AG’s office seeks to reinstate charges against former Penn State administrators.

The office of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane asked Superior Court on Friday to reconsider a ruling by three of its judges that tossed out key charges against three Penn State University leaders in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

The three judges last month overturned a lower-court ruling that upheld obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges against former president Graham Spanier; Gary Schultz, a former vice president; and Tim Curley, a former athletic director, along with perjury charges against Mr. Spanier and Mr. Schultz. A perjury charge against Mr. Curley remains.

The court has 60 days to act on the request. If the request is denied, Ms. Kane’s office could appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Ms. Kane, whose law license is suspended, did not make the decision, said Chuck Ardo, her spokesman. Her lack of a license precluded her from doing so, but she did not object to the action, Mr. Ardo said.

“She was informed of the intent and had no problem with the decision that was made,” Mr. Ardo said.

Ms. Kane had been critical of the Sandusky investigation

when she campaigned for office, and some supporters of Mr. Spanier, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz believed she would end the prosecution.

The AG office’s decision to challenge the ruling all but assures that a legal battle that has stretched through more than four years will continue. Prosecutors are determined to let a jury decide if Penn State’s top leaders knew and covered up, or ignored, signs that Sandusky was sexually assaulting boys.

Timothy Lewis, an attorney for Mr. Spanier, said, “Dr. Spanier will respond in due course.”

Attorneys for the two others could not be reached.

In their decision, the three judges agreed with the defendants that prosecutors should not be allowed to use testimony against them from Cynthia Baldwin, the university’s former chief counsel.

The defendants say that Ms. Baldwin led them to believe she was representing them when they testified before the grand jury in the Sandusky investigation, and that by disclosing their conversations, Ms. Baldwin was violating attorneyclient privilege.

Ms. Baldwin — a former state Supreme Court justice, expected to be a star witness for the prosecution — and prosecutors had contended she was representing the university, not the three individuals. The trial judge accepted that argument, but the Superior Court judges did not.

Their ruling did not affect charges of child endangerment and failure to report child abuse, which the three accused men still face.

The ruling also did not affect some of the other evidence, including email traffic among the three discussing concerns about Sandusky’s conduct.

In one series of exchanges, the men appeared to discuss how to respond to a complaint that Sandusky sexually assaulted a boy in a campus shower. They initially agreed to inform Sandusky’s charity, alert authorities and bar the former coach from bringing children to Penn State locker rooms. Mr. Curley later wrote that he had changed his mind about contacting authorities.

“The only downside for us is if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it,” Mr. Spanier responded in a 2001 email.

Mr. Spanier has said he had no memory of that email and was unaware of any inappropriate or criminal act.

Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz were indicted in November 2011 when Sandusky was charged. Sandusky was convicted less than a year later and sent to prison for a minimum of 30 years. Mr. Spanier was charged in November 2012.