells you to take the deal because the judges in this state are so corrupt you may lose...from what I understand you don't take a plea unless you give something up....so what did these guys give up?
That's one way to spin it.
Another way to spin it is that they are cutting their losses right before "go time" (the beginning of the trial).
It's easy to have your acolytes SAY you're innocent for 5 straight years, it's another to actually be confident that you can prove you are innocent.
And how/where did he meet this victim? He was also an employee of TSM, was he not? If what you're claiming is true, you've just explained how people like Sandusky are able to operate for years.
Let's ignore the fact that he has a source of hundreds of potential victims right over there. Let's instead dwell on the location where the crime occurred and make sure the property owner takes steps to make sure it won't happen again. And what happened when Penn State did that? Did that keep Sandusky from ever molesting a child again? No, he just did it in a different place. But to you, that's perfectly acceptable, because you and people who think like you don't really care about kids, you just wanted vengeance against these 3 people and Joe Paterno and Penn State Football.
Congratulations, your efforts have resulted in thousands more calls being made to ChildLine-- the vast majority of which will never be answered or acted upon. But everyone can feel better about themselves that they helped fix the system, and no child will ever be harmed again.
There's our BWI fantasyland and there's the reality that Curley & Schultz are facing. These are distinctly different places.
You know what today's news just reminded me of? I believe is was research done by the CSS defense (or maybe JS' lawyers?) where they did some jury pool research. Their results were frightening.
I don't have the pic handy but there was a question that said:
"Even if the Penn State officials like Curley and Schultz did nothing illegal, they still should be punished".
The results were Daulphin: 46.9%; Luzerne: 55.0%; Chester 50.0%; Erie: 64.2%
Those numbers would scare the heck out of anyone potentially going into that type of jury pool (thanks Freeh!!).
I don't know how anyone could argue with a straight face that C/S/S would get an unbiased jury.
What i don't understand is why does everything have to now be a conspiracy? Isn't it plausible that Penn State had several inept administrators who simply did not handle the situation properly? Their decisions to no act with the utmost caution and care left the university and children at risk? There seems to be two extremes, those who believe it an active coverup by Penn State and those who think Penn State did nothing wrong and it just the corruption of everyone else.
Is it possible the state is saying no plea deal just to keep egg off their face?
Which, of course, is backwards from the way the Constitution reads. But that doesn't seem to matter as much as it used to.
Kinda sounds like good old Seth Williams MO/strategy re: the Philly 5 aka #blingsting. Make a big deal about it in the press then when push comes to shove cop to a wrist slap misdemeanor and act like you're the big and tough prosecutor. It's all a dog and pony show assisted by the media.
The deal they're getting would be hard to pass up even if you weren't guilty.
Let's say someone steals your identity and has $100,000 of your money. They offer that if you pay them $1,000, they'll hand it all back. Or, you can try to go through your bank and have a 90% chance of getting it all back, but a 10% chance of losing it all. You going to pay the $1K or risk the $100k?
Because guilty or not, it's a jury and anything goes. No matter how good you feel as a prosecutor or defense attorney, a jury is a complete wild card. You willing to risk years in prison on that wild card? Or plea to 1 misdemeanor and go home.
exactly. Juries are unpredictable and sometimes defendants take deals to guarantee an outcome and mitigate risk of the worst possible outcome. They plead guilty to a misdemeanor with a max 10K fine and 5yr in prison. I suspect it will be far less.
Some sites, like Penn Lies and Audrey Snyder, are really misrepresenting this plea. Their headlines are that Curley and Schultz plead guilty in cover-up. Can these people not read or are they intentionally misrepresenting facts?
Worst possible outcome imaginable. Reputation cemented forever and ever and still no answers. Add to this, the guy that was in the best position to do something about it rides off into the sunset unquestioned and with millions in his pocket. Game over.
Last edited:
Spanier will plead guilty before he ever sees trial.
Then, they will all keep quiet, forever. Exactly like I said they would.
Then, they will all keep quiet, forever. Exactly like I said they would.
No jail time.....a fine under 10k and they get to keep their pension. That's my guess.
Spanier's story has never added up. The man was OCD about knowing and documenting everything that was going on at the university. He inserted himself in far less serious matters as president. Tim and Gary were not talking the fall for Spanier's negligence. My bet is that they roll on him now and get out from under this.
Precisely as I said, years ago, while clowns like Aoshiro insisted they would talk.
The media has been dishonest for the last six years. Did Curley and Shultz really think they would start being honest now? Those two could have plead guilty to a parking ticket and the media would have spun it as an admission they were in on a cover up. I have trouble having any sympathy for them. They had a chance to defend themselves and they blew it.
What does concern me is that the media will use this as a opportunity to further beat down Joe, who is not here to defend himself.
Nobody is going to prison. Not Curley, not Schultz, and not Spanier.
And nobody is going to talk, either.
It's beyond sad, that covering their asses ended up taking priority over clearing Joe's name.
And nobody is going to talk, either.
It's beyond sad, that covering their asses ended up taking priority over clearing Joe's name.
If the favorable pleas that Curley and Schultz got were potentially contingent on their testimony against Spanier, why would you think a plea would be an option that Spanier could take?
Cincy, what you say makes sense. However, thing I do wonder about is Bocabella implying it is now up to him. You really think he's going to take the PR hit for not sentencing them to jail time?
Honest question: why are you still here? Shouldn't you be haunting Michigan State boards with your nonsense at this point?
Was this before or after you said the football team would win no more than 4 games last year? Or that they would win no more than 2 games after losing to Pitt?
I said, on here, that Curley and Schultz would plead down and never talk, and received about 100 responses that told me I was wrong.
The reason Spanier will take a plea, is the same reason Curley and Schultz took a plea.
They're guilty.
What motivation do those entities have to report anything other than what they've been for the past 5+ years?
There not losing their pensions. I think that's for felony convictions.
