The alleged victims did not ask to be behind a screen or anything like that; just that their names not be given in court. They were willing to appear in court and be confronted by the defendant.
But with their names revealed in court (and the media!), 5 of the 8 scheduled witnesses are reconsidering their willingness to testify.
Does it count as “confronting one’s accusers” in any meaningful sense if they’re testifying anonymously, the court isn’t keeping track, and almost nobody who they are? People often talk about testifying in “open court,” and this doesn’t sound like an open court to me. This sounds like a proposal born out of sympathy but very easily abused. I’m reading that there are exceptions to public trials when it would hurt the defense, but there’s no such right for the prosecution. However sympathetic we may be to abuse victims, there’s a reason for that.
There is precident for anonymous testimony. Young women were recently allowed to testify anonymously against Girls Gone Wildfor secretly recording them. The press was allowed to pring their names, but most media outlets have policies against printing the names of victims of crimes of a sexual nature.
Something else that’s strange in the Sandusky case is that he and his lawyers didn’t even object to the anonymity of the accusers. The judge is essentially doing the defense’s job for them.
Is precedent from a civil lawsuit relevant to a criminal prosecution?
“Annual enrollment at the University Park campus totals more than 44,000 graduate and undergraduate students, making it one of the largest universities in the United States”
"As of the 2010 census, the borough population was 42,034, and just over 92,000 lived in the borough plus the surrounding townships often referred to locally as the “Centre Region”
If you counted faculty and administration, half of everybody that lives in that area goes to school or works at Penn State. And I’d hazzard to guess over 90% of the residents have friends or family who go to school or work at Penn State.
Frankly, it would be a statistical improbability had there NOT been jury members with ties to PSU. Having 8/12 with ties sounds about right and was to be expected by both sides, absent some major jury purging.
Good question. I do not know. The only criminal cases I’ve found that involved anonymous testimony was for undercover police or witnesses who had good reason to fear for their safety (i.e. testifying against the mob).
Right, that’s the only exception I’m aware of. And honestly, that’s a more sensible exception.
We just had a trial end without the witness being publically identified. The case of the Rutgers’ student who filmed his gay roommate having sex with another man on a webcam, leading to the roommate’s suicide, ended with the witness identified only as MB. In the Slate.com article I read last week talking about this specific trial, they also mentioned that it was weird the judge in the Penn State case didn’t make the witnesses names secret
As things stand now, it looks very much like the defense is going to use the jurors’ feelings for Penn St. and Paterno as a factor in trying to acquit their client
Exactly what about this changes the leverage?
Setting change: Overbroook Golf Club, Hole 9.
Doink-doink
I don’t care if it sells 6-packs & Turkey Hill Icecream at fancy French restaurants…
I’m not really buying your golf conspiracy theory Count Blucher. If there was some sort of pressure, wouldn’t the pressure be to get a conviction because of all the publicity about the case?
I find it a little far fetched that some Penn State football fanatic is going to sneak onto the jury sleeper cell style and let a child molester go free solely for the purposes of making the spirit of Joe’Pa smile down benevolently from football Vahalla.
Then again maybe I’m wrong. Some people take their spectator sports very seriously.
I’m not sure if anybody’s interested in a running thread about the trial - and I don’t know if I want to keep reading this stuff - but if anybody’s curious, they’re in the second day of testimony now. Two of the accusers have testified to this point, and so have Mike McQueary and a social worker who took a report about one of those two boys being accused. As far as I know, the defense has not made reference to St. Joe in an attempt to bias the jury. They’ve said the accusers are looking for a big payday in the form of a lawsuit.
I read that the testimony of one of the witnesses yesterday was particularly damning.
Well, if I’m going to go with my gut I think it’s possible that the defense is setting up for appeals. Not based on the trial being in College State but, because, due to the multiple connections between Penn State, Second Mile, the town & mere normal intertwining of individual lives to one another in a relatively small venue, there’s a fair chance that information about a juror or other significant player at a later date or even during the trial could give at least the suggestion of foul play, undue influence, etc. This is probably my naturally paranoid self but it’s the first thing I thought of when I heard the defense wanted State College. I think it’s at least as likely as the defense thinking the trial setting would preference sandusky.
I don’t think you’re being that paranoid. This is the kind of case that will go through appeal after appeal until Sandusky is six feet under.
I’ve heard some rumblings that the Sandusky case may wind up haunting our esteemed governor, who had the opportunity to do something about it when he was the attorney general, but for reasons known only to himself, did not. This may well wind up affecting his re-election in 2014. People have long memories when it comes to Penn State, and they’re not going to let this one go. Until then, I’ve heard something about an investigation into Corbett’s actions, but at this point, it’s a rumor.
Convictions appealed to the PA Superior Court take a year or more to be decided and most are denied. Appeals to the PA Supreme Court usually take even longer. If the deft. in this case is convicted, the judge will almost certainly revoke his bail. This will result in the deft.'s incarcaration throughout the appeal process. Even if the appeal is successful, the case will almost certainly not be over for deft.; he will simply be re-tried.
Apparently, George Schultz (former VP of Penn State) was keeping a list of the allegations against Sandusky. Schultz and (former President of Penn State) Graham Spanier had an email conversation about teh shower incident where they decided not to report it to the authorities because they felt it would be more humane towards Sandusky not to. If all this is true, then I think they just doomed their college.
Nitpick, that’s Gary Schultz, not George who was Secretary of State under Reagan.
Let’s hope this is a brief appeals process, then. (If he is found guilty. I’m jumping the gun, here!)
CNN just reported that some jurors were weeping during some testimony. That can’t be good for this perv.
Can someone with a legal mind tell me if a single “not guilty” vote will let this guy slide?
Sorry - I even doubled checked that his name wasn’t George. Then I had to double check that Spanier’s name wasn’t George, either. Then I guess my subconscious decided that, gorramit, one of these schmucks is named George, and that’s final.
If the jury deadlocks, then it’s a hung jury and the DA has the discretion to try the case again. Otherwise, it has to be unanimous in favor of acquittal or conviction.
But, unfortunately, gms453 is correct. The appeals process is very long and drawn out, and if it comes to that, it’s likely that Sandusky will spend most of the rest of his life in prison.