From what I’ve read about Amendola, he was in way over his head. Apparently, he made his bread and butter on defending Penn State students from relatively trivial charges. This doesn’t make him a bad lawyer, necessarily; he may be the guy to go to if you’re ever charged with public intoxication in State College. But he wasn’t really equipped with the skills to defend a client from charges this serious and made a lot of mistakes out of ignorance on how to handle such a case.
The front page of the Patriot-News this morning had “GUILTY” on the front page in Second Coming-sized type and page after page of coverage that went back to the beginning. Sara Ganim has earned her Pulitzer and other prizes and deserves bigger and better.
So, do you guys think Sandusky went with this guy because a) he didn’t have the money for a high-priced legal eagle, b) he went with a guy he knew and was comfortable with and didn’t think things through about needing a better equipped lawyer, or c) no one else more competent would defend him?
Fair enough, but what could Johnny Cochran, Clarence Darrow, or John Marshall have done any differently? You’ve got 10 victims, and the man’s son saying he molested them plus an assistant coach who witnessed one of the assaults. The only thing lacking was Christ himself testifying for the prosecution.
I didn’t say he was ineffective, just in way over his head.
The difference between Amendola and the lawyers you mentioned is that Cochran, Darrow, and Marshall (I’m assuming; he predates contemporary legal practice) knew how to comport themselves in public and in the press. They knew not to allow their client to talk to the press, and they knew how to keep their yaps shut themselves.
In fact, Amendola’s single biggest mistake was to let his client talk to Bob Costas. The prosecution was able to use Sandusky’s own words to convict him; he didn’t have to take the stand. And his words were so creepy and so chilling that they left one hell of an impression. Had Sandusky not talked to Costas, the prosecution would have had a slightly harder time of things. And that was a massive strategic error on Amendola’s part. A lawyer more used to high-profile cases would have known better.
The comments don’t really have anything to do with anything. He said he expected a conviction and he was right. He didn’t say he did not make an effort or do his job. Anyway you can’t get an acquittal or a get out of jail free card by claiming your lawyer lost on purpose. What you have to do - from prison, of course - is show that your attorney was incompetent by the standards of the legal profession, meaning not just that he screwed up but that he did not meet basic professional standards, AND you have to provide some reason to think the outcome might have been different if you’d had a competent lawyer.
It was reported today that Amendola and the other defense attorney tried to resign before the trial but the judge would not let them. They said they did not have enough time to review some of the prosecution’s evidence and documents and things of that nature, and I expect that will come up in the appeals process. I don’t know if there is merit to their complaints. Like I said, the appeals process will play out while this guy is in jail, so it’s not like he gets to go home and file a million appeals before serving his sentence.
I thought I read somewhere, maybe on the board here, that Sandusky had quite a bit of money. Does he? Does he have enough to mount an appeal with a high-priced lawyer?
I was asking if a case could be made as grounds for an appeal, not if it had merit or if it would pan out in the end. I understand he will fight any appeals from behind bars and based on what I understand of the testimony/evidence, nothing would change.
I agree with what you’ve posted, and of course, the hard part would be to find a new attorney that would actually want to try and fight the appeal as well.
Appeals aren’t automatic, and there may not be a reason for one. More young men have come forward, including Matt Sandusky, Jerry’s adopted son. Interestingly enough, Jerry’s wife has now hired a lawyer…
didn’t even think of that but if their adopted son testifies that he brought the abuse to her attention or that she was aware of it directly then she’s got problems.
I wonder how that will play out. I would assume they would sue him for the assaults and her for not doing anything about it. But is she required (civilly) to do something? The old Torts rule is that you can walk right by someone bleeding to death and you don’t have to help them. Plus her homeowners insurance should, at minimum, provide her with defense costs.
I’m not sure about PA law regarding marital property, but she could claim her half as exempt from any judgment (and if they have tenancy by the entirety she could exempt it all). This is assuming that she can’t be held liable for Sandusky’s conduct.
