Famed Attorney Writes Op-ed Urging Second Look at Sandusky Case!

[WeR0206]

Re: well done...

Another pressing question...if the OAG had a dozen or more other alleged victims that could have testified, then why didn't they use them instead of trying two cases where there was NO ACTUAL VICTIM produced??? And the only thing they had to back up their charges for these victim-less cases was the word of one person MM (V2) and excited utterance for the other (V8), for V8 they didn't even produce the actual witness for crying out loud!!! On top of that, the V8 incident was NEVER reported by the witness or anyone else. So, how exactly was anyone supposed to know about it?? Yet somehow it was all PSU's fault and NOT the fault of TSM/OAG/CC CYS for allowing JS unfettered access after 1998?? I don't think so.

For V2, the one and ONLY witness apparently never felt the need to make an actual written statement to police and testified (see 12/16/11 prelim) that he expressed no dissatisfaction and NEVER said more needed to be done when C/S followed up with him and explained their action plan (take away JS keys, tell him his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop, inform TSM with or without JS's cooperation,etc..)....hmm..ok...so again, from PSU admin's perspective, what exactly should they have done differently if the one and only witness was satisfied in 2001 and he never felt strongly enough about what he THOUGHT was happening that night to even make a written statement to UPPD??

The thought of being convicted for crimes re: V2 & V8 in which the OAG couldn't even produce a victim, specific dates, specific location, hard evidence, etc. should be terrifying for all PA residents...

The only explanation for the above actions of the PA OAG that I can think of is they needed/wanted to make this a PSU issue so they HAD to include these incredibly WEAK cases b/c they were the only ones that allegedly occurred on PSU's campus and could use them to support their PSU cover up false narrative. They used the testimony (some of which we KNOW was manipulated by the PSP) of the other victims to help support and prop up their weak cases re: V2&V8 and the rest is history....

 

[bjf1984]

The issue of whether or not the trial...


was a mockery - a kangaroo court - has nothing to do with whether or not Sandusky was innocent or guilty.

NIL

I do not know why it seems to be so difficult to see these as two separate issues.

If it is "OK" to make a mockery of the judicial system....so long as we "know" the accused is guilty.....where does it end?

The system is not supposed to operate in one way when a person we "know" is innocent is accused......and another way when a person we "know" is guilty is accused. Is it?

Tagging anyone who feels that the system was prostituted, as being "defenders of Sandusky's innocence" is just stupid/disingenuous/illogical.

 

[getmyjive11]

Re: well, OBL confessed*

Originally posted by aferrelli:

Originally posted by LaJolla Lion:
True. Jerry is still in denial.

LaJolla Lion, why would intelligent people say that the evidence (or lack of in this case) warrants a second look at this case? One could say that you are in denial of being sensible. Everything about this case has stank from day 1. It's too bad you haven't been following it.

What evidence do you expect to see for charges that stem from incidents over a decade ago? Typically, in these type of cases, the only evidence is the witnesses' testimonies. Get real.

 

[CDW3333]

One continuance was granted another denied.


"The defense received thousands of pages of discovery material from the Commonwealth and requested multiple continuances, hoping to push back the trial so the material could be better combed through.
One motion for continuance was granted, but a second was denied and Sandusky's trial began in June."

This post was edited on 4/1 1:41 PM by CDW3333

http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/judge-cleland-denies-jerry-sanduskys-appeal-for-new-trial,1233573/

 

[getmyjive11]

Re: The issue of whether or not the trial...

Originally posted by bjf1984:

was a mockery - a kangaroo court - has nothing to do with whether or not Sandusky was innocent or guilty.

NIL

I do not know why it seems to be so difficult to see these as two separate issues.

If it is "OK" to make a mockery of the judicial system....so long as we "know" the accused is guilty.....where does it end?

The system is not supposed to operate in one way when a person we "know" is innocent is accused......and another way when a person we "know" is guilty is accused. Is it?

Tagging anyone who feels that the system was prostituted, as being "defenders of Sandusky's innocence" is just stupid/disingenuous/illogical.

It wasn't a mockery. Was it a fast trial? Yes. But all of the known victims testified and Jerry had a chance to take the stand as well but declined. This has absolutely nothing to do with the system.

 

[WPB_lion]

This is a disturbing thread

To begin with, lets understand the person who wrote the Op-ed makes a living representing criminals with an apparent specialty in representing accused child molesters. He is obviously an elite attorney (given his representation of Michael Jackson) who makes a living making arguments in favor of the low life people who commit these crimes. The argument he made in the Op-ed is the best argument that an elite expert in the field of child molestation defense can make on behalf of Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester.

Second, lets understand what it means to be convicted of criminal charges. For each count in which a conviction was entered, it means that a jury was 95% convinced that Jerry Sandusky was guilty.

Third, lets understand that when a criminal defense attorney states that the convictions should be given a second look, he is arguing that a jury may not be 95% convinced that Jerry Sandusky is guilty. He is not saying that Jerry Sandusky is innocent, he is merely stating that it is possible that the 95% standard may not be able to be met. Even with respect to Michael Jackson, he was very careful not to say Michael Jackson was innocent, he stated Michael Jackson "was rightly found not guilty" (ie. the evidence did not reach the 95% standard). There is a major difference between finding somebody "not guilty" for criminal purposes and finding somebody "innocent."

Unless there is affirmative proof that establishes Jerry Sandusky is innocent, raising issues with Sandusky's conviction does nothing to help PSU, Joe Paterno or the PSU community. It only helps Jerry Sandusky. There is a mountain of evidence establishing that Sandusky is not innocent. Does anybody really want to be in the world of helping out Jerry Sandusky without affirmative proof of his innocence?

The people who are trumpeting this article and believing that they are helping PSU, Joe Paterno, or C/S/S should look no further than the Paterno family's position and the C/S/S's position on Sandusky's conviction. I truly hope the people who want Sandusky's case to get a second look represent the lunatic fringe of Penn State fans and the vocal lunatic fringe on this board. Such people are the sickos that others point to when they try to put down PSU as a community with respect to this scandal.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Re: The issue of whether or not the trial...

Exactly. Maybe his lawyers were not the best, but he is where he needs to be. I lose no sleep over that animal, sorry if that bugs a few on this site.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Either way, everything about this case was decided by the media...

well before it went to court or anyone was allowed due process. That, too, is disturbing.

 

[bjf1984]

I won't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.


But the issue here - for me at least - is the operation of the judicial system. It has NOTHING to do with what position might best help/hurt the cases of Paterno/CSS/PSU etc. It is about the operation of the Justice system - with no other conflicting concerns.

I can sit back as a common citizen, and evaluate the publically available information, and feel completely comfortable in my conclusion that Sandusky is a criminal.....that he behaved in ways that violate our societal laws...and not have any second thoughts or reservations.
If I were on the jury - with the responsibility to determine the fate of the life of the accused....AND the accusers....I would hope I would hold myself to a very high standard of deliberation and evaluation (much more so than the standard I would hold myself to as a bystander).

At the same time, I can look at the process of how this particular trial was conducted and be VERY VERY VERY disconcerted with the PROCESS by which Sandusky was convicted.....regardless of my personal beliefs as to his guilt/innocence.

That's just me.



What adds (or should add) to the level of concern with this particular case is the fact that the process issues here not only affected the trial of someone who most people "know" is guilty.....but very likely has/had significant spill-over implications to other tangential situations. But, even without those other issues, the "base case" is more than enough reason to be concerned....IMHO
This post was edited on 4/1 12:46 PM by bjf1984

 

[Obliviax]

Re: This is a disturbing thread

Maybe, but defense attorneys are the last thing (along with a jury of your peers) that stand between Democracy and tyranny. When he speaks, I listen. And, I listen when the prosecution, judge and jury talks too. That's the way it works. And, while it may be awful, it is still "less awful" than any other system.

I've worked in the system, as a volunteer. My wife has worked in the system for decades as a PhD. If you are a guy, you will be accused of sex abuse at some time by an "at risk" kid. I repeat, you WILL BE ACCUSED as some point in your career. Most of the accusations are laughed off, just as the early accusers were.

Jury's can be manipulated. We know that the detectives were fast and loose with the rules in witness preparation. The ruling on the janitor boggles the mind (notwithstanding the rumors of other evidence). Once the judge ruled it admissible, the jury was compelled to consider it as fact. That leaves a couple of cases that were "creepy" (line the one he was not rung up for in 1998, the only difference between 1998 and 2011 was corroborating stories) and kids that had a financial stake (like the adopted son). These kids are 'at risk' for a reason. That doesn't make their story wrong, but it erodes their credibility.

In the end, I have no stake in clearing Joe's, C, S & S name. None at all. My hope is that the truth comes out, no matter what it is, and anyone who broke the law is punished. That includes detectives that may have coached witnesses or withheld evidence. That includes prosecutors and politicians that selectively "leaked" information that was confidential. That includes leaders that didn't exercise their fiduciary responsibilities. And that includes coaches and administrators that may have "looked the other way" at key times in their lives.

 

[WPB_lion]

Re: I won't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.

Originally posted by bjf1984:

But the issue here - for me at least - is the operation of the judicial system. It has NOTHING to do with what position might best help/hurt the cases of Paterno/CSS/PSU etc. It is about the operation of the Justice system - with no other conflicting concerns.

I can sit back as a common citizen, and evaluate the publically available information, and feel completely comfortable in my conclusion that Sandusky is a criminal.....that he behaved in ways that violate our societal laws...and not have any second thoughts or reservations.
If I were on the jury - with the responsibility to determine the fate of the life of the accused....AND the accusers....I would hope I would hold myself to a very high standard of deliberation and evaluation (much more so than the standard I would hold myself to as a bystander).

At the same time, I can look at the process of how this particular trial was conducted and be VERY VERY VERY disconcerted with the PROCESS by which Sandusky was convicted.....regardless of my personal beliefs as to his guilt/innocence.

That's just me.

If your only concern is the operation of the judicial system, then there are much better places to express this concern than expressing your concern over the conviction of Jerry Sandusky on a PSU Football Board. I may be wrong, but your claim that this has nothing to do with your concerns relating to PSU, Paterno or C/S/S rings hollow to me.

 

[WDLion]

Re: This is a disturbing thread

Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[bjf1984]

Hammer.......meet nail Bravo ***


nfm

 

[WPB_lion]

Re: This is a disturbing thread

Originally posted by Obliviax:
Maybe, but defense attorneys are the last thing (along with a jury of your peers) that stand between Democracy and tyranny. When he speaks, I listen. And, I listen when the prosecution, judge and jury talks too. That's the way it works. And, while it may be awful, it is still "less awful" than any other system.

It is "less awful" than any other system because the system skews itself on letting the guilty go free rather than convicting the innocent. While there certainly are instances where the innocent are incarcerated, the percentage of innocent people who are actually incarcerated is miniscule. There is absolutely no evidence to believe that Sandusky is innocent. Until such time as such exculpatory evidence is discovered, I will not be using the Sandusky case to argue our system is flawed.

 

[bjf1984]

?????


I wish this WERE my only concern in the world....but, alas, that is not the case. It (the operation of the judicial system) IS my only concern with respect to THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE currently at hand.

And, yes, I can separate that from the other concerns in my life........sorry.

 

[9fold]

Re: Do you think that.....

Originally posted by LaJolla Lion:
Play your violins for him I guess.

Play tough guy all you want, but you brought up "smoking gun", and you can't answer the simple question of where is the smoking gun proving that sandusky is a pedophile. But please carry on as though justice and a person's rights mean nothing in America.

 

[psu7113]

From where are you getting this "95% convinced" standard?


.

 

[jjsocrates]

Re: This is a disturbing thread

Originally posted by WPB_lion:
It is "less awful" than any other system because the system skews itself on letting the guilty go free rather than convicting the innocent. While there certainly are instances where the innocent are incarcerated, the percentage of innocent people who are actually incarcerated is miniscule. There is absolutely no evidence to believe that Sandusky is innocent. Until such time as such exculpatory evidence is discovered, I will not be using the Sandusky case to argue our system is flawed.

Please do define "miniscule" - given the number of people on Death Row that have been exonerated by DNA evidence, I take issue with your very highly "quantifiable" number.

 

[nits74]

Re: This is a disturbing thread

Very sensible post, Obliviax. One some know-it-alls on this thread should heed.

 

[WPB_lion]

Re: This is a disturbing thread

Originally posted by WDLion:
Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

By the way, what is your agenda? Are you a civil rights activist? Do you believe Sandusky is innocent? If so, what evidence do you have of his innocence?

 

[jjsocrates]

Re: This is a disturbing thread

Originally posted by WPB_lion:
To begin with, lets understand the person who wrote the Op-ed makes a living representing criminals with an apparent specialty in representing accused child molesters. He is obviously an elite attorney (given his representation of Michael Jackson) who makes a living making arguments in favor of the low life people who commit these crimes. The argument he made in the Op-ed is the best argument that an elite expert in the field of child molestation defense can make on behalf of Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester.

ALL people, no matter how descipable, have the right to a FAIR jury trial. I don't care what kind of a monster is on trial, they deserve a fair trial.

Otherwise, what would stop an out of control government or judicial system from destroying their enemies by labeling them them as pedophiles? Hey, what would Soviet Russia or China do with somebody who was being critical of their governments? Have them killed? Or plant child porn on their computers?

Its amazing how many monsters go on trial, and are eventually convicted of heinous crimes, and then a decade later new evidence comes out - in some cases DNA evidence that is pretty conclusive - that PROVES their innocense. And what do most people do? Do they change their minds about the "monster" that they were put on trial? NO! Most people, when they hear that a man convicted of a heinous crime was released because new evidence shows they are innocent - will CONTINUE to believe that the person was a monster.

Hey, if someone like Tom Corbett wanted to play REALLY dirty and take out his political enemies, labeling them as pedophile enablers seems like a pretty dastardly path to travel down - but what kind of protections ARE THERE exactly to prevent something like this happening?

 

[indynittany]

Re: well done...

Originally posted by LaJolla Lion:
Sorry, but I really don't care if that POS gets a fair shake. I'm quite certain it's a sick man who indeed did molest children and I have zero sympathy there. Let him rot and die in there. Blaming or questioning a witness is pretty much a standard when it comes to defense attorney's so to me this is not some new revelation. What MM said, saw, or reacted certainly can be questioned, but you need a bigger smoking gun that that to tell me JS isn't a serial pedophile.

Perhaps the greater point is that because his actions may have been unfairly embellished, the outside world has a distorted view of the entire situation. It may be perfectly understandable how JS got away with whatever it is he did for so long because it never really showed up on anyone's radar as more than Jerry being Jerry.

 

[indynittany]

Re: the prosecuters had more porn on their computers ....

Originally posted by LaJolla Lion:
Point is JS is a child molestor. Sorry I don't put on the kiddy gloves for this nonsense.

Is there some compelling piece of evidence that allows you to state that with confidence?

 

[ChiTownLion]

Re: well done...

Originally posted by LaJolla Lion:

Sorry, but I really don't care if that POS gets a fair shake. I'm quite certain it's a sick man who indeed did molest children and I have zero sympathy there. Let him rot and die in there. Blaming or questioning a witness is pretty much a standard when it comes to defense attorney's so to me this is not some new revelation. What MM said, saw, or reacted certainly can be questioned, but you need a bigger smoking gun than that to tell me JS isn't a serial pedophile.

Agreed.

No matter what:
1. Sandusky promised to stop showering with boys in 1998.
2. Jerry lied to Tim Curley about being in showers w/ V2 in 2001.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Didn't Amendola and Rominger also request right before the

trial to be released from the case because they did not feel they had enough time to prepare a defense and were denied by the trial judge? I thought I read that somewhere?

 

[indynittany]

Re: well, OBL confessed*

Originally posted by getmyjive11:

Originally posted by aferrelli:

Originally posted by LaJolla Lion:
True. Jerry is still in denial.

LaJolla Lion, why would intelligent people say that the evidence (or lack of in this case) warrants a second look at this case? One could say that you are in denial of being sensible. Everything about this case has stank from day 1. It's too bad you haven't been following it.

What evidence do you expect to see for charges that stem from incidents over a decade ago? Typically, in these type of cases, the only evidence is the witnesses' testimonies. Get real.

That works both ways. How is the accused supposed to defend himself when, for example as in the janitor case, there was no report of a crime, no established date for said crime, no known victim of a crime, no physical evidence of a crime, and no witness of a crime? Now we learn that there might even be recorded evidence that the witness exonerated JS in the incident. Doesn't the accused have the right to face his accuser?

That's five counts that should have never seen a courtroom.

 

[WPB_lion]

Re: This is a disturbing thread

Originally posted by jjsocrates:

Originally posted by WPB_lion:
It is "less awful" than any other system because the system skews itself on letting the guilty go free rather than convicting the innocent. While there certainly are instances where the innocent are incarcerated, the percentage of innocent people who are actually incarcerated is miniscule. There is absolutely no evidence to believe that Sandusky is innocent. Until such time as such exculpatory evidence is discovered, I will not be using the Sandusky case to argue our system is flawed.

Please do define "miniscule" - given the number of people on Death Row that have been exonerated by DNA evidence, I take issue with your very highly "quantifiable" number.


Here is a citation for the lower number which is .027% (or 99.973% being properly convicted):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/opinion/26marquis.html?_r=1

It is far from an exact science and the percentage will change depending on who you speak to as it is inherently speculative. I have seen arguments that this number is as great as 4% (which is small but not miniscule) but that is totally collateral to the point I was trying to make in my post which is:

What evidence in the Sandusky case makes you believe he is among the very small percentage of wrongfully convicted felons?

 

[WeR0206]

WPB, you keep asking people to prove that JS is innocent. That's like asking to prove a negative which is almost always impossible to do. I don't even think most people here are claiming he is innocent, only that it's possible he's not guilty of some of the charges he was convicted of due to the prosecution/judge playing fast and loose with the rules and a jury that was experiencing tremendous pressure by the media/public opinion to "put a monster away".

The criminal justice system is supposed to operate with the prosecution having to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. There is no burden for the accused to prove their innocence.

What myself and others have pointed out is not that we think JS is innocent, only that due to the kangaroo court nature of the JS trial, that there is some reasonable doubt when there shouldn't be if it was such an open and shut case (PSP manipulating witnesses to say what they want, witnesses denying giving testimony from 6 months prior, no/few continuances given to defense team, alleged crimes with no ID'd victims, crimes with no specific dates/locations, etc. etc.)

If the state had such an up and up open and shut case with dozens of other victims that could have testified, why resort to all of these antics and why did the Judge allow them???

Was it b/c the state had a weak case and was desperately trying to get convictions due to the pressure from media/public? Was it b/c the state wanted the blame/focus to be on PSU and NOT the state agencies that failed? We don't really know at this point but IMO these are legit questions.

This post was edited on 4/1 1:52 PM by WeR0206

 

[WeR0206]

Re: well done...

Originally posted by ChiTownLion:

No matter what:
1. Sandusky promised to stop showering with boys in 1998.
2. Jerry lied to Tim Curley about being in showers w/ V2 in 2001.

Great points Chi...I'd also add:

3. When JS was indicated in early 2009 he initially said he was going to fight it but eventually dropped his appeal.

I find that highly unlikely to happen if all of the incidents were just misunderstandings, etc.

I know I would fight that to the end if my life's work revolved around working with kids. He wasn't charged with any crimes until over 2 years later so he would have had plenty of time to devote to his appeal of the indicated ruling.

 

[WPB_lion]

Originally posted by WeR0206:
WPB, you keep asking people to prove that JS is innocent. That's like asking to prove a negative which is almost always impossible to do. I don't even think most people here are claiming he is innocent, only that it's possible he's not guilty of some of the charges he was convicted of due to the prosecution/judge playing fast and loose with the rules and a jury that was experiencing tremendous pressure by the media/public opinion to "put a monster away".

The criminal justice system is supposed to operate with the prosecution having to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. There is no burden for the accused to prove their innocence.

What myself and others have pointed out is not that we think JS is innocent, only that due to the kangaroo court nature of the JS trial, that there is some reasonable doubt when there shouldn't be if it was such an open and shut case (PSP manipulating witnesses to say what they want, witnesses denying giving testimony from 6 months prior, no/few continuances given to defense team, alleged crimes with no ID'd victims, crimes with no specific dates/locations, etc. etc.)

If the state had such an up and up open and shut case with dozens of other victims that could have testified, why resort to all of these antics and why did the Judge allow them???

Was it b/c the state had a weak case and was desperately trying to get convictions due to the pressure from media/public? Was it b/c the state wanted the blame/focus to be on PSU and NOT the state agencies that failed? We don't really know at this point but IMO these are legit questions.






This post was edited on 4/1 1:52 PM by WeR0206

You would have to convince me that it is more likely than not that Jerry Sandusky is innocent before I am going to advocate here or anywhere else that he was not given a fair trial.

There are child molesters in jail as a result of one (1) child testifying against them. In this instance, there are a lot of children testifying against Sandusky (I am not aware of any witness that has recanted their testimony). It only takes one child to be telling the truth for Sandusky to be in jail. We also have the rare circumstance of a third party witness who testified that he saw, at the very least, extremely inappropriate conduct. That is a mountain of evidence in a child molestation case.




This post was edited on 4/1 2:15 PM by WPB_lion

 

[CDW3333]

Re: the prosecuters had more porn on their computers ....

Originally posted by indynittany:

Originally posted by LaJolla Lion:
Point is JS is a child molestor. Sorry I don't put on the kiddy gloves for this nonsense.

Is there some compelling piece of evidence that allows you to state that with confidence?

Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts. That's not just "compelling" evidence, those are conclusive findings. Those are now facts, just like Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7 1941 is a fact.

Jury findings are how we determine what the facts are in legal disputes.

 

[WPB_lion]

Re: From where are you getting this "95% convinced" standard?


Although courts use words to describe what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, 95% is often the figure that is used to quantify the standard.
This post was edited on 4/1 2:25 PM by WPB_lion

 

[WeR0206]

Originally posted by WPB_lion:

You would have to convince me that it is more likely than not that Jerry Sandusky is innocent before I am going to advocate here or anywhere else that he was not given a fair trial.

There are child molesters in jail as a result of one (1) child testifying against them. In this instance, there are a lot of children testifying against Sandusky (I am not aware of any witness that has recanted their testimony). It only takes one child to be telling the truth for Sandusky to be in jail. We also have the rare circumstance of a third party witness who testified that he saw, at the very least, extremely inappropriate conduct. That is a mountain of evidence in a child molestation case.




This post was edited on 4/1 2:15 PM by WPB_lion

Well, it's not possible to prove someone's innocence unless there's some sort of hard evidence like DNA that exonerates them. The prosecution didn't rely on any hard evidence for their convictions so I don't know how it would be possible to prove JS's innocence in light of that. It was all based on witness/victim testimony.

Yes there are molesters in jail as a result of one child testifying against them and yes JS was convicted of charges where victims did testify however JS was convicted of charges where the OAG couldn't even produce a victim.

So that brings us to the question of why did the OAG feel the need to bring charges for V2 and V8 when they didn't even have a victim? All they had was ONE witness for V2 and his testimony was inconsistent/speculative at best and for V8 all they had was an excited utterance and no victim and no witness testify. BTW, these two instances just so happen to be the lynch pins that tie JS crimes back to PSU......

You don't think that it's odd the state tried to prosecute those two cases when there was supposedly a mountain of evidence to put JS away??

I know I do.

And for the record, I do believe that JS belongs in jail but I don't believe he got a fair trial though and because of that there is some reasonable doubt that needs to be ironed out for some of the charges related to the sex acts, etc.. I've never seen a case make as big a mockery of the judicial system as the JS case....

 

[bjf1984]

Absolutely...


"Jury findings are how we determine what the facts are in legal disputes".

And that is why we have - or are supposed to have - very stringent protections to assure that defendants, ANY defendants, have a fair trial. Otherwise, those "facts" that are determined are indelibly tainted......EVEN IF they prove to be true.

Of course, an ipso facto/mens rea fellow like yourself knows that.......but, like most of your cohorts, are more than willing to overlook that when it doesn't suit your objectives.

 

[Ephrata Lion]

And OJ was found not guilty.....


...I guess a "conclusive finding" and "fact" in your world.....

 

[Obliviax]

that's right...but IIRC

the prosecution fought the discovery materials until the last minute. Then they did a "document dump", which is SOP in the industry. In the appeal, they stated no discovery of consequence made within these documents that would have materially altered the trail, according to Cleland. However, with some of the rulings of Cleland (including the janitor's statements with no opportunity for cross and making them move on when Dranov, I think, stated that he didn't even remember going to Harrisburg for a GJ testimony).

BTW, Cleland got hurt yesterday...he fell and dislocated his shoulder.

 

[CDW3333]

No, it doesn't work the other way around because a "not guilty"

finding is not an affirmative finding. It merely means the prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the accused was actually innocent.

 

[MtNittany]

Agree...

...it took a bad turn right around 12:30 pm.

 

[CDW3333]

All this talk of Sandusky being railroaded does a real disservice

to the jury. They heard all the evidence, they were in a position to judge the credibility of the witnesses, they listened to the legal arguments, and they found, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sandusky was guilty on 45 charges.

The Sandusky acolytes are essentially claiming that the jury screwed up (or maybe they were in it too!).

And Sandusky got a better defense than about 99% of the criminal defendants get in this country. The 2nd Mile's insurance company alone paid $500,000 in defense fees and costs. Of course that pales in comparison with what's being spent on the defenses of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier but the defense costs in that case have gone beyond reason.

 

[WDLion]

But

the facts proved to the jury that he was not guilty.