OT: Sandusky defense rests; Sandusky will not testify

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on

For those still following the grim saga: Jerry Sandusky will not testify after all.  The defense did get in testimony from a number of people associated with the football program and the school, as well as Sandusky's wife, who testified that Sandusky is a great guy and/or that he had a great reputation.  They also got in some evidence that possibly undermined the credibility of an accuser or two. 

It seems from afar that the defense did about as well as they could given the facts and allegations that they had to deal with.  My guess, FWIW, is that they hope that at least one juror is too much of a PSU fan to allow him or herself to believe that the allegations are true. 

It's most important that the jury make a decision based on the facts in front of them, of course, and that decision sure looks from the available reports of the trial like it should be a finding of guilt. That said (and of much less concern), I think that Penn St. should hope for a guilty verdict, as odd as that may sound.  A firestorm of negative attention will descend on Happy Valley if Sandusky is found not guilty, and the region will be tarred by this situation in a worse way than it already has been. 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/06/20/jerry-sandusky-trial.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a2&eref=sihp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/jerry-sandusky-trial-defense-witness_n_1609113.html

 FINAL NOTE:  Let's not take this thread down a bad path.  Either a large number of children were abused or a man's life has been irrevocably damaged. We should hold off on our usual irreverance (which I enjoy most of the time). 

bluebyyou

June 20th, 2012 at 7:50 PM ^

I don't think I saw it mentioned in an earlier post, but I can't conceive of an acquital but rather a hung jury.  Should that take place, I would assume the case would be retried with the prosecution asking for a change of venue the second time around.

If Sandusky, by some miracle, gets off, isn't there the strong possibility of federal prosecution?

Urban Warfare

June 20th, 2012 at 10:05 PM ^

The prosecution asked for a change of venue this time, but Amendola objected. 

And can we please not use the phrase "If Sandusky gets off?"  The feds can prosecute regardless of whether he is convicted or acquitted.

Urban Warfare

June 20th, 2012 at 11:45 PM ^

There are plenty of federal prosecutors out there who would love them some publicity.  If Texas federal prosecutors are anything like Texas federal judges (Kent, J.), I could see them jumping on this. 

XM - Mt 1822

June 21st, 2012 at 5:54 AM ^

The Feds have similar statutes with which they could charge Sandusky, though fed statutes generally have alot more prison time involved if prosecuted successfully.  This is unfortunately common with native American reservations.   It is not good for defendants to be in Fed court as opposed to almost all other state courts.  It's worth mentioning that the Feds can still prosecute Sandusky even if/when he is convicted of the state court crimes.  They are what is called a 'separate sovereign' entity, and thus the prosecution would not be barred by the double jeopardy clause of the constitution. 

XM - Mt 1822

June 20th, 2012 at 10:39 PM ^

No way that guy isn't convicted.  I have tried hundreds of cases and the dynamic of that case is that the victims would rather be on the surface of the sun than talk about an incredibly sick man buggering them years ago.   Better to be thrown in a millpond with a stone around your neck than to hurt one of the little ones.  Justice will come from this, one way or another.