"Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case"

[ChiTownLion]

Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case

Gary Schultz, left, is Penn State's former vice president; Graham Spanier, center, is the university's former president; and Tim Curley is the former director of athletics.

By Jan Murphy | jmurphy@pennlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on August 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, updated August 11, 2015 at 12:29 PM

A state appellate court heard legal arguments Tuesday morning as to whether former Penn State administrator Gary Schultz had proper legal representation when he testified before a grand jury.

The approximate half-hour Superior Court hearing was the first of three that the court was holding on Tuesday in an appeal of a January ruling by Dauphin County Judge Todd Hoover. The other hearings to follow focused on appeals of two other former Penn State administrators – Graham Spanier and Tim Curley.

Spanier, Curley and Schultz face trial on perjury, obstruction of justice and other charges stemming from allegations that they failed to report a 2001 Sandusky locker-room assault reported to them by then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary; and that, years later, they lied to state investigators about what they were told about that case and their response to it.

The three are challenging Hoover's dismissal of motions that sought to void their testimony that the perjury count stems from and bar Baldwin's potential appearance as a witness for the prosecution.

In his ruling, Hoover said Baldwin – who accompanied Schultz and the other administrators during their grand jury appearance to testify about what they knew about the early child sexual abuse allegations against the longtime Penn State assistant football coach– properly attended that proceeding while representing them as agents of the university in connection with university business.

Tom Farrell, the attorney for Schultz who was not in attendance at the hearing, said Hoover created an "unprecedented second-class" attorney-client representation by ruling that Baldwin could properly represent the university and his client.

He said six times during his grand jury testimony, Schultz indicated that Baldwin was his counsel. "He believed he was represented," ... full story: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/08/court_hears_arguments_in_appea_1.html

But if Baldwin was there in the capacity as Penn State's attorney

 

[WeR0206]

Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case

Gary Schultz, left, is Penn State's former vice president; Graham Spanier, center, is the university's former president; and Tim Curley is the former director of athletics.

By Jan Murphy | jmurphy@pennlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on August 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, updated August 11, 2015 at 12:29 PM

A state appellate court heard legal arguments Tuesday morning as to whether former Penn State administrator Gary Schultz had proper legal representation when he testified before a grand jury.

The approximate half-hour Superior Court hearing was the first of three that the court was holding on Tuesday in an appeal of a January ruling by Dauphin County Judge Todd Hoover. The other hearings to follow focused on appeals of two other former Penn State administrators – Graham Spanier and Tim Curley.

Spanier, Curley and Schultz face trial on perjury, obstruction of justice and other charges stemming from allegations that they failed to report a 2001 Sandusky locker-room assault reported to them by then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary; and that, years later, they lied to state investigators about what they were told about that case and their response to it.

The three are challenging Hoover's dismissal of motions that sought to void their testimony that the perjury count stems from and bar Baldwin's potential appearance as a witness for the prosecution.

In his ruling, Hoover said Baldwin – who accompanied Schultz and the other administrators during their grand jury appearance to testify about what they knew about the early child sexual abuse allegations against the longtime Penn State assistant football coach– properly attended that proceeding while representing them as agents of the university in connection with university business.

Tom Farrell, the attorney for Schultz who was not in attendance at the hearing, said Hoover created an "unprecedented second-class" attorney-client representation by ruling that Baldwin could properly represent the university and his client.

He said six times during his grand jury testimony, Schultz indicated that Baldwin was his counsel. "He believed he was represented," ... full story: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/08/court_hears_arguments_in_appea_1.html

But if Baldwin was there in the capacity as Penn State's attorney

I still would like for Hoover to explain, if his ruling was correct, why wasn't Baldwin present during Joe's GJ testimony? Wouldn't she want to be there as "an agent of the university"???

Can't have it both ways...

 

[ChiTownLion]

Judges eye legality of grand jury process in Penn State case

• MARK SCOLFORO, ASSOCIATED PRESS

• 54 minutes ago

• HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The criminal case against three former Penn State administrators is in the hands of an appeals court that will decide whether it should go forward.
  
  The judges heard argument Tuesday about defense claims the men's rights to legal representation were violated during secret grand jury proceedings.
  
  A ruling in favor of the state attorney general's office could clear the way for trial on charges the men engaged in a criminal cover-up of child sex abuse complaints about former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
  
  The judges could also throw out some or all of the charges or could prevent prosecutors from using certain evidence.
  
  The charges against former university president Graham Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley include perjury, obstruction and failure to properly report child abuse.

 

[nits74]

I still would like for Hoover to explain, if his ruling was correct, why wasn't Baldwin present during Joe's GJ testimony? Wouldn't she want to be there as "an agent of the university"???

Can't have it both ways...

If I recall correctly, I thought Joe elected to use his own representation and was smart enough not to use Baldwin. i may be wrong on this.

 

[sluggo72]

who is Det Barnarby Tibbetts and his co-horts??

 

[sluggo72]

If I recall correctly, I thought Joe elected to use his own representation and was smart enough not to use Baldwin. i may be wrong on this.

IIRC it was Scott who told JVP to bring his own representation, I don't know if it was actually SVP or someone else

 

[psuro]

I believe Joe did have his own rep, and it was not Scott.

 

[bjf1984]

Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case

Gary Schultz, left, is Penn State's former vice president; Graham Spanier, center, is the university's former president; and Tim Curley is the former director of athletics.

By Jan Murphy | jmurphy@pennlive.com
Follow on Twitter
on August 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, updated August 11, 2015 at 12:29 PM

A state appellate court heard legal arguments Tuesday morning as to whether former Penn State administrator Gary Schultz had proper legal representation when he testified before a grand jury.

The approximate half-hour Superior Court hearing was the first of three that the court was holding on Tuesday in an appeal of a January ruling by Dauphin County Judge Todd Hoover. The other hearings to follow focused on appeals of two other former Penn State administrators – Graham Spanier and Tim Curley.

Spanier, Curley and Schultz face trial on perjury, obstruction of justice and other charges stemming from allegations that they failed to report a 2001 Sandusky locker-room assault reported to them by then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary; and that, years later, they lied to state investigators about what they were told about that case and their response to it.

The three are challenging Hoover's dismissal of motions that sought to void their testimony that the perjury count stems from and bar Baldwin's potential appearance as a witness for the prosecution.

In his ruling, Hoover said Baldwin – who accompanied Schultz and the other administrators during their grand jury appearance to testify about what they knew about the early child sexual abuse allegations against the longtime Penn State assistant football coach– properly attended that proceeding while representing them as agents of the university in connection with university business.

Tom Farrell, the attorney for Schultz who was not in attendance at the hearing, said Hoover created an "unprecedented second-class" attorney-client representation by ruling that Baldwin could properly represent the university and his client.

He said six times during his grand jury testimony, Schultz indicated that Baldwin was his counsel. "He believed he was represented," ... full story: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/08/court_hears_arguments_in_appea_1.html

But if Baldwin was there in the capacity as Penn State's attorney

FWIW - the StateCollege.com story does a much better job than the PennLive tripe (surprise surprise)

http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...y-slams-cynthia-baldwin-in-statement,1430196/

The statement from Ainslie is included in the StateCollege.com story.

[EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize how dated that story was. I do think the Ainslie statement, however, does a wonderful job of summarizing the facts surrounding Baldwin's "testimony".....which goes to the heart of the current adjudication....and, personally, found it worth reviewing.....so I'll leave it up]

 

[SteveMasters]

FWIW - the StateCollege.com story does a much better job than the PennLive tripe (surprise surprise)

http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...y-slams-cynthia-baldwin-in-statement,1430196/

The statement from Ainslie is included in the StateCollege.com story.

I love the quote "Ms. Baldwin has so far managed to avoid cross examination. But that day is coming."

I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

I still would like for Hoover to explain, if his ruling was correct, why wasn't Baldwin present during Joe's GJ testimony? Wouldn't she want to be there as "an agent of the university"???

Can't have it both ways...

JVP was not a PSU administrator. He testified as a private citizen represented by his own private counsel. Accordingly, Baldwin had no legal right to play a role in his testimony or the proceeding and her presence would have been moot.

 

[Bloomnit]

JEEBUS! the comments section of Pennlive is a cesspool of trolls. I wonder how many are getting paid? Either that or the entire Panther Lair took a break and moved over to Pennlive for the afternoon.

I really don't understand it. Are any of them employed? Anything related to the story they swarm to like flies.

 

[Obliviax]

The statecollege.com article has an interesting accusation buries in there (perhaps I missed it over the years...or forgot):

The statement also included documentation, such a letter from Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, which shows that Baldwin reached out for an off-the-record conversation with the Attorney General’s Office. A document was also released which included positive remarks from Baldwin about Spanier to federal investigators about clearances for a national security consulting job. Baldwin reportedly said that Spanier was a “man of integrity” mere months before she told a grand jury that the former president was “not a person of integrity.”​

Seems a pretty clear indication that she "sold" information for some kind of quid pro quo.

 

[Ceasar]

FWIW - the StateCollege.com story does a much better job than the PennLive tripe (surprise surprise)

http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...y-slams-cynthia-baldwin-in-statement,1430196/

The statement from Ainslie is included in the StateCollege.com story.

That is an article from 2013.

 

[bwifan]

well didn't take Jim long to get here and promote the BOT agenda....

 

[sluggo72]

JVP was not a PSU administrator. He testified as a private citizen represented by his own private counsel. Accordingly, Baldwin had no legal right to play a role in his testimony or the proceeding and her presence would have been moot.

What!!! JVP not an administrator?? I read this AM on this very site that said JVP ran PSU, and Culey and GS as well, so how could he not be an administrator?? So you mean JVP had no power to hire and fire? JVP did not have a budget? JVP did not supervise people? Hmmmm who knew.
I wonder why Baldwin was surprised that JVP did not what her to represent him??

 

[psu00]

If I recall correctly, I thought Joe elected to use his own representation and was smart enough not to use Baldwin. i may be wrong on this.

True. The problem is that Baldwin went for CSS and was clearly stated by each of CSS in open court (with Baldwin sitting there) that she was their attorney. Neither she nor the prosecution or judge pointed out the conflict or corrected the record. IIRC she stated in the judge's chambers earlier with the prosecution present that she represented the university. Then the judge (?Feudale?), and state prosecutors stayed silent as CSS each said they thought she represented them (which they knew to be untrue).

As for Paterno- if we are to believe that she "represented the university" for CSS then why not be there for Paterno's testimony too? It was because she couldn't pull the double switch as he had his own attorney present. Plus IIRC if she truly was representing the university- she should not have been allowed in the grand jury proceedings at all.

 

[captony]

JVP was not a PSU administrator. He testified as a private citizen represented by his own private counsel. Accordingly, Baldwin had no legal right to play a role in his testimony or the proceeding and her presence would have been moot.

Correct me if I'm right, but didn't Baldwin ask JVP if he wanted her counsel, and he said no thanks?

 

[spud358]

JVP was not a PSU administrator. He testified as a private citizen represented by his own private counsel. Accordingly, Baldwin had no legal right to play a role in his testimony or the proceeding and her presence would have been moot.

ha. You must think people are really stupid.

 

[psu00]

I still would like for Hoover to explain, if his ruling was correct, why wasn't Baldwin present during Joe's GJ testimony? Wouldn't she want to be there as "an agent of the university"???

Can't have it both ways...

I'd also like to hear him tell us that if she "represented the university" then why was she even allowed in the grand jury room? If that were truly the case then she would not have been allowed in the room......but yet there she was.

 

[Ceasar]

What!!! JVP not an administrator?? I read this AM on this very site that said JVP ran PSU, and Culey and GS as well, so how could he not be an administrator?? So you mean JVP had no power to hire and fire? JVP did not have a budget? JVP did not supervise people? Hmmmm who knew.
I wonder why Baldwin was surprised that JVP did not what her to represent him??

I could be wrong but I believe Baldwin had no legal right to attend any of the GJ sessions including those with Spanier, Curley and Shultz. Isn't that at the heart of the matter ? She was present in the GJ room because CSS stated under oath that she was their counsel and therefore that gave her the right to be present. Had she said "no, I do not represent these men" then she would have been asked to leave the room....no? In JVP's case, he had his own counsel, Joshua Lock, and therefore she had no right to be present.

 

[marshall23]

well didn't take Jim long to get here and promote the BOT agenda....

Failed to mention that CB was pretty pissed the JVP got his own lawyer.

 

[sluggo72]

I could be wrong but I believe Baldwin had no legal right to attend any of the GJ sessions including those with Spanier, Curley and Shultz. Isn't that at the heart of the matter ? She was present in the GJ room because CSS stated under oath that she was their counsel and therefore that gave her the right to be present. Had she said "no, I do not represent these men" then she would have been asked to leave the room....no? In JVP's case, he had his own counsel, Joshua Lock, and therefore she had no right to be present.

or at very least CSS would have said 'WTF?' 'We thought you were here for us? Judge we answering to have our own, see you soon!!"

 

[Cruising Route 66]

ha. You must think people are really stupid.

I don't think it I know it.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Failed to mention that CB was pretty pissed the JVP got his own lawyer.

She told you that?

 

[spud358]

I don't think it I know it.

Well that might be true for some, but not all of us. In this case, the subpoena demanding Joe's testimony was served to PSU, not to Joe's house (i.e. as a private citizen). Further, being an "administrator" means nothing. The term is "agent of the university" and in this case, Joe was CLEARLY an agent of the university hence the subpoena for his testimony being served to PSU and not him individually.

Who's looking stupid now? The sad part is that behind your pubic spin/crap you post here, you know its all a bunch of crap. You know that your friends were in the know and pulling strings behind the scenes. You know that THEY saw what was coming and called their buddy Baldwin to "manage" the subpoenas and this crisis. You know that it was at their request that she "played dumb" and attempted to screw around with the subpoenas. You'll never admit it here because you are a coward, but when you look in the mirror, I hope you are at least honest with yourself. Either way, the more you think people here are stupid and the more you try to get away with nonsense like the crap BS posted above, the easier it is to see how scared and desperate you are getting. Stuff like that is easily debunked by a pre-law student, yet you post it here as fact in an arrogant tone. You are a joke, you know you are covering for guilty parties, and pretend to not know either of those 2 things.

Keep posting because every spin job or lie you tell only proves I'm right. Especially when they are as amateur and easily debunked as that one.

 

[WeR0206]

JVP was not a PSU administrator. He testified as a private citizen represented by his own private counsel. Accordingly, Baldwin had no legal right to play a role in his testimony or the proceeding and her presence would have been moot.

Look, Baldwin/Hoover can't have it both ways. If she was only representing C/S/S as an agent of PSU and not them individually but (according to Hoover) was still allowed in the room b/c they were discussing their actions as PSU employees then why wasn't she present during Joe's testimony (since he's a PSU employee talking about his actions as a PSU employee and Baldwin was allegedly only representing PSU) regardless of whether or not he had his own personal attorney?

Baldwin/Hoover are basically saying that Baldwin didn't represent ANYONE individually but only PSU and since CSS were discussing PSU she was allowed to be there. Ok, well why wasn't she around when Paterno testified? He's still a PSU employee no?

It doesn't add up however you look at it. Then on top of that you have CSS identifying Baldwin in open court as THEIR counsel, not their counsel via PSU but THEIR personal counsel and Baldwin never clarified, corrected the record, etc..(I guess she's deaf and incompetent huh?) So....there's that...

If there's any ambiguity whatsoever, it's required for lawyers to make it clear EXACTLY who they are representing even if their clients don't ask or have any worries. Apparently Baldwin made this distinction to everyone (fina, feudale, etc.) but the people who needed to hear it the most, CSS, the people who thought Baldwin was representing them personally. How convenient....

 

[Madsol]

JVP was not a PSU administrator. He testified as a private citizen represented by his own private counsel. Accordingly, Baldwin had no legal right to play a role in his testimony or the proceeding and her presence would have been moot.

This isn't even close to correct. Paterno was not there testifying as a private citizen, as if he was testifying to the facts surrounding a traffic accident that he witnessed. Rather, he was there in his capacity as an employee of Penn State for something that happened in his official capacity. Whether he's an administrator or not is not the question. Was he an employee and was he testifying about something that happened while he was in his official capacity as an employee? The answer to both questions, of course, is yes. So the point remains...if Baldwin was in the room for C/S/S because she was protecting Penn State's interests, why wasn't she in there for Paterno's testimony.

 

[Bobpsu]

I don't think it I know it.

JackAss !

 

[JoeBatters1]

True. The problem is that Baldwin went for CSS and was clearly stated by each of CSS in open court (with Baldwin sitting there) that she was their attorney. Neither she nor the prosecution or judge pointed out the conflict or corrected the record. IIRC she stated in the judge's chambers earlier with the prosecution present that she represented the university. Then the judge (?Feudale?), and state prosecutors stayed silent as CSS each said they thought she represented them (which they knew to be untrue).

As for Paterno- if we are to believe that she "represented the university" for CSS then why not be there for Paterno's testimony too? It was because she couldn't pull the double switch as he had his own attorney present. Plus IIRC if she truly was representing the university- she should not have been allowed in the grand jury proceedings at all.

And if I remember correctly Lanny Davis was quoted in the media as saying that Baldwin was claiming she didn't hear Curley and Schultz identify her as their attorney in the GJ courtroom. Assuming Davis was quoting Baldwin correctly, anyone with half a brain cell can tell that kind of an excuse by Baldwin is a flat out bold-faced lie. If this goes to trial I will be curious if Davis is called to confirm that quote.

 

[lubrano]

JVP was not a PSU administrator. He testified as a private citizen represented by his own private counsel. Accordingly, Baldwin had no legal right to play a role in his testimony or the proceeding and her presence would have been moot.

Here's a little known fact-- Baldwin wanted to represent Parerno. In fact, she drove with him to his GJ appearance. She was upset that he did not have enough trust in her to allow her to represent him.

Clearly she believed she had a legal right, misplaced as it was.

Left to himself, Joe would have gone in to the GJ without counsel. He simply wanted to tell the truth. But under no circumstance would his family allow him to go without competent counsel.

 

[kentuckycb]

Here's a little known fact-- Baldwin wanted to represent Parerno. In fact, she drove with him to his GJ appearance. She was upset that he did not have enough trust in her to allow her to represent him.

Clearly she believed she had a legal right, misplaced as it was.

Left to himself, Joe would have gone in to the GJ without counsel. He simply wanted to tell the truth. But under no condition would his family allow him to go without competent counsel.

Anthony, media saying you were in gallery today. Can you give brief summary of what happened & your feelings about how the judges reacted...

 

[psudukie]

So the only person of the major five or six players in this mess not to interact with Baldwin was mike. Is that correct?

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Correct me if I'm right, but didn't Baldwin ask JVP if he wanted her counsel, and he said no thanks?

I don't believe she did but she did inform all those who were subpoenaed as to how the process worked and that they could be represented personally by counsel if they so desired during their appearance. Consequently, JVP hired outside legal counsel to represent him. Asking them if they wanted her to represent them personally would likely have been a conflict of interest considering she was already representing the university.

Further, the record shows that at no time during their testimony did Curley or Shultz consult with Baldwin, refuse to answer a question, ask a question of, or seek a ruling by Judge Feudale

 

[LundyPSU]

Here's a little known fact-- Baldwin wanted to represent Parerno. In fact, she drove with him to his GJ appearance. She was upset that he did not have enough trust in her to allow her to represent him.

Clearly she believed she had a legal right, misplaced as it was.

Left to himself, Joe would have gone in to the GJ without counsel. He simply wanted to tell the truth. But under no circumstance would his family allow him to go without competent counsel.

I thought Baldwin drove Curley and Schultz. JVP was in the car with them? JVP's decision on representation was well before the GJ appearance

 

[LundyPSU]

So the only person of the major five or six players in this mess not to interact with Baldwin was mike. Is that correct?

Could be others too. But certainly interesting that she never met with Mike

 

[sluggo72]

I thought Baldwin drove Curley and Schultz. JVP was in the car with them? JVP's decision on representation was well before the GJ appearance

and thus the name 'Drivin' Miss Daisy " !

 

[mhentz]

I really don't understand it. Are any of them employed? Anything related to the story they swarm to like flies.

They're certainly employed. They are flacks employed by PR firms paid to steer public opinion in a certain direction. It's an extremely common tactic in the Internet age. My favorite example was when the University of Maryland openly admitted they paid people to go onto the Terps' athletics message boards like rivals and scout and pose as Terps football and basketball fans who talked up all the benefits of bolting the ACC for the Big Ten and how awesome an idea it was. They got Turtle-nation on board with the idea in a helluva hurry. The tactic is essentially used wherever there are message boards and/or comments sections. Very common.

 

[pandaczar12]

Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case

Fair and balanced, let's make sure not to influence public opinion.

 

[psudukie]

Could be others too. But certainly interesting that she never met with Mike

As far as I know never even attempted to contact him. I guess people can draw their own conclusions or hypothesis on why anyobe from pay admin attempted to contact mike.

 

[mhentz]

Here's a little known fact-- Baldwin wanted to represent Parerno. In fact, she drove with him to his GJ appearance. She was upset that he did not have enough trust in her to allow her to represent him.

Clearly she believed she had a legal right, misplaced as it was.

Left to himself, Joe would have gone in to the GJ without counsel. He simply wanted to tell the truth. But under no circumstance would his family allow him to go without competent counsel.

So they sent Scott??!?!?!?!??!