724.282.6600

Jerry Sandusky Seeks New Trial

posted November 01, 2016

Jerry Sandusky Seeks New Trial

Kris Maher, WSJ
Former Penn State Coach Jerry Sandusky Seeks a New Trial

Lawyer argues that missteps in the child sex abuse trial led to the coach’s conviction

Kris Maher, WSJ
Thursday, August 11, 2016

Four years after he was convicted of child sex abuse, former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky is arguing that serious missteps by prosecutors and defense lawyers are grounds for a new trial.

Mr. Sandusky’s current lawyer, Alexander Lindsay, has laid out a broad argument for overturning the June 2012 conviction in court filings. He compared the case, which shook the college-sports world, to a “modern day Salem Witch Trial.”

A host of factors including a media frenzy that prejudged Mr. Sandusky before the trial began “resulted in transforming an innocent man into one of the country’s most infamous ‘child predators,’” Mr. Lindsay wrote.

Judge John Cleland, who presided over the trial, has agreed to hear testimony on several of Mr. Lindsay’s claims, including that a prosecutor lied at trial about not knowing the identity of an alleged victim and that defense lawyers also knew the name but failed to call him to testify to rebut abuse allegations. Mr. Lindsay also claims that prosecutors tainted the grand jury process by illegally leaking information.

The judge has scheduled three days of hearings, beginning Friday in Centre County Court in Bellefonte, Pa.

Wes Oliver, a law professor at Duquesne University, said that while courts rarely grant new trials, the “substantial claims” by Mr. Sandusky’s lawyer put his chances “within the realm of possibility.”

Mr. Lindsay also claims that the eight young men who testified against Mr. Sandusky made allegations of sexual abuse only after being pressured by investigators or coached by therapists and attorneys, who later negotiated settlements for the men with Pennsylvania State University.

Under Pennsylvania law, courts can grant a new trial for “ineffectiveness of counsel” if a person who has been convicted can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that their lawyer’s incompetence led to the verdict. Mr. Lindsay argues that Mr. Sandusky’s former lawyer, Joe Amendola, doomed the defense with a series of blunders.

Among them, according to Mr. Lindsay, was Mr. Amendola’s telling the jury in his opening statement that the evidence against his client was “overwhelming”; allowing Mr. Sandusky to be interviewed by Bob Costas on NBC with little or no preparation; and not calling Mr. Sandusky to testify after promising jury members they would hear from him.

During the trial, prosecutors played the Costas interview, in which Mr. Sandusky hesitated before saying he wasn’t sexually attracted to boys, and they noted Mr. Sandusky didn’t testify at his own trial.
Mr. Amendola didn’t respond to a request for comment. He has said he didn’t have enough time to prepare adequately for trial.

Jeffrey Johnson, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, which prosecuted the case under a prior administration, said the office stands by the trial’s outcome. “We feel strongly that Mr. Sandusky’s claims are without merit,” he said. Mr. Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts related to child sex abuse in June 2012. He is serving a 30-to-60-year sentence at a prison in western Pennsylvania. In 2014, the state Supreme Court declined to review a far more limited appeal by another attorney for Mr. Sandusky, who is 72. His claim of innocence continues to stir anger among victim advocates. “Every time this story is in the news and the facts of the case are questioned, it’s harmful to these young men who were incredibly brave and came forward,” said Jennifer Storm,Pennsylvania’s official victim advocate.

One of Mr. Lindsay’s arguments centers on the handling of an unidentified alleged victim that an assistant football coach said he saw being abused in a Penn State shower by Mr. Sandusky in 2001.

Mr. Lindsay argues that the identity of the person referred to as Victim #2 at trial was known to both prosecutors and defense lawyers, and that Mr. Amendola made a serious error by not calling the young man to testify to refute the assistant coach, a key prosecution witness. He also argues that Mr. Amendola should have called for a mistrial when prosecutor Joe McGettigan said during his closing argument that the identity of the young man wasn’t known.

Mr. Amendola’s former co-counsel Karl Rominger said in an affidavit that he believes Mr. McGettigan lied about not knowing the alleged victim’s identity. “Everyone knew the identity of the second victim,” Mr. Rominger wrote.

Mr. McGettigan said in an interview that he still isn’t certain about the identity of Victim #2. “The statement I made in closing was accurate then and is accurate now,” he said. He added, “I have no doubt about Jerry Sandusky’s guilt and that he was the most prolific pedophile that I’ve encountered.”

It isn’t clear whether the judge will hear testimony on an allegation that the attorney general’s office leaked grand jury material in early 2011 to locate additional victims.

Mr. Lindsay has argued that the grand jury was then investigating abuse allegations by a single young man and that prosecutors considered the case weak. The leak resulted in a newspaper article and led investigators to more accusers, while creating a “lynch mob” mentality in Centre County, where Penn State is located, Mr. Lindsay alleged in a filing.

Write to Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com