Jury foreman: Second thoughts on Spanier vote

Spanier knew” that Sandusky had sexually assaulted the boy, he said. “They did not … make him understand how serious a condition this might be.”

In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week, another juror, Victoria Navazio, said Mr. Spanier’s own words in a 2001 email exchange amounted to some of the strongest evidence against him.

Only Mr. Spanier could have helped clear that up, said Mr. Black.

Before the trial, sources close to him indicated the longtime Penn State president was eager to take the stand and defend himself.

But after less than damning testimony from the two men expected to be star witnesses against him — former athletic director Timothy Curley and vice president Gary Schultz — Mr. Spanier’s lawyers chose not to call him and instead argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

Facing the same felony charges as Mr. Spanier, Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz cut deals and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor endangerment count days before Mr. Spanier’s trial began and agreed to testify against him.

Had Mr. Spanier taken the stand, the jury foreman said he would have remained a holdout during deliberations.

“Definitely,” said Mr. Black when asked whether Mr. Spanier’s testimony would have led him to hang the jury.

“Because even with the way it was, I came that close.”

Mr. Spanier’s lawyer, Sam Silver, said Thursday he could not comment on the matter.