Penn State Latest

whoa. is sandusky gonna punch back?

 

Just adds more fule to the fire for those who think Sandusky is just the tip of the iceberg and pedophiles farther up the food chain are trying to cover their ass.

And stringing this out into next year means Curley could be dead by then if his cancer issues are as severe as they're being made out to be.

And, yeah, putting Sandusky on trial as quickly as they did isn't exactly normal for a high-profile crime like this. His lawyers may have been a bunch of clowns but a guy who is up on 40+ counts as serious as he was facing usually gets more time to prepare. It does make one wonder.

 

but you have two defendants who are accused of hiding shit. while with sandusky, you had one cat who had eyewitnesses testifying against him. i'm not trying to be a dick here, but of course sandusky's case is going to be presented much more quickly.

with sandsusky, you had people coming forward with info. on the other case ... how quick do you think their lawyers were getting off discovery? it seems appropriate to me.

 

It took about a year for someone I knew, a former LDS bishop, to go to trial on one count of sexual assault against a 13-year-old girl. News reports suggested his lawyer was looking for a plea deal, which likely delayed the trial

 

Sandusky was indicted November 4, 2011. Went to trial June 11, 2012. The defense team had more than seven months to prepare.

And Sandusky was never going to be offered a plea deal.

 

I believe the quickness of Sandusky's trial is something that went toward his appeal on the grounds of attorney incompetence, which Starman was guessing at during the early stages of the case and which proved to be uncannily accurate.

 

so, the tickle monster is appealing? shit, i hadn't heard that yet.

 

I'm not saying Sandusky should have gone on trial after Curley & Schultz. I'm saying seven months is a pretty quick turnaround for a guy facing 40+ charges that are going to put him away for the rest of his life. It's also extremely unusual for a judge to deny a defense motion for a continuance to prepare. Sandusky was under house arrest so he wasn't a threat to anyone and if he was all they had to do was revoke his bail and lock him up until the trial.

Of course, Sandusky's lawyers are clowns so that may have played into the decision to deny the continuance motion.

And, no, he was never going to be able to plea bargain for no jail time but that doesn't change my point that it seems a bit strange his trial happened so quickly by court standards. And now that we have reports that the feds are looking into the case you do have to wonder who is trying to hide what.

 

Too bad Amendola doesn't have much of a case if he's still acting as Sandusky's attorney

 

I don't think he's handling the appeal.

 

too bad joe still isn't kicking. if sandusky is released, he could just get his old job back.

 

The idea of Sandusky going from the start for an incompetent-counsel defense actually came from a "Rockford Files" episode where the bad guy, who actually committed the crime, got Jim's gal-pal Beth as his attorney, during the trial he had another scheme going on to convince her she was going insane or something, then at the end he was convicted and he said "I'm going to appeal on grounds of incompetent counsel." Rockford, of course, then uncovered the whole deal.

In real life of course any attorney who cooperated with (or instigated) a scheme to "throw" a trial and then claim incompetent counsel would be swiftly disbarred and probably brought up on a variety of charges themselves (contempt of court and obstruction of justice for starters).