Sandusky's response to Commonwealth's Second Answer

[francofan]

Sandusky's response to the Commonwealth's 2nd Amended PCRA filing was posted on the Centre County website late yesterday afternoon. The response is 56 pages and goes over in detail why the responses that the OAG provided on the 2nd amended PCRA for each of the identified 34 issues are either wrong or very weak. Clearly each of these 34 issues are substantive and are not frivolous.

There should be some very interesting arguments on May 2 regarding defendant's request for evidentiary hearings.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...EALTHS SECOND ANSWER AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT.pdf

 

[joeparules]

Looks like JS got a competent lawyer this time around!?

 

[BobPSU92]

 

[PennSt8er]

I find myself in the incredibly odd position of supporting Sandusky here. Everyone deserves a fair trial and he got Fina-ed.

 

[psuro]

It's not so much competency or not - the whole trial was a sham, including the way the courts treated Sandusky's defense team.

Clarence Darrow could not have done anything in that situation.

 

[sluggo72]

It's not so much competency or not - the whole trial was a sham, including the way the courts treated Sandusky's defense team.

Clarence Darrow could not have done anything in that situation.

Clarence Darrow would not have put up with it!

 

[Black Elmo 2]

Amendola knew JS was guilty as sin. He's not an idiot. He had very little to work with.

 

[francofan]

Amendola knew JS was guilty as sin. He's not an idiot. He had very little to work with.

While Joe Amendola was not at all effective in defending Sandusky, to this very day he still believes that his client is innocent.

 

[NittPicker]

Amendola knew JS was guilty as sin. He's not an idiot. He had very little to work with.

Apparently you had a conversation with Amendola and he told you he knew Sandusky was guilty as sin. If you didn't have a conversation with Amendola you've confirmed the fact you're making baseless claims and have an agenda.

 

[91Joe95]

Amendola knew JS was guilty as sin. He's not an idiot. He had very little to work with.

As you know, if he really thought that he should have recused himself.

 

[Obliviax]

Amendola knew JS was guilty as sin. He's not an idiot. He had very little to work with.

And that, alone, would qualify for a new trial. You see, the constitution provides for competent representation. Its was not up to Amendola to make that decision, it was up to a jury. If Amendola felt that way, he should have resigned from the team (IIRC, he tried and the judge wouldn't let him).

So, while you apparently feel that JS shouldn't have a new trail, your post denotes just the opposite.

 

[91Joe95]

And that, alone, would qualify for a new trial. You see, the constitution provides for competent representation. Its was not up to Amendola to make that decision, it was up to a jury. If Amendola felt that way, he should have resigned from the team (IIRC, he tried and the judge wouldn't let him).

So, while you apparently feel that JS shouldn't have a new trail, your post denotes just the opposite.

Cut him some slack. You can't expect him to understand what he typed.

 

[kentuckycb]

Amendola knew JS was guilty as sin. He's not an idiot. He had very little to work with.

I disagree. There was plenty with which to work. Not sure the jury would have come out any different, but Sandusky's representation was ineffective under current legal standards.

 

[francofan]

And that, alone, would qualify for a new trial. You see, the constitution provides for competent representation. Its was not up to Amendola to make that decision, it was up to a jury. If Amendola felt that way, he should have resigned from the team (IIRC, he tried and the judge wouldn't let him).

So, while you apparently feel that JS shouldn't have a new trail, your post denotes just the opposite.

Even if Amendola didn't feel that way (which I think is the case as Amendola has stated post trial that he still believes Sandusky is innocent), he should have resigned when he realized that he was unprepared and unable to provide the defense that his client deserved.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Even if Amendola didn't feel that way (which I think is the case as Amendola has stated post trial that he still believes Sandusky is innocent), he should have resigned when he realized that he was unprepared and unable to provide the defense that his client deserved.

Amendola tried to resign and the judge wouldn't let him.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jerry-s...dusky-lawyers-request-to-resign-before-trial/

""We told the trial court, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court we were not prepared to proceed to trial in June due to numerous issues, and we asked to withdraw from the case for those reasons," attorney Joe Amendola told The Associated Press."

I have no idea how common it is for a judge to refuse an attorney's wish to resign, but that seems patently unfair.

 

[kentuckycb]

Amendola tried to resign and the judge wouldn't let him.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jerry-s...dusky-lawyers-request-to-resign-before-trial/

""We told the trial court, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court we were not prepared to proceed to trial in June due to numerous issues, and we asked to withdraw from the case for those reasons," attorney Joe Amendola told The Associated Press."

I have no idea how common it is for a judge to refuse an attorney's wish to resign, but that seems patently unfair.

It's common in cases where for instance a death row inmate tries to perpetually change counsel to avoid sentence. Obviously that was not the case here.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

No new trial. We don't need to see that perv again doing the perp walk in handcuffs wearing Penn State clothing. Maybe he can wear his orange jumpsuit and have a "T" embroidered on it.

 

[mhentz]

Amendola knew JS was guilty as sin. He's not an idiot. He had very little to work with.

If Amendola punted the trial because he knew JS was guilty then that is as much evidence as is needed to prove that JS did not receive a fair trial and deserves a new trial. An attorney's job is to advocate for his client and nothing else. If the attorney is deciding for himself the guilt of his client and steering his advocacy of that client as a result then he has not choice but to resign as counsel. I f he decides his client is guilty and he does not resign but goes on and throws the trial so that justice, in his personal opinion, is served then that is grounds for disbarment. Man, you stick your foot in your mouth over and over and over again and you don't even have a semblance of a clue when you're doing it.

 

[91Joe95]

No new trial. We don't need to see that perv again doing the perp walk in handcuffs wearing Penn State clothing. Maybe he can wear his orange jumpsuit and have a "T" embroidered on it.

I don't know, you're making a pretty convincing argument for a new trial. Probably not what you going for, but par for your skill level.