Sue, Jay Paterno among prosecution witness list in Sandusky Trial

The age of consent in PA is apparently 16. 

Pennsylvania

The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 years of age for sexual consent but a corruption of minors statute against adults corrupting the morals of minors under 18 years' of age exists which makes the de facto age of consent in Pennsylvania 18. However, the corruption of minors statute only applies to perpetrators 18 years of age and older, so it is legal for minors 16-17 to have sex with each other but not with a partner 18 or older.

Teenagers aged 13, 14 and 15 may or may not be able to legally engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 4 years older. Such partners could not be prosecuted under statutory rape laws, but may be liable for other offenses, even when the sexual activity is consensual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

Consent isn't an issue, and hopefully most of the other victim-related stuff will stay out. Between character evidence rules (FRE 404) and rape shield laws, most of the character assassination stuff (at least re: the victims) will probably be avoided. Besides, attacking child victims (even as adults) is really dicey terrain for a defense attorney.

Functionally you are correct, there will never be a jury that can be comprised of people totally shut off from society without knowledge of this case.  The fact that a potential juror knows about the story, however, does not necessarily preclude them from serving on the jury.  The attorneys are allowed to ask questions of the jurors thru voir dire and in doing so they have to make some rather subjective evaluations about jurors.  Obviously someone could say "I know all about this guy and he is guilty! GUILTY!!" and they would of course be precluded from service.  The problem is that that kind of stuff almost never happens (unless one wants to get out of jury duty).

Instead, what you have to do as the attorney making their precious few challenges, is to get a feel from the person to see if, although they have heard the story in the news, they will be open minded and true to the judicial proceedings.  The attorneys job is to make sure the jury is properly vetted thru voir dire so that you get the best chance of having people willing to listen to the evidence and act in accordance with the jury instructions.   

Obviously the potential jurors will be asked if they have heard details and, if so, if they have prejudged him one way or another.  Most people in my experience will try to give the "right" answer to that question and say no even when it clearly is "yes yes yes fry the bastard yes" so it becomes a bit of an art for the attorney to "get a feel" for the person and challenge them accordingly.  

It will be a difficult jury selection I would imagine, but the standard does not have to be that someone has never heard of Sandusky at all.  

Different burdens of proof, different issues, etc. A not-guilty verdict only says that prosecutors can't demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that these things occured based on the evidence they are permitted to introduce. You can fire people on way less evidence than that. Besides, most people weren't fired specifically because Sanducky committed a crime. They were fired for a host of other reasons, such as failing to report suspected abuse and conduct detrimental to the University.

Think of the end of A Few Good Men. They were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves. Their actions merit firing, even if Sandusky isn't convicted.