Sandusky brief on Centre County web pages on why he is entitled to a new trial

[francofan]

There is a new Sandusky’s brief posted on the Centre County web pages today regarding PCRA evidentiary hearing issues and why Sandusky deserves a new trial. The brief is 89 pages and the following 9 issues were identified. Sandusky’s lawyers, Al Lindsay and Andrew Salemme, make a very compelling case on why his trial was patently unfair IMO. In particular, I found issue 1 (page 4) regarding why victim 2 is known and issue 6 (page 65) regarding the highly irregular grand jury process to be noteworthy.

Issue 1 (page 4) Trial counsel were ineffective in not objecting to prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during prosecutor’s closing statement when the prosecutor stated the 2001 shower victim was unknown.

Issue 11 (page 21) Trial counsel were rendered ineffective assistance in waiving Mr. Sandusky’s preliminary hearing and failing to use the proceeding for both discovery and to cross-examine the witnesses who had given numerous prior inconsistent statements.

Issue 26 (page 37) Trial counsel were ineffective in permitting Mr. Sandusky to be interviewed by Bob Costas without adequately advising or preparing Mr. Sandusky for the interview thereby providing the Commonwealth with significant additional evidence.

Issue 27 (page 42) Trial counsel were ineffective in failing to present grand jury testimony of Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier.

Issue 29 (page 47) Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in presenting Dr. Elliot Adkins and eliciting inculpatory evidence against Mr. Sandusky and opening the door for the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that Mr. Sandusky suffered from pedophilia.

Issue 31 (page 52) Trial counsel were ineffective by not making a motion to preclude Matt Sandusky from testifying as a rebuttal witness and failing to advise Mr. Sandusky regarding any strategy they would pursue if Matt Sandusky was allowed to testify.

Issue 32 (page 59) Trial counsel were ineffective in inadequately advising Mr. Sandusky regarding his right to testify and not presenting Mr. Sandusky after the Commonwealth acknowledged it would not call Matt Sandusky in rebuttal.

Issue 33 (page 62) Trial counsel were ineffective in failing to object to trial court’s erroneous guilt instruction as part of its character evidence instruction.

Issue 6 (page 65) The PCRA court erred in denying Mr. Sandusky’s grand jury ineffectiveness claims without permitting Mr. Sandusky to present testimony from Sara Ganim or former Judge Barry Feudale and in apparently ruling that quashal is not an appropriate remedy for prosecutorial misconduct where every Pennsylvania decision regarding grand jury presentments opines that quashal can be a proper remedy.

Conclusion: For all the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Sandusky is entitled to a new trial is this matter

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY BRIEF ON EVIDENTIARY HEARING ISSUES.pdf

 

[francofan]

Here is the Comonweaalth's response in opposition to the second amended PCRA. I believe it is weak in trying to assert that McGettigan did not know AM was v2 and that Joe Amendola was effective in waiving Sandusky's right to a preliminary hearing, advocating that Sandusky give Bob Costas an interview with less than 30 minutes notice and without any preparation, and convincing Sandusky not to testify on his own behalf after promising the jury that Sandusky would testify on his own behalf.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...RIEF IN OPPOSITION TO SECOND AMENDED PCRA.pdf