Can some of our legal types please try and explain to me why this guy, who I understand was begging to testify, was not put on the stand by Spanier's people. I just can't get it thru my head that this was a major mistake...I talked with a lawyer friend and he said as well he had no idea, that he would have had Snedden called either first or last, and this guy has been following the PSU case since it's inception.
Snedden/Spanier
- Thread starter bkmtnittany1
- Start date
Not a lawyer but I would guess there were 3 plausible reasons
1. They didn't think the state had made it's case [many would agree] so why open it up for more inquiries.
2. The only thing the defense couldn't get around was the famous "we could be vulnerable email" which honestly Snedden's testimony wouldn't have affected much.
3. Somehow the fact that Snedden seems to think JS may have been innocent could have come to light which would have "weakened" the entire defense.
I think Snedden's testimony would have been welcomed by many of us who question this whole narrative, but I doubt if it would have changed the verdict. They wanted to blame someone so Spanier get's convicted on the weakest charge possible. [and likely overturned on tech]
1. They didn't think the state had made it's case [many would agree] so why open it up for more inquiries.
2. The only thing the defense couldn't get around was the famous "we could be vulnerable email" which honestly Snedden's testimony wouldn't have affected much.
3. Somehow the fact that Snedden seems to think JS may have been innocent could have come to light which would have "weakened" the entire defense.
I think Snedden's testimony would have been welcomed by many of us who question this whole narrative, but I doubt if it would have changed the verdict. They wanted to blame someone so Spanier get's convicted on the weakest charge possible. [and likely overturned on tech]
Stupidity?
Arrogance?
"Obliviousity"? (yeah, made that one up)
Shitload of BILLABLE HOURS in the appeal court?
Something worse?
I'd say you summed it up very nicely. Reason number three alone is enough. Cross examination on that conclusion would have been ugly.
Why are all his other convictions taken seriously, but not this one? He's not some JZ acolyte. He makes a living by investigating people for the federal government. What makes you so sure he's wrong?
It's an appellate law strategy...keep the record clear and concise as to the law. Spanier's lawyers are banking on an appellate panel ruling that "as a matter of law" the statute did not apply to Spanier. Putting any further witnesses on the stand enlarges the record with no more information that helps establish the correct interpretation of the law.
I am not "sure" he is wrong although a lot of folks I respect [Ray, Wensilver, Nellie, Jimmy] are pretty sure he is wrong. My point was the people of Pa think JS was guilty and that could have undermined the rest of his story which is a good one.
Spanier has a much better than average chance of winning an appeal because the jury convicted him on emotion. None of the elements of EWOC applied to him...it's really not even close...again, "as a matter of law."
Not a legal mind in any fashion - but I did sit at most of the trial - the state simply had no case.
Read the charges & the instructions to the jury - the charges simply don't apply & never applied to Spanier. Ditka had no case & had to resort to serving up the usual emotional arguments to the jury that we've all heard over the years.
Any one of us could have written her script for her. Hell, any one of us could have stood there and made her case - because we're just a bunch of football crazed child rape enabling JoeBots more concerned about 409 & a successful football program and the great publicity around that than we are about the welfare of kids.
Which is what her arguments were.
But the jury has to consider the FACTS. Emotion is not FACT. The judge did not instruct the jury to use any "moral obligation" "feelz" or "what ifs" - just the FACTS in evidence presented in the courtroom that week.
Oh - and there's that tiny constitutional rule that Dr. Spanier is INNOCENT and the state has the burden to prove otherwise.
I was initially disappointed like most everyone that Dr. Spanier did not testify nor present a defense. Upon reflection, I believe his legal team was very shrewd. They got his liability reduced to one charge, which seems destined to be overturned on appeal. They are looking at the whole field and have Freeh and others in the cross hairs.
These are good thoughts and I would add two more.
1a. With the relatively weak case most thought the OAG put up, Silver didn't want to add any more info that could be cross-examined and teased apart, nor take a chance someone misspoke or said something new (remember lawyers rule: never ask a question you don't know the answer to).
4. Snedden's remit was to make sure Graham could be trusted with national secutiry material, not whether he endangering the welfare of children. These aren't the same thing.
Similar threads
