‘Where’s the harm?’ judge wonders
Questions asked about why Sandusky’s lawyer is appealing sex abuse sentence
BELLEFONTE, PA. — Jerry Sandusky emerged from prison to attend a hearing 320 kilometres away at which his lawyers argued Thursday he deserves a new trial on child molestation charges because they didn’t have enough time to prepare for the first one.
The 68-year-old former Penn State assistant coach played no active role in the proceedings, but briefly greeted his wife and supporters beforehand.
At the hearing in Centre County court in Bellefonte, Sandusky’s lawyers cited flaws in the trial, including that they were swamped by about 12,000 pages of documents and other materials, that Judge John Cleland should have instructed jurors about the years it took for victims to report he had abused them and that hearsay evidence was improperly allowed.
But prosecutors countered by showing most of the documents and records were not relevant to the trial. They also got lead defence lawyer Joe Amendola to acknowledge he did not find any he would have used when he reviewed them after the trial.
“Where’s the harm?” the judge asked Sandusky lawyer Norris Gelman. “That’s where I’m hung up on this.”
Cleland did not indicate when he might rule. If Sandusky does not get a new trial — he is also asking to have charges thrown out en- tirely — he can then appeal to Superior Court and has indicated he will.
Sandusky was convicted in June of 45 counts of child sexual abuse during a period of several years and is serving a 30- to 60-year sentence at a state prison. He has maintained his innocence, but his arrest tarnished Penn State’s vaunted football program and led to the firing of longtime coach Joe Paterno, who died nearly a year ago from lung cancer.
Gelman noted some victims waited more than a decade to disclose their abuse.
“This is a long, long time ... and it goes to their credibility,” Gelman said.
Prosecutor Frank Fina told Cleland the issue of “failure to report” by the victims was a major theme during the trial. It was brought up during both parties’ opening statements and closing arguments and during crossexamination of the eight victims who testified against Sandusky, he said.
Amendola’s performance at trial and his questioning of witnesses are evidence a fair trial took place even though the case moved from arrest to verdict in about eight months, Fina said.
“He used everything he had to cross-examine these young men,” Fina said.
Amendola said the trial’s timetable did not permit sufficient investigation into the accusers.
Fina downplayed the defence’s chances of success.
“The people of Pennsylvania can be confident this conviction is going to stand,” he said.