There was no way OJ was getting off, there was no way Clemens or Pedro would leave, etc. etc. etc. I have fallen into this trap so many times before, and been so disappointed. But, seriously, there is NO WAY this fucking guy is getting off. I have to think that the majority of PSU grads, regardless of how culty the place is, wants this guy to fry and be done with this whole disaster.
Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged
- Thread starter Pesky Pole
- Start date
Matt Sandusky says he was also a victim:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/attorney_for_jerry_sanduskys_a.html
Perjury requires a willfulness that would be difficult to prove in Mrs. Sandusky's case. Essentially, you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her denial was punctured at some point.
Charging her as an accomplice would require the revelation of additional facts beyond what has been reported (or reported widely, at any rate). Even if you somehow proved that she heard the screams of a boy downstairs and understood they were the result of an assault by her husband, her nonfeasance probably isn't criminal.
It's not enough to prove that that's false; you have to prove she knew it was false. Which requires proving that her denial has been torn to shreds. Which may not be the case, and is not provable beyond a reasonable doubt in any case.
He may also believe he's going to walk home a free man soon. To a mind like Sandusky's this trial has been the ultimate challenge, the ultimate game and he might just win it!
Jurors requested tonight to rehear McQuery's entire testimony but the judge asked them to hear it starting at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
Odd.
Odd.
Given that the jury is sequestered without access to any forms of media, does this mean that they're unaware of the accusations brought forth by Sandusky's adopted son?
In a perfect world yes. I honestly have no idea how, in this day and age, it is possible to truly sequester a jury unless they are putting them in a hotel that doesn't have any TVs or Newspapers.
And they are doing just that. They are staying outside of town, TVs and phones removed from rooms and guards outside the corridor. They are bused by troopers back/forth to the courthouse.
Isn't one of the counts based solely on McQueary's eyewitness testimony, with no corroborating witnesses or even a positively identified victim?
I think a mixed verdict is the most likely result -- with convictions on more than enough charges to keep Sandusky incarcerated for the rest of his life, but with acquittals on several of the charges mixed in.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the timing of his adopted son's accusations. Forgive my lack of legal knowledge, but why would he wait until the final day(s) of the trial to come forward? Does this open the door for a second trial if Sandusky were to some how get off?
I had the same reaction yesterday, but from reports I've read this morning, it appears that his adoptive son cracked earlier than just the past few days, and began talking to prosecutors about his allegations. Prior to this, he had been a steadfast supporter of Sadusky, which made the prosecution leery of putting him on the stand now as an accuser - the inconsistencies with his prior denials of abuse would have been problematic and could conceivably have caused damage to the larger case.
At least that's what I've heard this morning.
No idea, but I'm assuming the judge didn't want to keep them locked away for what he saw a a three week trial.
I'm thinking local 12 year old boys would have more reason to fear for their safety.
I don't think jurors would have to fear for safety - there is no large homogenous group whose plight or position is at play here (compare Rodney King cops being acquitted). Perhaps more accusors would come forward if they saw this guy go free. Or maybe some viglante style parent of a victim doing something. I don't think you'll get any outrage from the Penn State community, but that's just my opinion.
Not to mention, if he gets off on all of these charges, they can turn right around and try him on molesting the stepson, right? No double jeopardy since he's not being charged with it now. Or am I missing something?
Statute of limitations. Iirc, he's 32 years old.
The recent trend in high-profile seems to be away from sequestering the jury for the duration of a trial. I don't know the reasons for this, but I suspect part of it is the difficulty in seating a jury in such cases in the first place. Of the twelve jurors seated in this case, I'll bet half would have been excused for hardship if they had to live incommunicado at a hotel 24/7, instead of being able to go home to take care of their families, get work done when court is not in session, etc.
Agreed. And what probably influences the jury more is what they heard in the months leading up to the trial. Sequestration does not prevent that.
This witness was an interesting wrinkle in today's personal-media environment:
But despite what the jurors heard, Ganim said on twitter:
I heard that they have a second set of different accusers including the son and they'd go after him with them in federal court if he isn't convicted here. Of course, my mom told me this so it might be entirely wrong...
I think this article pretty much sums up my thoughts on this situation, and provides some good context. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/opinion/finkelhor-sandusky-child-abuse/index.html
You don't hear these kinds of statements from a defense attorney often.
During his impromptu interview he got called into court by the judge, because the judge had given gag orders to the attorneys to not discuss the case.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_defense_a_3.html
He goes on to say the Sandusky household is "like a funeral" and Sandusky was "crushed" his son said he was abused.
During his impromptu interview he got called into court by the judge, because the judge had given gag orders to the attorneys to not discuss the case.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_defense_a_3.html
It's usually a mistake to read much into the questions the jury asks the judge during deliberations, but in light of the (relatively) quick verdict, I think the jury asking the judge to re-read the instruction on hearsay points to guilty verdicts on most of the counts. If they were planning to acquit on most/all counts, they wouldn't be asking the judge to repeat the instruction about how they couldn't convict Sandusky on one particular count unless they found non-hearsay testimony to support a conviction.
Judge has restricted ALL media from reporting the verdict until the gavel hits & court dismisses.
Local TV has "trial of the century" giant ass banner across the screen of their talking heads.
Really.
Really.
I'm making a vague broad statement by saying he's going to be shoveling alot of coal. Thats if your a god fearing man of course. What do I know, I'm wasted but able to form semi-coherent sentances.
RT @nytimes: NYT NEWS ALERT: Sandusky Is Found Guilty on 45 of 48 Counts in Child Sexual Abuse Case
I feel conflicted in my happiness with this decision. But, I am really, really happy right now. I can't even imagine that level of evilness.