Sandusky's been found guilty of nearly every count, and has been sent to Centre County Prison.

Now his attorney, Joe Amendola, can focus on the workers' comp hearing he has with me in the end of July.

Kly,

Say for instance Sandusky's lawyer wanted to "appeal" the verdict. Would it mean each individual charge would be a separate appeal?



TIS

Btw, they said he'll get a minimum of 60 years.

His attorney says he thinks he has the basis for an appeal.

Don't they almost always say that? He also said he wasn't convinced his client was "sick."

His lawyer has ten days to file post verdict motions, which must identify each issue he intends to raise on appeal. An appellate argument on the basis of the trial judge's refusal to grant the requested continuance would apply to all counts, but particular evidentiary errors that are alleged would apply to the charges pertaining to the specific victims. I'm sure on each count he will raise a comprehensive, standard appllate argument that there was not enough evidence to support the charge. You want to be overinclusive in this motion because if you don't raise it now, you're precluded from raising it on direct appeal.

So,it's one appeal with lots of separate arguments. In this particular case there's not a lot of room for appellate success as the prosecution went out of its way to keep a clean record.

While the reports state that he's looking at a minimum sentence of 60 years, the judge has the discretion at sentencing to run the sentences concurrently instead of consecutively. Nevertheless, it appears that his aggregate sentence will effectively amount to a life sentence.

Most people only learned of Jerry Sandusky from this scandal that exploded this past fall. In the 1980s and 90s he was widely recognized as the best defensive coordinator in college football, and he was offered head coaching positions by high profile Division I schools, which he turned down.

While I'm not a Penn State football fan, I would go each year with my boys to a game with some of my wife's relatives, who never miss a game (my wife's cousin has been married to a Penn State quarterback). As such, my boys got to meet some of the coaches and players when they were younger. They actually had their picture taken with Sandusky and some of the players in Sandusky's last season at Penn State. I can't look at the picture.

Didn't Sandusky's lawyer earlier today say he thought they were getting convicted?



I'm stunned that a southern state did this.

(off-topic, but has New Yorker ever executed anybody ever since the death penalty was reinstated?)

Klyd, I would imagine that's like missing your flight and the plane later crashes.

No.

And the death penalty, which Governor Pataki helped reinstate in 1995, was declared unconstitutional by the New York State Court of Appeals in 2004 (People v. LaValle).

There is currently no death penalty in the State of New York.

Why do they sometimes talk of NY Mafia guys facing the death penalty then? Like Massino etc?

Those were Federal statutes, Nicky.

So does that mean a Mob guy from NY could technically be executed?

Technically? Yes, but I doubt it will ever happen.

The last gangster to get the death penalty was Lepke Buchalter, and that was almost seventy years ago.

I guess they sometimes use it as a threat to force cooperation? Like they seemed to make a big deal in the media that Massino was facing the death penalty.

Yeah, they use it for leverage.

So a Penn State coach is going into the State Penn?

The prison is right on the outskirts of PSU, I remeber going there with some of friends to visit more frieds that went there. THey have a big old lookin' sign it wouldnt suprise me if it still there like "watch for escaped prisoners"

I was out in bedford county before, saw they had this stupod corny billboard with a picture of the Sheriff "KEEP DRUGS OUT OF BEDFORD COUNTY."

Does anyone think Sandusky will write a book in jail so the proceeds will go to his vicitins?

S mini-tv series or movie. ( I don't think anyone in the world would make a movie about it," Its too tragic.
Then again people are greedy

Jerry will stay in the Centre County Prison until sentencing and then he'll likely serve his sentence at SCI Bellefonte. He'll be segregated from the prison population.

How'd you like Bedford County. It's about 2 1/2 hours from me. I haven't seen the billboards, but it is a peaceful and quaint place. A bit of Bedford trivia: The only place that the U.S. Supreme Court ever convened outside of the Capital was Bedford, PA.

Kly, why wasn't bail continued pending appeal?

Bail is typically raised after a conviction because they presuppose the risk of flight increases. Moreover, bail pending appeal may be greatly increased or even revoked depending on the charge. Before Friday night Sandusky was an accused child rapist, and now he's a convicted one, so his right to bail is affected. Another factor is the judge's subjective feeling concerning Sandusky's chance of success on appeal.

Thanks Kly. Another question.

From your experience, why do clients talk to law enforcement without legal counsel when they have to know they have a potential liability hanging over their head? Perhaps you saw the video of him telling the police about what happened that night. Why would he think what he said would be exculpatory especially since it invloved a killing. I just don't understand it.

That's a good question. My general answer is that people often think they're smarter than they actually are. Often an interrogating officer implies cordially that the suspect/witness can help himself out and perhaps avoid trouble by "cooperating." The friendly cop suggests the suspect could make things easier for himself by speaking or if he requests an attorney, the cop might say that they'll seek additional charges or not offer any deal. Both of those promises are false.

A former colleague of mine was dumbfounded once when a client gave a long statement that ultimately implicated him in a felonious conspiracy charge. When he was asked why he decided to speak even after he was advised of his right to counsel, he replied that if he remained silent and asked for a lawyer, they'd think he was guilty.

My advice to anyone arrested for anything is not to speak to an interrogating officer, but get a lawyer and speak through him or her. Those statements can never be used against you. Young people especially should be mindful of this. Oh, and never consent to a search of your car for a traffic violation. If you say no, they need a search warrant and while they may threaten you by saying they'll detain you until they get a warrant and have it signed, it's a bluff because they know they don't have probable cause to go into your trunk, and a magistrate won't sign the affidavit.

Kly, I tell my kids and students a paraphrased version of your last paragraph.

The entire game changes, doesn't it? When a defendant goes to trial, he's innocent until proven guilty. But if he's convicted and makes an appeal, isn't he presumed guilty until proven innocent--and only if he produces new evidence that wasn't available during the trial, or convinces the appellate court that he didn't get a fair trial due to judicial or prosecutorial errors?

Very true. A jury's verdict of guilt wipes away all the presumptions and the defendant bears the burden of establishing reversible error. I'm sure things were going so badly for Sandusky that his attorney at some point was more concerned with trying to develop and frame issues for a possible appeal than he was in establishing reasonable doubt. I've been in similar situations where the facts are killing you.

I was once picking a jury in a death penalty case by individual voir dire. In PA death penalty cases jurors must do a mathematical balancing test to determine if the aggravating factors, of which there are eight (specifically defined by statute) outweigh the mitigating factors, which could be anything. I thought I'd strart building my defense and arguing my case before trial by incorporating sympathetic aspects about my client by asking questions like, "Would you be able to evaluate child abuse Mr. Miller suffered at the hands of his father?"

The DA eventually objected and said that he should also be allowed to incorporate references to aggravating factors. I knew where he was going and as soon as he started to ask about attaching possible weight to my client's prior record, I objected and he was upset, arguing I can't have it both ways. I stated at sidebar there was an independent basis to preclude that question because the prior record is inadmissible in the case in chief and therefore it is objectionable in a voir dire question on the penalty phase. The DA then immediately agreed with my point.

While I thought I had brilliantly won the moment, the DA, who was more skilled than I, whispered to me as we were returning to our respective tables, "You know, if you had let me complete the question before you objected, you'd have had your reversible error. My heart sank and I didn't feel nearly as brilliant as I had thought a few seconds ago.

Well, we live and lear, don't we. If I had to do it all over again, I would be a trial lawyer. I love the combat, the maneuvering. What you just posted Kly is what Americans don't understand - the complexity of the adversarial legal system. They want it all cut and dried - and it isn't!

So how many right-wingers this morning want to spit over Roberts joining the liberal SCOTUS wing on striking down (most of) the Arizona illegal immigration crackdown?

Strange that they upheld the "papers please" provision, but struck down just about everything else. I hate split rulings.

In another ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished sentences of mandatory life without parole for juveniles, who are convicted of murder. Pennsylvania presently leads the nation in inmates serving mandatory life sentences for murders committed while they were juveniles.

I've only read a few lines of the Court's AZ immigration law decision. However, it appears to be a phyrric victory for the law at best. The matter gets returned to the 9th circuit court for its reconsideration. Such reconsideration could result in a few outcomes. Even if the 9th sustains the one it is reconsidering, I'm left to wonder just what it is that it adds to Arizona law enforcement. I always wondered what thatpart of the AZ law provided beyond what already existed in AZ statute: if one does not have a driver's license while driving, one thus trangresses the law, probable cause attaches, and an arrest ensues.

Kly, what do you think?