a pennsylvania prosecutor has taken a case to trial alleging in any number of counts the violation of a great number of victims, all apparently boys.
update, 06.19.2012. an article by rick reilly, writing for espn, here, http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8071155/sandusky-cowardice . he thinks sandusky should have pleaded guilty to have spared his victims. sexual predators don't think that way, ... , in jerry sandusky's mind, if he did these things, he does not think that he did "wrong." he will think to his dying day, if he did these acts as accused, that it was all consensual, and that he conferred good & "love" upon his victims by his actions.
be that as it may. reilly has clarified something in his article. the trial involved more than 50 counts, as sandusky's alleged criminal conduct related to the victimization of 8 individuals. that's about 2 victims a day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, to get the factual asserts before the jury to satisfy the proof levels for 50 counts of criminal conduct, more or less. that's about 2.5 hours for direct testimony, cross exam, and re-direct for each victim.
that's just not sufficient time to lay the case out.
maybe the prosecutor thinks that he can prove the case, on the theory of "brevity is the soul of wit."
i do not see how the prosecutor, in that brief a time, can contend with the one argument that the defense is gonna raise, if not directly than indirectly, and that is how could this have gone on without being reported by the victims, and by the families of the victims?
this question will be in the juror's minds. someone has to answer it for them to return guilty findings. end update.
apparently 8 witnesses were called by the prosecution. it is not clear to me from the news and wire service reports that i have read that all the prosecution witnesses were alleged victims. i have heard in the months leading up to this the assertion that a great number of boys were violated by sandusky, but how can these assertions be sustained on the testimony of 8 persons?
i practice law for 25 years, a majority of those years as a major felonies prosecutor, and as a major felonies defense attorney. it is inconceivable to me how this number of counts could have reached the court room, based upon this very small number of witnesses to prove the nature of the charges brought against sandusky. it is inconceivable to me that a trial judge would ever have allowed this to happen.
what i am saying, is that any competent judge would not have allowed this number of charges to survive properly brought motions to dismissed, on the dearth of any presentation of competent evidence available to the prosecution at the time motions to dismiss, & the like, were heard.
now, news accounts of court proceedings often are not a very good foundation for understanding what is happening in a court room. but, i am assuming that all of the various counts & charges brought against sandusky were read to the jury at the beginning of the trial.
imagine that you are a jury, in the collective sense, or a juror, in the singular sense. you've just heard, ... , what, 50 charges read against the defendant, and you are thinking the case is going to go on forever. and, poof, 4 days of testimony later, it is done.
it is as though the theatre marquee is emblazoned, "the greatest story ever told," and the usher marches you into the theatre and down the aisle and out the back exit into the alley behind the building. in seconds, it is over.
what in the world does this do to a prosecutor's credibility? to the credibility of the court, and its proceedings? you are promised this great production, and, poof, it is gone.
were i a juror in this circumstance, i would find it very hand to lend any credibility at all to anything brought before me by the prosecution, or anything by way of argument and persuasion brought before me by the prosecutor.
in my mind, the prosecution has just about utterly destroyed their case, if, in fact, they had one.
these cases are incredibly hard to bring. and, incredibly hard to prove. they require that the prosecution earns the trust of the jurors, by being forthright and honest. jurors demand the same from the witnesses, and the same from the victims.
you must understand something here.--
it is not legal for adult persons to have sexual relations or contact with children who are not of age & capacity to voluntarily engage in sexual relations. "consent to intercourse," for instance, is a nonsense assertion when the victim is a 4 year old. but, what that conduct may in fact constitute is a very complicated and complex issue.
that having been said, the gradations of illegal conduct in the law are incredibly complex in sexual misconduct cases, and whether something is a felony rape or felony of another stripe, or whether it is a misdemeanor type of offense can depend upon such factors as the child's age at the time of the alleged commission of an offense, whether the child had the legal capacity to consent to such activity as alleged, and whether in fact the child did "agree" to participate, and the relevant mental state or motivation of the alleged perpetrator as to the events or acts in question.
for instance, i once defended an adult male who was accused of engaging in anal intercourse, he being the person whose erect penis was placed in the anus of a child aged 17 years. my client said that the intercourse was consensual. the child agreed that initially it had been, but that during the act he indicated to the defendant that he wanted to stop. which occurred, by my client withdrawing his still erect penis.
so, the factual question arose, did my client have his penis in the child's anus at any time when the child did not in fact consent to it being there? it was a pretty narrow question. the child testified that my client withdrew his penis when asked.
on this factual issue, my clients exposure whether to 1st degree rape or 3rd degree rape turned, the 1st degree rape being an a class felony with a whole lot of years in prison, 3rd degree rape being a c class felony with a relatively small amount of prison time, as these matters went.
almost all sex cases have "lesser included" crimes of decreased severity built right into them, turning on such narrow factual and legal issues. almost all such issues, including the ultimate issue of whether the events even happened or whether an accuser is trying to exploit something for notoriety or financial gain, turn very nicely on the individual juror's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, and the state's presentation of the case.
my point is precisely this. this credibility is severely damaged when "the world's greatest show" is promised, and then fizzles into nothing. as appears to have happened here.
the prosecutor is responsible. the court, and i mean precisely the trial judge, is equally responsible. the assertion of wrong doing against a defendant should not make it to trial if is it not sustainable and substantiable. these are technical issues that need to be determined prior to trial, by a competent evaluation of the case to be presented, by both the state prosecutor, and the trial judge.
the prosecutor should have picked his best cases. and, brought just them with the evidence and proof necessary to sustain every element of the offense. nothing more.
if, after obtaining conviction on all or some of the charges, he could then have decided whether to bring additional charges. all in good time.
but, to tell a jury on day 1 about "the world's greatest show," and then to have it all disappear in a minimal number of days, is not the way to go about it. even if speedy trial considerations may have jeopardized cases-to-be-later-brought, better to loose them on procedural grounds than to loose everything by way of loss of credibility.
john jay @ 06.18.2012
p.s. i hate this. if sandusky violated these boys he deserves prison. it is horrible if he escapes a prison term deserved. it is more horrible if cases are not redressed, that should have been redressed. and, finally, worst of all it is horrible if he is sentenced to prison after being found guilty on a few marginal counts by way of the overwhelming prejudice so many charges being allowed by the court could/might cause.
this case will be appealed, in my mind, as a matter of virtual certainty. this cases should have been winnowed, to have gotten to the kernels of good cases, and prejudicial chaff should have been separated out, and not sullied the proceedings.
this will be the substance of the assertion of appeal, in my view.
we shall see.
p.s.s. in the meantime, the idiots at e.s.p.n. are no where to be seen. they have violated joe paterno's reputation, vilified him "for doing nothing," and piously uttered on stupid sanctimony after another about what he should have done. (all the while suggesting that they sure as hell would have.)
well, now that the trial of sandusky has turned into such a sham, where are they?]
i don't care about sandusky. he gets what he gets, and likely most of it will be deserved.
joe paterno did not deserve what he got. no how. no way.
John, it is a very rare day when I disagree with you, but here goes. Any adult that is aware of "possible abuse of a child" has a duty to report it to the POLICE. Paterno knew of at least one instance which he reported to a higher up and stood by as he observed nothing done. He had a moral duty then to report it to the police. He did not and thus I believe he deserved the vilification he received. Losing his job is nothing compared to the loss of childhood suffered by Sandusky's victims.
Posted by: GM Roper | June 19, 2012 at 06:03 AM
george:
paterno had a duty to report what?
he witnessed nothing, at least so far as we know.
mitch mcquery told paterno what he had seen. paterno told him to talk to his parents, and decide to report it or not.
paterno appeared twice before the penn state administrative authorities who had direct oversight over the athletic department, and the facilities of the university.
what did paterno have to report? basically, he had "hearsay" the source of which was mcquery.
he took mcquery before these authorities.
in my view, it was mcquery's job to report what he had witnessed to the police. i know of nothing in the facts which suggest that paterno did anything to inhibit or delay mcquery in this.
john jay
p.s. george, for what it is worth, i can find no indication from the news sources i have read covering the trial that mitch mcquery appeared as a witness for the prosecution.
this seems to me significant. if that is the case, then it does not appear that he had anything of evidentiary value to contribute to the prosecution.
joe paterno is at fault for this, too?
again, this is my point.-- if sandusky did this, run him through a wood chipper and let him roast in hell.
it does not seem to me that joe paterno is responsible for sandusky's conduct, nor for the omissions of the penn state university staff.
that's all i am saying.
and, i don't think paterno is either legally or morally responsible for the harm suffered by the kids involved.
we are not our brothers' keepers.
Posted by: john jay | June 19, 2012 at 04:03 PM
NO I believe we cut off His Privates and turn him into a Facsimile of a woman, and see how he likes it.
Probably get rich in prison though.
Posted by: K J Kehoe | June 20, 2012 at 08:01 PM
k.j.:
if & when he goes to prison, which seems very likely, mr. sandusky will learn very thoroughly what it means to be submissive and dominated.
he will be introduced to "bottoms," and "doggy style," and he won't be the one doing the poking.
he will learn nothing.
except, he will recognize the need for "tops." but, he will never realize it, as in the sense, to make it happen, because he is not ever going to get out of prison.
assuming, of course, that the appeal process avails him nothing.
john jay
Posted by: john jay | June 23, 2012 at 07:44 PM