Jerry Sandusky trial from a legal perspective

lauralizzy829
lauralizzy829 Posts: 215 Member
edited December 23 in Chit-Chat
As the subject of this post says, I'm looking for anyone who is a lawyer/paralegal/law student, etc. (aka you are educated to a fairly high level about the law). I have a sneaking suspicion that this post is going to get flooded with other opinions, but hey a girl can try. Based on what you have read about or know about the Jerry Sandusky trial proceedings, how do you think the defense performed? How did the prosecution perform? I have been following it pretty closely and only have the reporters opinions to go by....which of course is not always that accurate. I'm sure everyone has their own opinions about him and his accusers and the crimes he's accused of, but what I'm really looking for is a legal analysis of the trial.

Thanks.

Replies

  • rossi02
    rossi02 Posts: 549 Member
    I plan to discuss this very topic with my Father-in-law tonight. He's a retired judge, so I'm very interested to hear his take on it. I'll update this tomorrow with his professional opinion.
  • lauralizzy829
    lauralizzy829 Posts: 215 Member
    Wow! That would be amazing. Thanks!
  • MissStatement
    MissStatement Posts: 92 Member
    I'm an attorney (and a PSU alum!) and unfortunately, without cameras in the courtroom, every piece of info has been filtered through the media on this one. I will say that I think it was a sound decision not to put him on the stand in his own defense. He damaged himself during the Bob Costas interview, he would have absolutely hung himself on the stand.

    I think the defense's attacks on the witnesses' credibility was the best tactic they had, but I doubt it will be successful. I predict a fairly quick guilty verdict.
  • lauralizzy829
    lauralizzy829 Posts: 215 Member
    Yea I'm a PSU alum too. I thought the same thing about putting him on the stand. If a media interview from an unprepared interviewer (although I do love Bob Costas) can trip him up, what will the prosecutor do?

    UPDATE:
    BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) — The judge overseeing Jerry Sandusky's child sex abuse trial has thrown out three of the 51 charges in the case, leaving the former Penn State assistant football coach facing 48 counts.
    Judge John Cleland has dismissed two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse related to the alleged sexual abuse of an accuser known as Victim 4. Cleland says the charges did not bear out what testimony revealed.
    In his ruling, released Thursday morning, Cleland says he would have been required to set aside any convictions on those counts, because "the verdict was not supported by the evidence."
    He also dismissed a count that he says was the same as another charge.
    Cleland also ruled against a defense motion to dismiss five counts related to a boy who was allegedly seen with Sandusky by a janitor.
  • scs143
    scs143 Posts: 2,190 Member
    I'm an attorney (and a PSU alum!) and unfortunately, without cameras in the courtroom, every piece of info has been filtered through the media on this one. I will say that I think it was a sound decision not to put him on the stand in his own defense. He damaged himself during the Bob Costas interview, he would have absolutely hung himself on the stand.

    I think the defense's attacks on the witnesses' credibility was the best tactic they had, but I doubt it will be successful. I predict a fairly quick guilty verdict.

    I am a lawyer as well and I am in complete agreement. We get what the media gives us and all of that is twisted. I also completely agree that not putting him on the stand was a better decision than allowing him to speak.
  • rossi02
    rossi02 Posts: 549 Member
    I'm an attorney (and a PSU alum!) and unfortunately, without cameras in the courtroom, every piece of info has been filtered through the media on this one. I will say that I think it was a sound decision not to put him on the stand in his own defense. He damaged himself during the Bob Costas interview, he would have absolutely hung himself on the stand.

    I think the defense's attacks on the witnesses' credibility was the best tactic they had, but I doubt it will be successful. I predict a fairly quick guilty verdict.

    I am a lawyer as well and I am in complete agreement. We get what the media gives us and all of that is twisted. I also completely agree that not putting him on the stand was a better decision than allowing him to speak.

    My Father-in-law agrees with this as well. He hasn't been following the case very closely, but said it will boil down to the credibility of the victums. He felt it will be an easy conviction from what's been made available to the public.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories