FC: Here's a summary of yesterday's filing. Interesting.

[BUFFALO LION]

1.) Not much doubt anymore who Victim 2 was. Up to February 28, 2012, Vic 2 denied any inappropriate contact. Shubin gets hold of him in March. Then, March 8 and March 16, Vic 2 tells an investigator he had differing levels of sexual abuse/sexual contact. Shubin then hides Vic 2 away at an unknown location until after the trial. After the trial, Investigator Ken Cummings interviews Vic 2 and Vic 2 stands by what he told Amendola in November 2011. Strange.

2.) Prosecution lied at trial when they said they didn’t know who Victim 2 was. Didn’t want to call him to the stand, because they thought he would destroy McQueary’s credibility.

3.) Filing claims that Attorney General only brought charges against C/S/S to keep them quiet. Claim that the State has absolutely no intention to take them to trial.

4.) Claims that Sara Ganim was illegally being leaked info throughout the entire Grand Jury process. Gives many examples and cites the suspicious probability that she would see the “accidential” internet post of the GJP before it was taken down.

5.) Claims the Defense really screwed up with relation to Vic 8 (Janitor). The Janitor describes to a Trooper in detail the assault on a young boy. Then the questioning goes like this:

Q: Okay….alright….um… I appreciate….do you remember, Mr Calhoun, do you remember coach Sandusky?
A: Sandusky?
Q: Coach Sandusky?
A: Yes
Q: Do you remember if that was Coach Sandusky you saw?
A: No, I don’t believe it was. I don’t think it was Sandusky that was the person…. It wasn’t him…Sandusky never did anything anything at all that I can see that he was ….but uh….it was uh

6.) Tears apart Amendola’s defense

7.) Claims that the State falsely made the Defense believe they weren’t allowed to interview any of the Victims before trial. So the defense went in cold.

8.) Claims Amendola had an unprepared Rominger question McQueary with only 30 minutes notice.

9.) Claimed that the "repressed memory" tactic used by the state only worked after the Victims signed financial agreements with their civil lawyers. After the financial agreements were signed, the claims against Sandusky increased in severity exponentially

10.) Potential Witness list is a who’s who of people you can’t wait to hear on the stand under oath like Corbett, Ganim, Fina, Victim 2, etc.

There’s tons more, but that is a sample, I suggest everyone read it. In short, it paints a picture of a corrupt judicial system and an incompetent defense team. It starts out slow, but gets better and better the deeper you get into it. I doubt it will go very far, because of the politics involved and the lynch mob mentality. But there is no question that the State went beyond twisting every Law in the book.

It appears there is a lot of info available in the appendix. I don't believe they are posted yet. I have a call in to see when and if they will be posted. Might not have an answer until next week unless anyone on here knows

I won't link it so as to respect the feelings of certain people on this web site. But it is an unsealed, public filing that can easily be found on the Centre County web site.

 

[simons96]

start the clock on when this post gets reported and deleted . . . #FreeJerryParade

 

[marshall23]

No doubt The Commonweath is under rated at the 5th most corrupt state in The Union.

 

[dwiz]

1.) Not much doubt anymore who Victim 2 was. Up to February 28, 2012, Vic 2 denied any inappropriate contact. Shubin gets hold of him in March. Then, March 8 and March 16, Vic 2 tells an investigator he had differing levels of sexual abuse/sexual contact. Shubin then hides Vic 2 away at an unknown location until after the trial. After the trial, Investigator Ken Cummings interviews Vic 2 and Vic 2 stands by what he told Amendola in November 2011. Strange.

2.) Prosecution lied at trial when they said they didn’t know who Victim 2 was. Didn’t want to call him to the stand, because they thought he would destroy McQueary’s credibility.

3.) Filing claims that Attorney General only brought charges against C/S/S to keep them quiet. Claim that the State has absolutely no intention to take them to trial.

4.) Claims that Sara Ganim was illegally being leaked info throughout the entire Grand Jury process. Gives many examples and cites the suspicious probability that she would see the “accidential” internet post of the GJP before it was taken down.

5.) Claims the Defense really screwed up with relation to Vic 8 (Janitor). The Janitor describes to a Trooper in detail the assault on a young boy. Then the questioning goes like this:

Q: Okay….alright….um… I appreciate….do you remember, Mr Calhoun, do you remember coach Sandusky?
A: Sandusky?
Q: Coach Sandusky?
A: Yes
Q: Do you remember if that was Coach Sandusky you saw?
A: No, I don’t believe it was. I don’t think it was Sandusky that was the person…. It wasn’t him…Sandusky never did anything anything at all that I can see that he was ….but uh….it was uh

6.) Tears apart Amendola’s defense

7.) Claims that the State falsely made the Defense believe they weren’t allowed to interview any of the Victims before trial. So the defense went in cold.

8.) Claims Amendola had an unprepared Rominger question McQueary with only 30 minutes notice.

9.) Claimed that the "repressed memory" tactic used by the state only worked after the Victims signed financial agreements with their civil lawyers. After the financial agreements were signed, the claims against Sandusky increased in severity exponentially

10.) Potential Witness list is a who’s who of people you can’t wait to hear on the stand under oath like Corbett, Ganim, Fina, Victim 2, etc.

There’s tons more, but that is a sample, I suggest everyone read it. In short, it paints a picture of a corrupt judicial system and an incompetent defense team. It starts out slow, but gets better and better the deeper you get into it. I doubt it will go very far, because of the politics involved and the lynch mob mentality. But there is no question that the State went beyond twisting every Law in the book.

It appears there is a lot of info available in the appendix. I don't believe they are posted yet. I have a call in to see when and if they will be posted. Might not have an answer until next week unless anyone on here knows

I won't link it so as to respect the feelings of certain people on this web site. But it is an unsealed, public filing that can easily be found on the Centre County web site.

Jerry may or may not be guilty, that wasn't the purpose of his trial. Big money was protected in Heim, Surma, Garban, Corbett, Raykovitz, et al. This isn't about his guilt. This whole community is a front, and old money is funding these criminals that run it. If Masser isn't a pedophile, somebody show me proof, because he sure likes to cover them up.

 

[WeR0206]

Great summary thanks Buffalo. Im about 1/4 of the way through it.

So far the biggest part that stood out to me was the clear collusion between Ganim and someone at the PA OAG office. Someone leaked secret GJ info to her on two separate occasions (march 2011 and the nov GJP "accidental" posting) severely tainting the jury pool.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Great summary thanks Buffalo. Im about 1/4 of the way through it.

So far the biggest part that stood out to me was the clear collusion between Ganim and someone at the PA OAG office. Someone leaked secret GJ info to her on two separate occasions (march 2011 and the nov GJP "accidental" posting) severely tainting the jury pool.

Thanks! I think Sara was the benefactor of even more leaks than that.

I must say, after reading the whole thing, Amendola and Rominger were either on the take, and intentionally threw this case, or they are the absolutely worst attorneys in the universe.

I know there was an evidence dump, and they were overwhelmed. But dumb stuff like not knowing they could interview the victims before they got to the stand, and Amendola not prepping for McQueary, and then, telling Rominger he would have to do the McQueary questioning 30 minutes before McQueary took the stand.

I remember after the verdict, Amendola was almost acting like a cheerleader for the prosecution. Even Gretta Van Susteren and her guest thought it was weird.

 

[dwiz]

Thanks! I think Sara was the benefactor of even more leaks than that.

I must say, after reading the whole thing, Amendola and Rominger were either on the take, and intentionally threw this case, or they are the absolutely worst attorneys in the universe.

I know there was an evidence dump, and they were overwhelmed. But dumb stuff like not knowing they could interview the victims before they got to the stand, and Amendola not prepping for McQueary, and then, telling Rominger he would have to do the McQueary questioning 30 minutes before McQueary took the stand.

I remember after the verdict, Amendola was almost acting like a cheerleader for the prosecution. Even Gretta Van Susteren and her guest thought it was weird.

Amendola is clueless. Somehow he still gets work in centre county. Dude has no clue how to do anything except marry underage women.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Amendola is clueless. Somehow he still gets work in centre county. Dude has no clue how to do anything except marry underage women.

Now that's kind of funny.

 

[nits74]

Thanks! I think Sara was the benefactor of even more leaks than that.

I must say, after reading the whole thing, Amendola and Rominger were either on the take, and intentionally threw this case, or they are the absolutely worst attorneys in the universe.

I know there was an evidence dump, and they were overwhelmed. But dumb stuff like not knowing they could interview the victims before they got to the stand, and Amendola not prepping for McQueary, and then, telling Rominger he would have to do the McQueary questioning 30 minutes before McQueary took the stand.

I remember after the verdict, Amendola was almost acting like a cheerleader for the prosecution. Even Gretta Van Susteren and her guest thought it was weird.

I'm going to assume no pun intended.

 

[WeR0206]

Thanks! I think Sara was the benefactor of even more leaks than that.

I must say, after reading the whole thing, Amendola and Rominger were either on the take, and intentionally threw this case, or they are the absolutely worst attorneys in the universe.

I know there was an evidence dump, and they were overwhelmed. But dumb stuff like not knowing they could interview the victims before they got to the stand, and Amendola not prepping for McQueary, and then, telling Rominger he would have to do the McQueary questioning 30 minutes before McQueary took the stand.

I remember after the verdict, Amendola was almost acting like a cheerleader for the prosecution. Even Gretta Van Susteren and her guest thought it was weird.

I was just thinking the same thing about Amendola/Rominger. They're either the worst, most incompetent attorney's in the world or they intentionally threw this case.

How in the eff did they think JS would get a fair trial in Centre County less than a year after JS was charged/arrested and right after Joe was fired and passed away?? That is just unbelievable any experienced defense attorney would think that.

The filing points out numerous times where Amendola should have insisted upon a continuance, recused himself from the case --thus preventing the trial moving forward, or making objections especially during the state's closing arguments....but he never did.

Also lots of statements that Fina is pretty much a straight up liar and had numerous examples of prosecutorial/professional misconduct. One example being Fina using JS's 5th amendment right to not testify as a sign of his guilt (something your not allowed to do) and also lying to the jury that the State did NOT know who V2 was. There are too many other examples of misconduct on the state's part to list.

In any normal state Fina would have been disbarred a LOOOONNNG time ago. Unfortunately for PA he came up under the corrupt Corrbett and his tactics were rewarded instead of condoned.

Also, how in the world did Feudale not immediately appoint a special prosecutor to investigate who leaked the GJ info to Ganim in March 2011 (I'm guessing it was b/c it was his buddy Fina who leaked the info--it's part of his well established MO)??? Feudale wasn't removed by Kane for another 2 years, yet NO ONE in the press, etc. was asking Feudale how the eff his GJ's secrecy was breached and why he isn't getting to the bottom of it.....what a disgrace.

 

[ChiTownLion]

Yes, BL, after the verdict was announced, I remember Joe Amendola talking to the press and being asked if he believes Jerry is innocent despite the ruling. Amendola responded with a laugh and something like, "I believe JERRY thinks Jerry is innocent."

 

[JoeBatters1]

Yes, BL, after the verdict was announced, I remember Joe Amendola talking to the press and being asked if he believes Jerry is innocent despite the ruling. Amendola responded with a laugh and something like, "I believe JERRY thinks Jerry is innocent."

I'm not a lawyer but that comment exemplifies to me just how lousy an advocate Amendola apparently was and why he probably practices law in state college and not a major urban area. He is a CDA and his client was on trial for HIS LIFE and this guy is making these kinds of flippant remarks after the trial about his client. This while Amendola has to be expecting to be involved in the appeals process.

I remember watching Amendola during the whole process and he always sounded like he never understood the magnitude of attention this case was getting - he talked at times like he was the proverbial deer in the headlights. I remember his commenting while they were waiting for a verdict that he fully expected sandusky to be convicted on some of the charges as there were to many to not be convicted on at least some. I'm thinking to myself if that's the case then why the hell did you waive the prelimanary hearing and why - as defense counsel - are you making these comments while waiting for the verdict? Amendola seemed to be admitting that the trial was almost pointless as he had sacraficed his client at the preliminary hearing.

If I hire a CDA and I'm on trial for MY LIFE then I expect him to be in mortal combat mode in defending me and to go for blood against the prosecutor and any witnesses for the prosecution and take no prisoners. Amdendola was apparently not only a bad lawyer, he was in way over his head in understanding how to deal with the media.

 

[LundyPSU]

Amendola told reporters that he would have a heart attack if they won acquittal.

 

[demlion]

Amendola told reporters that he would have a heart attack if they won acquittal.

There are certainly many people here more experienced in criminal law than me, and they are welcome to tell me I am all wet on this, but I have filed lots and lots of appellate documents in my day and the summary seems to create problems for Jerry.

As a general notion, you do not want to put the appellate court in a situation where they have to sign on to an "Everyone is evil/the whole system is corrupt" theory in order to grant your relief. Put another way, you are already asking the appellate court to do a pretty strenuous thing--overturn the conviction of one of the most hated men in the history of central PA. Why make it harder by larding the record up with conspiracy theories? That puts an appellate judge who want to criticize the verdict in the position of having to criticize a whole bunch of other people at the same time.

Maybe it is the way the summary is written that makes it seem like JS is saying that its not him, its the whole world that is corrupt, but you make your task harder by universalizing the complaint. The summary looks like it was written by Ziegler, when what JZ needs is a narrow set of grounds that are unshakeable. I have not read the appellate document (nor will I), so I dont know if that is the tone of the actual brief or just of the summary, but there are usually not too many tinfoil hats on the appellate bench. Even the none-too-bright appellate judges know what Occam's Razor is.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

I read it as well and a major point is the tape where the police were caught coaching a kid and his attorney while stating that all the other boys said they were molested so you should say you were molested too.

There is no way that this was a fair trial and in any fair court this appeal would be granted. That said he may not get one from the PA court system and may have to go to the feds.

Again, that said, I believe JS is guilty of at least some of what he was convicted of just because he was in the shower late at night with a boy with no one else likely to be there. To me that is child endangerment especially since he did something like that before even though the court may classify that as a boundary issue.

Despite that, he deserves a fair trial just like we all have the right to. I think the state royally screwed themselves by going over the top and forcing the conviction by using questionable evidence, making up evidence and hiding evidence that in some instances would exonerate JS on some of the charges. I do believe that the CSS charges were at least in part done to keep them from testifying and destroying MM's credibility. The other part was to see if they would turn on each other because they had insufficient evidence to convict them.

I guess the bottom line is that we will likely see and have to endure another JS trial but not any time soon. It will take years to get this appealed to the feds. In the mean time the State will not try CSS because they will continue to keep them quiet through the fed's trial.

It is a long road but we have to stay the course.

 

[kgilbert78]

start the clock on when this post gets reported and deleted . . . #FreeJerryParade

There is a BIG difference between a public court filing, which is open to all, and outing victims, including one who specifically asked for privacy, which is what the JZ and the other posts did--they were rightfully deleted.

 

[psuro]

start the clock on when this post gets reported and deleted . . . #FreeJerryParade

Just because some people feel that that Jerry did not get a fair trial means that they want him free to walk the streets. A fair trial should be just that - fair. Fair to Jerry, fair to the victims, and most importantly - fair to the legal process. I don't think Jerry got that.

I hope that sometime soon he does get a fair trial, and that depositions are taken from all the fringe elements - the BoT, Sara Ganim, Corbett, etc. more than anything, those people are the ones that caused the damage to Joe, Penn State and the football program. Getting Jerry a fair trial should (hopefully) expose these people, their motives, their actions and begin the process of righting the wrongs that have been assigned to those who had nothing to do with Jerry - but still have Jerry serve the time he should serve.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

There is a BIG difference between a public court filing, which is open to all, and outing victims, including one who specifically asked for privacy, which is what the JZ and the other posts did--they were rightfully deleted.

Yep, let the actual lawyers represent the monster in a courtroom. Not some attention whore who has no real legal ties to the case.

 

[nits74]

Just because some people feel that that Jerry did not get a fair trial means that they want him free to walk the streets. A fair trial should be just that - fair. Fair to Jerry, fair to the victims, and most importantly - fair to the legal process. I don't think Jerry got that.

I hope that sometime soon he does get a fair trial, and that depositions are taken from all the fringe elements - the BoT, Sara Ganim, Corbett, etc. more than anything, those people are the ones that caused the damage to Joe, Penn State and the football program. Getting Jerry a fair trial should (hopefully) expose these people, their motives, their actions and begin the process of righting the wrongs that have been assigned to those who had nothing to do with Jerry - but still have Jerry serve the time he should serve.

Well said. Too bad some of these posters care not to see this logic and would rather use this to grandstand. By now, we should know the type.

 

[LundyPSU]

In the petition, Lindsay states that Amendola advised on a Centre Country venue. I recall that JS took the witness stand in one of the pre-trial hearings and stated that he understood the risks and agreed with this attorney about keeping it in Centre County when prosecutors wanted it out of county

 

[LundyPSU]

There are certainly many people here more experienced in criminal law than me, and they are welcome to tell me I am all wet on this, but I have filed lots and lots of appellate documents in my day and the summary seems to create problems for Jerry.

As a general notion, you do not want to put the appellate court in a situation where they have to sign on to an "Everyone is evil/the whole system is corrupt" theory in order to grant your relief. Put another way, you are already asking the appellate court to do a pretty strenuous thing--overturn the conviction of one of the most hated men in the history of central PA. Why make it harder by larding the record up with conspiracy theories? That puts an appellate judge who want to criticize the verdict in the position of having to criticize a whole bunch of other people at the same time.

Maybe it is the way the summary is written that makes it seem like JS is saying that its not him, its the whole world that is corrupt, but you make your task harder by universalizing the complaint. The summary looks like it was written by Ziegler, when what JZ needs is a narrow set of grounds that are unshakeable. I have not read the appellate document (nor will I), so I dont know if that is the tone of the actual brief or just of the summary, but there are usually not too many tinfoil hats on the appellate bench. Even the none-too-bright appellate judges know what Occam's Razor is.

I think it is how the OP summarized the filing. I read the filing quickly on Monday and my biggest takeaway was the incompetence of Amendola and Rominger, as well as the GJ leaks and pre-trial publicity impinging his rights to a fair trial.

 

[JmmyW]

Did Amendola maintain a strategy that allowed calling himself ineffective?
That would certainly explain a lot his actions and statements.
What effect might that have, if proven, on appeal chances?

----------
12/13/2011
http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-13/news/30512150_1_preliminary-hearing-plea-deal-joseph-amendola

Let the critics say what they may, Joseph Amendola - the outspoken, often unorthodox attorney representing former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky - isn't one to be cowed by a little second-guessing.

With a client facing 50 sexual abuse counts, he infamously made Sandusky available for not one - but two interviews with national media outlets last month.

With state prosecutors threatening to produce at least eight young men claiming traumatic abuse, he argued many - if not all - came forward looking for money.

And on Tuesday, the 63-year-old lawyer at the center of one of the state's largest legal spectacles threw his most surprising curveball yet. After insisting for weeks his client relished the opportunity to face his accusers in court, Amendola announced to a packed house that Sandusky would waive a preliminary hearing in which many were expected to testify.

It was only the latest decision to leave veteran prosecutors and defense lawyers wondering if Amendola is crazy like a fox - or just plain crazy.

"This cockamamie about face is consistent with everything else (Amendola's) done in the case - it's inconsistent," said Jeffrey M. Lindy, an attorney who has both prosecuted and defended child sex-abuse cases. "This certainly hasn't been your textbook defense strategy."

The court proceeding took just more than a minute. But Amendola spent an hour on the steps of the Centre County courthouse addressing critiques like Lindy's. He described the decision to forgo the hearing as "a tactical measure."
...
Amendola's choice came on the heels of two eyebrow-raising interviews last month given by his client - the first with NBC News' Bob Costas, the second with The New York Times. The interviews were arranged by Amendola, who sat in on both.

Many attorneys felt Sandusky's statements in the interviews damaged his defense. While denying that he had sexually abused the boys, he seemed to confirm key aspects of the prosecution's case: acknowledging that he had given gifts to his accusers often had close physical contact with them, and had showered with several young boys.
...
Typically, the safest course is for the defense attorney to do the talking, because those words cannot be entered by state prosecutors as evidence, he said.
...
When asked about the credibility of one witness, Amendola jokingly suggested anyone that believed the man should call "1-800-REALITY." The number, it turns out, is a phone sex line for gay men.


---------
9/5/2012 - plan to claim he's ineffective counsel
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/09/post_409.html

Calling himself ineffective?

By the end of the year, Amendola will have stepped aside from the Sandusky case.

His plan is to sacrifice his ego, take the stand and declare himself an ineffective attorney in an attempt to help his client get a new trial.

It’s a tactic he has used before. A few years ago, after losing a rape case, he hired a Philadelphia attorney to handle the appeal, took the stand and called himself incompetent to help the 20-something college student who had been convicted.

Becoming a witness in the case means he will no longer be Sandusky’s attorney.

Until then, he still advises the 68-year-old former Penn State assistant coach.

His challenge right now is to try to tamp down a statement Sandusky wants to read at his sentencing this month.

It’s basically Sandusky’s defense — the one that he didn’t take the stand and give at trial. But Amendola is finding it hard to explain to his stubborn client that anything he says can still be used against him during his appeal.

Keeping Sandusky from talking to the media has been a little easier, Amendola said. Not because Sandusky doesn’t want to do it, but because his wife, Dottie, won’t let him.

Regardless, not long after the gavel falls on the wooden bench in Courtroom One in Centre County and Sandusky is carted off to serve an almost inevitable life sentence in state prison, Amendola will be free.


--------
6/5/2012, Just before trial, Amendola made a motion to withdraw but acknowledged the court would deny it; got it on the record for appeal purposes
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...ERALD 060512 Motion To Withdraw Before JS.pdf

-----------
6/14/2012 transcript, starting at page 196, is an ex parte conference on new info.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061412_ JT.pdf

At trial, Amendola seemed to care not at all about a prosecution surprise, which ended up being Matt Sandusky disclosing abuse after first day. Here are a few interesting comments from Amendola:

THE COURT: Yeah. As soon as they are able to confirm the -- as soon as they are able to confirm the veracity and reliability of this information.
MR. AMENDOLA: So we'll have to sit on the edge of our seats, Your Honor?
...
THE COURT: Do you want to ask any questions or ask me to --
MR. AMENDOLA: It lets us have something exciting to look forward to since we're not in court tomorrow.
THE COURT: Yeah. But about this meeting, is there anything -- I mean, if you want to put anything on the record about this, now is the time to --
MR. AMENDOLA: No, Your Honor. And, Your Honor, we trust you. We trust --

------------

Amendola, crazy like fox ?

 

[JmmyW]

In the petition, Lindsay states that Amendola advised on a Centre Country venue. I recall that JS took the witness stand in one of the pre-trial hearings and stated that he understood the risks and agreed with this attorney about keeping it in Centre County when prosecutors wanted it out of county

Good memory Lundy.

See page 3 of this 2/13/2012 filing on venue
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...RDER TO COM'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENIRE.pdf

 

[JoeBatters1]

g"By the end of the year, Amendola will have stepped aside from the Sandusky case.

His plan is to sacrifice his ego, take the stand and declare himself an ineffective attorney in an attempt to help his client get a new trial.

It’s a tactic he has used before. A few years ago, after losing a rape case, he hired a Philadelphia attorney to handle the appeal, took the stand and called himself incompetent to help the 20-something college student who had been convicted.

Becoming a witness in the case means he will no longer be Sandusky’s attorney.

Until then, he still advises the 68-year-old former Penn State assistant coach.

His challenge right now is to try to tamp down a statement Sandusky wants to read at his sentencing this month."

Did Amenola actually take the stand and call himself ineffective counsel during any of the appeals process for sandusky? I don't recall. Also, I don't get where allowing your client to be covicted and go to jail with the hope to win on appeal because your defense counsel purposely doesn't do his job could ever be viewed as a good strategy? I would think this kind of stratey should possibly lead to disbarment and an immediate retrial for sandusky. On the other hand if Amendola thought the situation for sandusky was so desperate that he had to resort to this strategy, it would speak volumes about the salem witch-hunt atmosphere surrounding the trial and why the trial itself could be considered a joke. What do the lawyers on the board think?

 

[BUFFALO LION]

There are certainly many people here more experienced in criminal law than me, and they are welcome to tell me I am all wet on this, but I have filed lots and lots of appellate documents in my day and the summary seems to create problems for Jerry.

As a general notion, you do not want to put the appellate court in a situation where they have to sign on to an "Everyone is evil/the whole system is corrupt" theory in order to grant your relief. Put another way, you are already asking the appellate court to do a pretty strenuous thing--overturn the conviction of one of the most hated men in the history of central PA. Why make it harder by larding the record up with conspiracy theories? That puts an appellate judge who want to criticize the verdict in the position of having to criticize a whole bunch of other people at the same time.

Maybe it is the way the summary is written that makes it seem like JS is saying that its not him, its the whole world that is corrupt, but you make your task harder by universalizing the complaint. The summary looks like it was written by Ziegler, when what JZ needs is a narrow set of grounds that are unshakeable. I have not read the appellate document (nor will I), so I dont know if that is the tone of the actual brief or just of the summary, but there are usually not too many tinfoil hats on the appellate bench. Even the none-too-bright appellate judges know what Occam's Razor is.

I will tell you this. The new legal team thinks they have an excellent chance of winning the appeal. They also believe that Jerry is totally innocent. Now of course they would say that because they are representing him. But without getting into detail, they give me the impression that things were done on both sides (prosecution and defense) that they have never seen before in history. In short, I get the distinct impression that they think Sandusky was framed big time.

They tell me the appendix to the petition should go up on the Centre County website either later today or sometime next week. If the petition itself wasn't enough red meat to chomp on, the appendix will be a treasure trove of new info.

I don't want to give away any of their defense, but I was given a very convincing rebuttal to the repressed memory tactic that the prosecution used. It was one of the rebuttals that may be used by their expert psychologist. And it is hard to argue with. Especially when combined with the fact that repressed memory seemed to be recovered with substantially more clarity after the financial agreements were signed with the civil attorneys.

Remember. Amendola never bothered to use any expert witness to discredit the repressed memory tactic. Many psychologists think it is nothing more than legal hocus pocus. Amendola just stupidly and inexplicably accepted it and moved on.

My own opinion is that because of the corrupt and crooked Pennsylvania politics involved in this case, the appeal is a long shot. But the new defense team gives me the impression that not only do they think Sandusky is 100% innocent (their words), but the United States Constitution was completely and cataclysmically destroyed and mangled in this case. When they explain the inexplicable and extreme Constitutional violations they feel were intentionally and willfully carried out, they make me believe that this appeal at least has some chance.

 

[BBrown]

I will tell you this. The new legal team thinks they have an excellent chance of winning the appeal. They also believe that Jerry is totally innocent. Now of course they would say that because they are representing him. But without getting into detail, they give me the impression that things were done on both sides (prosecution and defense) that they have never seen before in history. In short, I get the distinct impression that they think Sandusky was framed big time.

They tell me the appendix to the petition should go up on the Centre County website either later today or sometime next week. If the petition itself wasn't enough red meat to chomp on, the appendix will be a treasure trove of new info.

I don't want to give away any of their defense, but I was given a very convincing rebuttal to the repressed memory tactic that the prosecution used. It was one of the rebuttals that may be used by their expert psychologist. And it is hard to argue with. Especially when combined with the fact that repressed memory seemed to be recovered with substantially more clarity after the financial agreements were signed with the civil attorneys.

Remember. Amendola never bothered to use any expert witness to discredit the repressed memory tactic. Many psychologists think it is nothing more than legal hocus pocus. Amendola just stupidly and inexplicably accepted it and moved on.

My own opinion is that because of the corrupt and crooked Pennsylvania politics involved in this case, the appeal is a long shot. But the new defense team gives me the impression that not only do they think Sandusky is 100% innocent (their words), but the United States Constitution was completely and cataclysmically destroyed and mangled in this case. When they explain the inexplicable and extreme Constitutional violations they feel were intentionally and willfully carried out, they make me believe that this appeal at least has some chance.

Ok, I know nothing about law and am not even going to pretend I do. But if this new team believes all that you said could it move up to Federal?

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Ok, I know nothing about law and am not even going to pretend I do. But if this new team believes all that you said could it move up to Federal?

I'm not a lawyer either. However, my understanding from other legal experts familiar with this case (not the Lindsay Defense team - I didn't discuss that with them) is that he could very easily win a federal appeal because it would get outside of Pennsylvania's corruptive influence. But that would probably take years, and Sandusky may not live long enough for it to matter.

 

[BBrown]

I'm not a lawyer either. However, my understanding from other legal experts familiar with this case (not the Lindsay Defense team - I didn't discuss that with them) is that he could very easily win a federal appeal because it would get outside of Pennsylvania's corruptive influence. But that would probably take years, and Sandusky may not live long enough for it to matter.

Thanks.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Buffalo Lion - when you say years to get to the Federal courts, how many years are talking about?
Do you know how that process works?

By the way, what kind of reputation does Al Lindsay have as a CDA?

Thanks

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Buffalo Lion - when you say years to get to the Federal courts, how many years are talking about? Do you know how that process works? Thanks

Again, I'm not a lawyer. One of the attorneys on this board could answer that better.

I have been told anywhere from 3 years to 10 years or more. It's a crap shoot. But the general impression I have gotten is that it would be far closer to 10 years than 3 years.

No one has ever given me an exact number for obvious reasons.