Jerry Sandusky Sex Abuse Verdict: An End to the Scandal at Penn State?

August 01, 2012 (Press-News.org) In contemporary America, allegations of child molestation involving a prominent defendant or high-profile institution can easily lead to a trial by media. After months of media frenzy, the Jerry Sandusky sex crimes trial finally played out in a Centre County courtroom in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Few if any TV talking heads who had dissected the case scandal last fall were surprised by the verdict.

A jury found Sandusky guilty on 45 counts of sexual abuse involving ten young boys, all of whom he had befriended due to his work with a disadvantaged children's charity. Sandusky faced 48 counts of rape, sodomy and other sex crimes, and was found not guilty on only three specific counts. The prosecution presented testimony from eight of the victims, who are now all adults.

When news of the Penn State child sex abuse scandal broke last fall, the resulting inquiry and uproar claimed the career of legendary coach Joe Paterno, who died a few months later. Penn State issued a statement repudiating its former employee immediately: "No verdict can undo the pain and suffering caused by Mr. Sandusky, but we do hope this judgment helps the victims and their families along their path to healing."

When Should a Defendant Testify in His or Her Own Defense?

After three days of presenting their case, Sandusky's criminal defense attorneys rested the defense case without calling him as a witness. The defense team had suggested in opening statements that Sandusky might testify, but this is almost always a risky strategy.

Other witnesses brought by the defense included Sandusky's wife and a physician who described his encounter with Mike McQueary in order to cast doubt on his witness testimony regarding an incident in a locker room shower. Many of the 28 defense witnesses spoke briefly to enhance Sandusky's reputation and highlight his charity work with The Second Mile.

Sandusky's manner in his interview with NBC Sports journalist Bob Costas may have suggested to his defense lawyers that he would not make a credible witness in his own defense, but there is always one particularly important reason why such testimony is dangerous. While the prosecution is generally not allowed to present testimony of a defendant's character at trial, evidence of a lack of truthfulness and other relevant traits can be presented to impeach a defendant who has taken the stand.

In this case, the prosecution was likely to call Sandusky's adopted son Matt as a rebuttal witness. After the jury returned its verdict, news soon emerged of a police interview with Matt Sandusky that contained allegations of sexual abuse by his father.

Sentencing and Appeal: What Happens After a Guilty Verdict in a Child Sex Crimes Case?

After a defendant is found guilty on a felony charge for which time in prison is possible, county probation officials must complete a presentencing investigation. This process considers the range of incarceration for each criminal count, psychological and psychiatric profiles, victim impact statements, and other information that the court will review in imposing a sentence.

Because Jerry Sandusky is 68 years old, he will certainly spend the rest of his life in a Pennsylvania state prison, even if an appeal on certain issues is successful. Because his bail was revoked after the guilty verdict was read, he must await sentencing in the Centre County Correctional Facility.

Reports quickly emerged that Sandusky's defense attorneys have announced that an appeal is likely. Reasons for appealing a child sex abuse conviction range from basic disputes over admissibility of evidence such as hearsay testimony, to allegations that judicial or prosecutorial irregularities prejudiced the legal process against the defendant.

Any criminal proceeding carried out amidst the glare of national media attention poses challenges to defendants' rights and jury impartiality. In this case, Judge John Cleland issued a decorum order prior to trial forbidding live trial coverage and transmission of electronic messages from the courtroom, backed by the threat of a finding of contempt of court for texters and tweeters.

Whatever the basis for an appeal, Sandusky could also face further criminal charges if other victims are identified. He, as well as various Penn State officials and the University itself, will face a series of civil cases seeking damages from alleged sex abuse victims. Damage awards or settlements likely will run into the millions of dollars.

Article provided by Randolph L. Goldman
Visit us at www.rgoldmanlawyer.com