Strongly oppose the bacon sundae even though I haven't tried it. That's not how bacon works.
i would find this more credible if it was about Tom Crean
Strongly oppose the bacon sundae even though I haven't tried it. That's not how bacon works.
Seriously, back to portabello's, got a great little family-owned Italian restaurant near us that makes the best portabello appetizer; if it weren't a bit rude, I'd be drinking the sauce out of the dish (the pancetta likely has something to do with that).
then we could bitch about you...or we could choose to not click on it...
You apparently made it pretty far down the comment thread on a topic you say you're not interested in.
1) This board is full of lawyers
2) This is arguably the most legally relevant college football story in history, at least when referring to criminal law
3) It's the offseason
4) The university involved is a Big10 school.
During my bar study. I need a break after all.
For you lawlerly guys, is it significant that Sandusky didn't testify? Is that a move you would have made if you were his defense attorney? What are the pros/cons to this move?
but Pros: Sandusky didn't incriminate himself further (see foot in mouth comments above)
Sandusky didn't get cross examined by the prosecution
Cons: He couldn't tell his side of the story
The Jury is directed to take him not testifying as a zero-sum action. they can't hold it against him or treat it as a positive, so no "if he were innocent he would have testified" thoughts. At least, that's what they're supposed to do.
There is really no positive outcome from taking the stand and there is everything to lose...even if he is/was innocent. One questionable comment could derail the whole defense.
jurors who do not hear from the defendant hold it against them - despite the instruction.
It is very rare that a defendant in a he/said she said case can rely upon cross examination alone, and the only shot the defendant has is getting the jury to like and believe them.
Not that Sandusky had a good choice here given some of his previous statements, but speaking in their own behalf is often the only chance a defendant has - however long that chance is.
Could be that the defense thought they had done enough to earn an acquittal, and having him testify was an unneccesary risk. Could be that they knew he would continue to say stupid and incriminating things. And it could be that they didn't want to open the door to certain rebuttal testimony.
It could also be that Sandusky's lawyer sucks. Because Sandusky's lawyer sucks.
The two big things I remember from professional responsibility are 1) no boinking clients, and 2) no snitching on clients.
He continually got out-maneuvered throughout the trial and period leading up to it... most notably enabling (not just allowing but actually enabling) the really damaging Costas interview -- and then compounding that by not pushing back harder when the prosecution got it admissible as evidence.
You saw the interview with Costas. Sandusky is a disaster with a microphone in front of him, even with such seeming softballs as "are you sexually attracted to young boys?" It's not unusual in the least to lack testimony by the accused himself, so while he misses a chance to undo some of the damage by the accusers, the risk of putting the nails into the coffin might outweigh it. The only prayer for the defense is to paint this as an overzealous prosecution with cops guiding statements from the accusers to conform to a pre-conceived narrative. Sandusky can't speak to any of that, so he's just as well keeping off the stand.
If I were the prosecutor, "are you sexually attracted to young boys" would be the first question I'd ask on cross-examination. I'm sure Amendola would object within 1 millisecond, or Sandusky would either say no or take the fifth or something, but I'd just be interested in having the jury observe Sandusky while he's being asked that. They can't use it if he takes the fifth, but they won't be able to block out his nonverbal reactions.
Attraction is a hard thing to prove. People watch horrible accidents even though they don't like them and know they shouldn't, so he can deny it without perjuring himself.
Furthermore, if he's got any kind of stand presence, he'll deny it in a disgusted way that helps make his point, not yours.
and testifies on direct examination to his defense counsel, he can't then assert the 5th Amendment. By testifying he is waiving that right. If defendant's could assert the privilege on cross-examination, every defendant would take the stand to tesify under questioning by their attorney and then assert when the prosecutor starts his/her cross-exam.
exactly. that's why the defense is right in not having him testify.
I picture Sandusky on the stand and the character Donald Sutherland plays in Backdraft when questioned at the parole hearing.
As a former prosecutor and current white collar attorney, I get so frustrated when people, particularly the media, assume that defense attorney's make the decision on whether a defendant testifies. The attorney can only give their best advice -- it's the defendant's constitututional right and ultimate decision whether to testify.
But to answer your question, I would have strongly advised him not to testify. Dude would have been crucified.
I appreciate this. As I am working for a public defender at the moment, I have been hung out to dry by some clients. I have done everything in my power to advise clients not to testify, yet the PD always looks bad when the client ultimately decides to testify - because people think it's the PD's choice.
I was totally hoping that Sandusky would testify. His defense seems so delusional that I could actually imagine him showing up in a trench coat and when asked to explain himself, he simply rises and flashes the entire courtroom.
Either this would be an apt (and somewhat surreally humorous) finish to the saga of this man's downward spiral. Or perhaps there is something glorious and about this man's penis but we could never known as long as we continue in our sheltered tyranny of clothes, showering alone and general culture of sexual repression awaiting the enlightenment of Sandusky. Probably the former, though.
Sandusky simply doesn't interview well. With that Costas interview, it seemed like Sandusky didn't understand the seriousness or gravity of the situation. How would you respond to such allegations? If innocent, one would expect an angry, furious and adamant denial of the charges, and more defensive behavior. Instead, Sandusky has appeared to be indifferent about it all, or resigned to the outcome. 500 years in jail?
Given that he apparently nearly confessed to Bob Costas, I wouldn't want him cross-examined by a prosecutor.
I agree. He'd come un-together inside of 5 minutes on the witness stand.
be getting off on all of this as most serial rapists/pedophiles would and do.
We all question why he would not just plead guilty. Is it because he is reliving it all as each witness testifies and as each charge is described? I say YES and not because I know he is guilty but because I see a lot of the same mannerisms in his behavior as other convicted serial criminals.
I'm not a big fan of Rick Reilly over at espn, but I agree with his commentary (entitled Sandusky's Continuing Cowardice.) LINK: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8071155/sandusky-cowardice
In general, the reports I've read haven't gone into the testimony given. Reilly provides enough detail from the trial to make my skin crawl. I wish, for the sake of the victims, that Sandusky had just manned up instead of pleading "not guilty," thereby forcing the victims to testify.
This whole thing is a sad freak show, with very little positives. Maybe the only silver linings are the spotlight placed on the plight of abused children, and the raising of awareness of the MO of sexual predators.
Not a mental health professional but I believe Sandusky truly thinks he did no wrong. A person has to seriously compartmentalize the brain or just be a raving pyschopath to commit these acts.
He has all of the indredients of a serial pedophile who has completely brain washed themselves into believing that they are helping the victims.
are good liars or bad liars. One would think serial offenders get away with their abuse because they're such good liars. But you're right. Sandusky doesn't even seem aware that he should try to lie.
Perhaps a mental health professional could comment on whether this is a psychopathological variant to the standard underlying psychopathology or a shock-like reaction to being discovered and prosecuted, but I can't imagine any good lawyer would put him on the stand after his public statements.
I disagree that Sandusky thinks he did no wrong. If you listen to the Costas interview, he sounds full of guilt. If you watch him on the NYT interview, he looks full of guilt.
Rick Reilly was a good and insightful writer 10-15 years ago, but now he's like Joe Buck in print - populism, exaggerated drama, and sanctimonious moralization.
It certainly appears likely that Sandusky did some horrible things, but lines like this drive me nuts:
"But all eight of these young men, ages 18 to 28, had to testify because Jerry Sandusky didn't have the guts or the courage or the decency to cop a plea and go to jail."
So people who are accused of crimes should just plead guilty rather than try to defend themselves, just to save the rest of us the pain of a trial? I get that this is a particularly awful situation, but that doesn't change the fact that Reilly's principle is asinine.
I think you're misinterpreting his point. He did not make a carte blanche statement saying that anyone who is "accused of crimes should just plead guilty rather than try to defend themselves." I interpreted it as Reilly assuming that Sandusky is guilty, so he should have had the decency to spare these men the pain and humiliation of having to tell their stories in front of strangers and family members, which is like a second round of abuse.
If you want to bash Reilly for writing an entire article based on one assumption, then go for it. But he's not saying that anyone who is accused of anything should just take it and move on. He's saying that if someone is accused of something, and she actually did what she was accused of, she should own up to it and move on.
I think whitedawg's point was that the whole basis of the U.S. criminal justice system is assuming people are not guilty until proven otherwise. ALL child sex abuse crimes are horrific -- this one is just splattered all over the 24/7 news cycle. Taken to it's logical conclusion, every defendant accused of criminal sexual conduct should just plead guilty. Problem is, this isn't the Soviet Union. The state is constituationally required to prove it's case. Reilly's thesis basically undermines the whole context of the criminal justice system. Throw in the fact that he advocates prison rape at the end, and it's just asinine.
is an idiot. He's now advocating prison rape. Let's just go all Stalin on their asses. Not to mention the fact that Sandusky is being tried in state court and will not be going to "general population in a federal prison." If anything, Reilly's comments about federal prison undercut his whole column advocating for prison rape for Sandusky. General population in a federal prison is a heck of a lot better than general prison in a state one. As you can tell, I hate Rick Reilly.
I don't like Reilly either. He seems cut from the same cloth as Skip Bayless and Drew Sharp.
The only thing I resonate with is the suggestion that Sandusky unnecessarily put the young men through the hell of publicly testifying in court, with their identities known.
Reilly is moron. I remember when he wrote an article in Sports Illustrated that bashed the city of Detroit for no other reason than the Red Wings had knocked his Avalanche out of the playoffs. I've had no respect for him ever since. His overuse of anlaogies on ESPN are tiresome.
It would be very bad for PSU if he is acquitted. Not that it would be their fault, but it would make it seem as though the town was sympathetic toward this type of thing, not that he was honestly innocent.
Good or bad, Sandusky's lawyer was in a tough spot. Just very hard to explain away that many accusers. I agree that letting him testify would've been extremely risky.
With a case this strong, normally you'd see a plea bargain, but Sandusky had no incentive to deal, b/c there's no way he would've gotten anything less than a life sentence, so he had nothing to lose by taking his chances with the jury.
But I doubt that the combined ghosts of Clarence Darrow and Johnny Cochran could win this case.
that other PSU coaches showered with boys? Was that a hoax?
They were in the showers sometimes with Sandusky when he had kids. Not sure why that was part of the defense. Unless Sandusky is an idiot, why would he touch kids with other adults knowingly around?
The guy is an idiot and a degenerate.
How on Earth is it okay for a grown man to shower with children? At what point does someone say "Jerry, don't bring kids in the shower?" Forget the inappropriate contact, in my opinion just bringing the kids in the shower with adults who are not family is wrong.
85% of abused know their abuser and sadly most are family.
That's pretty awful. I guess my point is that there could be a legitimate reason for an adult who is family to shower with a kid. There is no legit reason for Jerry Sandusky or any other college coach to shower with a kid.
Will probably get off given the venue of the trial. He will then open up a football camp where happy Penn State grads will send their boys and the cycle will begin again.
This might be the worst question ever asked in the history of cross examination:
I just went with it," he said. "There was no fighting against it. … Sometimes [I'd] scream. Sometimes tell him to get off of me. But other than that, he was there, you were in a basement, no one can hear you down there."
"Did you ever bleed?" Sandusky's defense attorney, Joe Amendola asked later on cross-examination.
"Yes," the witness said, in a chilling tone so matter-of-fact it was heartbreaking. "I just dealt with it. I have a different way of coping with things."
but the D-lawyer's point was that the victim's mom would have seen blood on his underwear if he blead (this is gross on all acounts and I feel yucky typing it).