link: http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/new-hearing-ordered-in-sandusky-appeal,1469559/
New Hearing Ordered in Sandusky Appeal
by Geoff Rushton on October 17, 2016 6:42 PM
Jerry Sandusky will be back in Centre County Court for a hearing on Nov. 4. Photo: Alex Robinson/file photo
Click photo for gallery
Jerry Sandusky will get another hearing as he continues to pursue a new trial.
Specially-presiding Judge John Cleland on Monday scheduled a hearing for Nov. 4 to take the testimony of a man who claimed to be Victim 2, the boy Mike McQueary saw in a locker room shower with Sandusky.
Sandusky is seeking to have his 2012 conviction of 45 counts related to child sexual abuse overturned and receive a new trial under the Post-Conviction Relief Act, claiming that he received ineffective counsel prior to and during his trial.
Among the claims made by his attorneys Al Lindsay and Andrew Salemme is that both Sandusky's trial attorneys and prosecutors did know the identity of Victim 2, who was unidentified at trial.
In closing arguments at the trial, lead prosecutor Joe McGettigan stated that some of Sandusky's victims were "known only to God." Victim 8 also was not identified. But Sandusky claims that his attorney, Joe Amendola, failed in not objecting to the statement because a man had come forward and identified himself as Victim 2. Amendola testified at a hearing this summer that the man had spoken to his investigator and said he was never abused by Sandusky. Amendola was surprised, then, when he learned that the man hired attorney Andrew Shubin and was claiming Sandusky did abuse him.
Prosecutors and investigators for the state, meanwhile, testified that they had interviewed the man and did not believe him to be Victim 2. They cited multiple reasons, including his story changing after hiring a civil attorney, his certainty of the date of the incident that turned out to be wrong, and his inability to draw a diagram of the locker room where the abuse occurred.
The Victim 2 case is also central to former Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary's whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State, which began Monday. He says Penn State discriminated against him for cooperating with the state in the investigation.
Cleland also dismissed another claim in Sandusky's appeal. Lindsay and Salemme had argued that Amendola should have filed a motion to quash the grand jury presentment against Sandusky because of alleged government leaks of secret grand jury information. Cleland's order said an opinion on that dismissal will be forthcoming.
New Hearing Ordered in Sandusky Appeal
by Geoff Rushton on October 17, 2016 6:42 PM
Jerry Sandusky will be back in Centre County Court for a hearing on Nov. 4. Photo: Alex Robinson/file photo
Click photo for gallery
Jerry Sandusky will get another hearing as he continues to pursue a new trial.
Specially-presiding Judge John Cleland on Monday scheduled a hearing for Nov. 4 to take the testimony of a man who claimed to be Victim 2, the boy Mike McQueary saw in a locker room shower with Sandusky.
Sandusky is seeking to have his 2012 conviction of 45 counts related to child sexual abuse overturned and receive a new trial under the Post-Conviction Relief Act, claiming that he received ineffective counsel prior to and during his trial.
Among the claims made by his attorneys Al Lindsay and Andrew Salemme is that both Sandusky's trial attorneys and prosecutors did know the identity of Victim 2, who was unidentified at trial.
In closing arguments at the trial, lead prosecutor Joe McGettigan stated that some of Sandusky's victims were "known only to God." Victim 8 also was not identified. But Sandusky claims that his attorney, Joe Amendola, failed in not objecting to the statement because a man had come forward and identified himself as Victim 2. Amendola testified at a hearing this summer that the man had spoken to his investigator and said he was never abused by Sandusky. Amendola was surprised, then, when he learned that the man hired attorney Andrew Shubin and was claiming Sandusky did abuse him.
Prosecutors and investigators for the state, meanwhile, testified that they had interviewed the man and did not believe him to be Victim 2. They cited multiple reasons, including his story changing after hiring a civil attorney, his certainty of the date of the incident that turned out to be wrong, and his inability to draw a diagram of the locker room where the abuse occurred.
The Victim 2 case is also central to former Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary's whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State, which began Monday. He says Penn State discriminated against him for cooperating with the state in the investigation.
Cleland also dismissed another claim in Sandusky's appeal. Lindsay and Salemme had argued that Amendola should have filed a motion to quash the grand jury presentment against Sandusky because of alleged government leaks of secret grand jury information. Cleland's order said an opinion on that dismissal will be forthcoming.
