Sandusky update (more evidence against Joe P)

[L Buff]

It could also get interesting if the Feds get involved ... since at least one victim testified that he went on a Bowl trip with JS and was assaulted in the hotel. Taking a minor across state lines for "immoral purposes" is a federal violation (the "Mann Act") ... and even if JS is aquitted (or gets a mistrial and the state of PA decided not to re-prosecute), the feds could try him under the "seperate sovereigns" doctrine (no double jeopardy).

 

[BuffsNYC]

Sandusky's not getting acquitted. This jury isn't hanging, either. The guy's got a right to a trial. He got his trial.

Had there been one victim, he had a shot. There's lots of ways to establish doubt when only one person testifies, i.e., he's in it for the civil suit money, the cops fed him the story, he bears a grudge against Sanduskey. It's virtually impossible to establish doubt with five testifying victims, the same arguments fall apart.

Think of this trial as one long guilty plea followed by a life sentence.

 

[77buff]

Sandusky's not getting acquitted. This jury isn't hanging, either. The guy's got a right to a trial. He got his trial.

Had there been one victim, he had a shot. There's lots of ways to establish doubt when only one person testifies, i.e., he's in it for the civil suit money, the cops fed him the story, he bears a grudge against Sanduskey. It's virtually impossible to establish doubt with five testifying victims, the same arguments fall apart.

Think of this trial as one long guilty plea followed by a life sentence.

Some members of the jury are Penn State season ticket holders, and that's such a small town that the success of their vocations are all tied in some way to the university. I wouldn't be surprised if he walks - OJ did, and that was double murder.

 

[Buffarino]

I don't believe for a second that anyone in that jury room is basing a decision on protecting Penn State or Joe Pa.

Let's say this had happened at CU.

Would anyone here let your concern for the football program have any influence on how you ruled on a case involving sexual abuse of children?

Boy, do I disagree. Pedo State is up there on the cultish ladder with aTm. And yes, I could definitely see Aggy make a legal decision based on how it would affect the school. NOt all of them, but all it takes is one to hang the jury.

 

[BuffsNYC]

Some members of the jury are Penn State season ticket holders, and that's such a small town that the success of their vocations are all tied in some way to the university. I wouldn't be surprised if he walks - OJ did, and that was double murder.

OJ walked because there were no witnesses. A case with victim/witnesses is an entirely different animal than a case with no eyewitnesses.

 

[L Buff]

OJ walked because [strike]there were no witnesses[/strike] of grossly incompetent prosecutors. A case with victim/witnesses is an entirely different animal than a case with no eyewitnesses.

fify


And some of the least reliable testimony often comes from "eyewitnesses" (although obviously not in this case where the witnesses are the victims) ... here it comes down to their credibility.

 

[Daaah]

fify


And some of the least reliable testimony often comes from "eyewitnesses" (although obviously not in this case where the witnesses are the victims) ... here it comes down to their credibility.

I was a at a party with the limo driver. True story.

 

[L Buff]

I was a at a party with the limo driver. True story.

:huh:


What limo driver?

 

[Daaah]

:huh:


What limo driver?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/Park.htm

 

[leftybuff]

So is the jury deliberating yet?

 

[BuffsNYC]

fify


And some of the least reliable testimony often comes from "eyewitnesses" (although obviously not in this case where the witnesses are the victims) ... here it comes down to their credibility.

I don't disagree that the prosecutors were retarded, but it's easier to convince a jury with eyewitnesses than without, notwithstanding the fact that eyewitness testimony is relatively unreliable. But with 5 victims testifying, no jury is going to find that all of them fabricated events.

 

[Darth Snow]

So is the jury deliberating yet?

tomorrow morning they do closing.

 

[77buff]

OJ walked because there were no witnesses. A case with victim/witnesses is an entirely different animal than a case with no eyewitnesses.

I think he's as guilty as OJ, but it only takes one to hang a jury, and Penn State is that town's life blood.

 

[Buffnik]

I think he's as guilty as OJ, but it only takes one to hang a jury, and Penn State is that town's life blood.

That can cut both ways. PSU football enjoys a lot of the popularity it does because they were pretty clean during Joe Pa's run and also did a ton of community service. People may feel like they were violated and want to send the message that Nittany Nation does not tolerate folks who do things that drag the program through the mud.

I'm a PSU supporter and I look at Sandusky as the guy who killed Joe Pa.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

I'm a PSU supporter and I look at Sandusky as the guy who killed Joe Pa.

Pretty strong feelings there Hoss.

I presume you still know folks back that way. How do the average joe's in penna feel about all this?

 

[MtnBuff]

Judge just threw out 3 charges. Two were for Deviate Sexual Intercourse against victim 4, one he said was a duplicate of another charge. At the same time he refused to drop five other charges that Sandusky's lawyer had moved to dismiss.

In his ruling the judge stated that the testimony at trial didn't support the dropped charges and that he would have had to overturn any conviction on those charges if the jury had returned guilty verdicts.

Don't know what this all means in the big scope of things but an interesting turn. Does it tell the jurors that the other charges of deviate sexual intercourse against the other victims are supported by testimony, does it give them an excuse to say the prosecution is throwing things against the wall.

 

[cmgoods]

I don't think it's that big of a deal as long as he's convicted of some of the other 48 charges.

 

[cu3x]

This from the Pittsburgh paper. My concern with 'celebrity' trials is the jurors have a motive to do something controversial (like find the defendant NG), so that they can be interviewed, write stories, etc.

"The withdrawn charges were two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and one of aggravated indecent assault, all related to the accuser known as Victim 4. In his order amending the charges, the judge wrote that charges of anal and digital penetration were withdrawn because the witness testified that Mr. Sandusky "attempted" anal intercourse and digital penetration."

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...today-in-sandusky-trial-641371/#ixzz1yRE6Thpk
​

 

[Darth Snow]

Judge just threw out 3 charges. Two were for Deviate Sexual Intercourse against victim 4, one he said was a duplicate of another charge. At the same time he refused to drop five other charges that Sandusky's lawyer had moved to dismiss.

In his ruling the judge stated that the testimony at trial didn't support the dropped charges and that he would have had to overturn any conviction on those charges if the jury had returned guilty verdicts.

Don't know what this all means in the big scope of things but an interesting turn. Does it tell the jurors that the other charges of deviate sexual intercourse against the other victims are supported by testimony, does it give them an excuse to say the prosecution is throwing things against the wall.

gotta prove each element of all 50+ counts or whatever. Not surprising that amongst those counts there were a few that the prosecutors didn't get all the evidence in on. Somebody either screwed up with the adding the count, or the witness changed their testimony, or the prosecutor just missed part of the planned testimony. In all, they got 40+ in to the jury. Plenty good enough to put the sick away.

 

[L Buff]

This has me a little worried:

Pennsylvania law does not allow experts to testify for the prosecution in sex crimes trials.

Despite efforts by some legislators in the wake of the Sandusky allegations, Pennsylvania remains the only state in the country that doesn’t allow experts to testify for the prosecution in sex crimes — a situation that stands to benefit Sandusky. Generally ignored by the media and the public (except for a short list of lawmakers and advocates who were feverishly working to fix it) this quirk of state law garnered plenty of attention after Judge John Cleland ruled last week that Sandusky would be allowed to put a psychiatric expert on the stand in his defense.

Cleland’s ruling was hailed “a win” for Sandusky in the press — and with good reason.

Sandusky’s defense pivots on psychiatrist Dr. Elliot Atkins, who testified on Tuesday that Sandusky wrote the “creepy” letters to alleged victims and engaged them in “soap battles” in the shower not because he’s a pedophile, but because he suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder. That esoteric diagnosis, incidentally, is scheduled to be eliminated from the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Prosecutors called Philadelphia psychiatrist John Sebastian O’Brien II to rebut Atkins’s testimony.

Atkins’ job was to convince the jury that, while Sandusky’s behavior doesn’t conform to general expectations of a 68-year-old authority figure, they are typical of a man suffering from a problem that the average juror is not expected to readily understand.


By contrast, the prosecution is not allowed to call an expert to testify that, while some of the behaviors of the eight men who testified against Sandusky may not conform to common expectations of childhood sex abuse victims, research shows those behaviors — not telling anyone for years, keeping social appointments with an assailant after alleged attacks, holding back details in initial reports to authorities — are typical of victims of childhood sex abuse, and especially of young boys abused by authority figures.

“[It's] patently unfair to allow expert testimony on behalf of the defendant and deny the prosecution from enlightening the jury through expert testimony of victim behavior,” says Scott Burns, Executive Director of the National District Attorneys Association. “It severely disadvantages the prosecution.”

 

[Darth Snow]

Jury has begun its deliberations.

 

[Buffnik]

Jury has begun its deliberations.

If I was on that jury, I'd walk into the room and immediately say, "So, how long do you think we've got to stay in here to make it look good before locking him away forever?".

 

[Darth Snow]

If I was on that jury, I'd walk into the room and immediately say, "So, how long do you think we've got to stay in here to make it look good before locking him away forever?".

not that easy in practice. gotta decide on each element of each count. I would be figuring out which counts to throw out while still ensuring we've got enough to put him away forever.

 

[77buff]

That can cut both ways. PSU football enjoys a lot of the popularity it does because they were pretty clean during Joe Pa's run and also did a ton of community service. People may feel like they were violated and want to send the message that Nittany Nation does not tolerate folks who do things that drag the program through the mud.

I'm a PSU supporter and I look at Sandusky as the guy who killed Joe Pa.

I agree with you, although Joe Pa knew about this $#!T, and tried to cover it up. So, Sandusky isn't 100% responsible for Joe Pa's downfall and death.

 

[Ruckus]

How long would you expect deliberations to take? Does everyone in the court room just sit around and wait while this goes on?

 

[Darth Snow]

How long would you expect deliberations to take? Does everyone in the court room just sit around and wait while this goes on?

Usually you can go wherever as long as you can get back to the courthouse pretty quick. Who knows how long it will take. Could be days.

 

[Ruckus]

Damn, 5Dimes doesn't have a line on the verdict. Anyone know a different site to place a bet on this?

 

[77buff]

If Sandusky walks, would that be a good or bad thing for Penn State?

 

[Buffsoldier]

If Sandusky walks, would that be a good or bad thing for Penn State?

This is an interesting question. Because if he walks here, the state of Texas will be picking him up shortly, and the Feds'll be waiting in the wings (Mann Act). And they'll be (I suspect) significantly less kind, to sandusky, to psu and to paterno, during their trials.

But if he's convicted, I could easily see him singing and ratting out the entirety of the penn st. leadership during the sentencing phase in order to get put in something other than a max security, pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Not sure which is better for penn state. And of course, just because he gets convicted in Pennsylvania doesn't in any way mean Texas or the Feds'll just drop it....

 

[tante]

regardless of what happens today can't there still be civil suits against Sandusky and Penn State? Kinda like the whole OJ thing.