Jerry Sandusky files a pro se motion for a new trial and asks for evidentiary hearings

[realfrancofan]

Ralph Cipriano has a new blog post that details the motion and the accompanying affidavit.

The motion was triggered by newly discovered evidence obtained by Sandusky's civil attorney Donald Litman in his defense against being sued by Andrew Shubin and the Sinisi family that is the subject of Sara Ganim's new podcast "The Mayor of Maple Avenue." The newly discovered evidence was the interview that Shubin had with Shawn Sinisi where he asked Sean leading questions to get him to say what he wanted him to say.

Sandusky alleges that Shubin manipulated his clients for maximum gain by changing their stories and referring the clients to psychologist Cynthia McNabb for repressed memory therapy. Sandusky cites AJ Dillen, a purposely fake accuser who did a sting operation of Shubin and McNabb by receiving advice and therapy and taping ~100 sessions that he had with them that demonstrated how they operated such as changing the location of the alleged assault from a public park near Joe Paterno's house to the Penn State campus. For details on AJ's story, please listen to episode 14 (Secret Agent Man) on John Ziegler's With the Benefit of Hindsight (WTBOH) podcast.

Sandusky challenges the allegations made regarding v2, v3, v7, v10 and Matt Sandusky. They all were represented by Shubin and received therapy from McNabb.

Sandusky has a new member of his legal team with Dr. R Christopher Barden of Minnesota, a renown attorney as well as a psychologist who is an expert in repressed memory therapy.

Jerry Sandusky The Jailhouse Lawyer Targets Andrew Shubin

By Ralph Cipriano for Bigtrial.net In a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Jerry Sandusky, acting as his own jailhou...

www.bigtrial.net

 

[Jason1743]

My chances of winning Powerball are equivalent to Sandusky winning anything of substance in court.

 

[realfrancofan]

There is an interesting update on yesterday's Search Warrant podcast regarding the Sandusky case and his latest motion, starting around the 37 minute mark.

John Snedden, Ralph Cipriano and Dick Anderson lead the discussion on topics such as shyster lawyer Andrew Shubin, purposely fake accuser AJ Dillen, Ryan Rittmeyer (v10) and repressed memory therapy.

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1YpJkZNooqoGj

 

[realfrancofan]

My chances of winning Powerball are equivalent to Sandusky winning anything of substance in court.

In state courts, I would agree with you. However, in federal courts where Judges are not elected and not influenced as much by public opinion; I think there is a chance that there could be traction.

 

[Countrylion]

My chances of winning Powerball are equivalent to Sandusky winning anything of substance in court.

Sandusky could have testified at his trial. Chose not to. Hard to say he did not have his day in court when he clearly passed on this chance to say something.

 

[BobPSU92]

Sandusky could have testified at his trial. Chose not to. Hard to say he did not have his day in court when he clearly passed on this chance to say something.

It is fairly common for a defendant to not testify. Additionally, it is clear that sandusky’s legal counsel was lacking, for one reason or another.

 

[Jason1743]

Sandusky could have testified at his trial. Chose not to. Hard to say he did not have his day in court when he clearly passed on this chance to say something.

Sandusky is a despicable POS, but he clearly was railroaded at trial. Think about it, He was arrested in November and convicted in June. What major case/trial moves that quickly? These trials/prosecutions usually take years.

 

[LB99]

Maybe someone should ask Tom Corbett why justice didn’t move quicker? He didn’t seem in any rush to find justice.

 

[PSU Mike]

It’s more likely that Shubin sues and wins for the sting than Ol’ Soapy gets a new trial.

 

[PSUSignore]

Sandusky could have testified at his trial. Chose not to. Hard to say he did not have his day in court when he clearly passed on this chance to say something.

Based on how he answered very simple questions during his national tv interview it's not much of a surprise he didn't testify. A five year old could do better.

Q: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"
A: "Am I? Uh, umm.... Huh? Attracted to boys? Um.... No... I'm not."

Sandusky lost any remaining shred of reasonable doubt he may have had in the court of public opinion in that moment.

 

[PSU12046]

Based on how he answered very simple questions during his national tv interview it's not much of a surprise he didn't testify. A five year old could do better.

Q: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"
A: "Am I? Uh, umm.... Huh? Attracted to boys? Um.... No... I'm not."

Sandusky lost any remaining shred of reasonable doubt he may have had in the court of public opinion in that moment.

How Amendola could not have had JS less prepared for that Costas interview is just another mind boggling moment. Any jury member who had heard that interview at the time, was convinced JS was guilty before the trial even started.

 

[PSUSignore]

How Amendola could not have had JS less prepared for that Costas interview is just another mind boggling moment. Any jury member who had heard that interview at the time, was convinced JS was guilty before the trial even started.

How much prep do you need to answer that question? For an innocent person of average intelligence, I'd say zero prep required.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Sandusky could have testified at his trial. Chose not to. Hard to say he did not have his day in court when he clearly passed on this chance to say something.

After his performance with Bob Costas, not testifying was probably the best idea.

 

[Countrylion]

After his performance with Bob Costas, not testifying was probably the best idea.

If he could not get throught testifying without proving he was guilty then he got what he deserved and a new trial is not necessary.

 

[AvgUser]

How much prep do you need to answer that question? For an innocent person of average intelligence, I'd say zero prep required.

Listen to the WTBOH session for that answer.

 

[LB99]

Let’s face it. He’s probably guilty of heinous acts that ruined dozens, if not hundreds, of people’s lives. Whether or not his trial was rushed or if he was prepped properly for trial is really something I don’t care about. He most likely got what he deserved. He always came off as a weirdo even before any of this came to light. I wouldn’t trust him in a room with my kids even before knowing he was a monster.

 

[realfrancofan]

Sandusky could have testified at his trial. Chose not to. Hard to say he did not have his day in court when he clearly passed on this chance to say something.

Sandusky wanted to testify at trial. He was advised by his in-over-his-head, out-of-his-league, totally ineffective lawyer Joe Amendola not to based on the premise that his testifying would open the door to Matt Sandusky testifying. There was no reason to being afraid of Matt testifying as there should have been no reason to fear Allan Myers testifying either.

Sandusky is saying something now in his pro se motion, and it seems to me to be very believable based on WTBOH podcast, Mark Pendergrast's book, Ralph Cipriano bigtrial blog, John Snedden's report on his federal investigation and other's work. If you want to see the motion and the accompanying affidvat, it is embedded in tweets by @SearchWarrant1

 

[realfrancofan]

It’s more likely that Shubin sues and wins for the sting than Ol’ Soapy gets a new trial.

There is no way that Shubin sues for the sting. Aren't you at least a little bit upset that Shubin changes the allegations of a client so that they could extort more money from Penn State? I know that I am. Imho, Shubin should be disbarred for doing this transgression.

 

[realfrancofan]

How much prep do you need to answer that question? For an innocent person of average intelligence, I'd say zero prep required.

I beg to differ. If you are in a fight for your life, you should be prepared and Sandusky wasn't. Yes, Sandusky bears some responsibility; but so does Joe Amendola his attorney.

 

[realfrancofan]

If he could not get throught testifying without proving he was guilty then he got what he deserved and a new trial is not necessary.

A new trial is necessary because his constitutional rights were violated. A fair trial is fundamental to due process. Sandusky was subjected to serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct as well as to totally ineffective defense counsel.

 

[realfrancofan]

Let’s face it. He’s probably guilty of heinous acts that ruined dozens, if not hundreds, of people’s lives. Whether or not his trial was rushed or if he was prepped properly for trial is really something I don’t care about. He most likely got what he deserved. He always came off as a weirdo even before any of this came to light. I wouldn’t trust him in a room with my kids even before knowing he was a monster.

You may not care about it, but I sure as hell do. I know him not to be a monster. I believe that the state railroaded Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno. It may not happen tomorrow, but I believe that one day the story of what exactly happened will become a lot clearer.

 

[PSU Mike]

There is no way that Shubin sues for the sting. Aren't you at least a little bit upset that Shubin changes the allegations of a client so that they could extort more money from Penn State? I know that I am. Imho, Shubin should be disbarred for doing this transgression.

Mine is a statement about what to expect going forward. It’s more relevant than my emotions about what seems to have happened.

 

[realfrancofan]

Mine is a statement about what to expect going forward. It’s more relevant than my emotions about what seems to have happened.

What are your thoughts about Shubin changing the testimony of one of his perspective clients to win as big a settlement as possible from Penn State? Are you upset, fine with it, have no opinion or something else?

 

[marshall23]

What are your thoughts about Shubin changing the testimony of one of his perspective clients to win as big a settlement as possible from Penn State? Are you upset, fine with it, have no opinion or something else?

What do you call someone who will do anything for money?

 

[marshall23]

A new trial is necessary because his constitutional rights were violated. A fair trial is fundamental to due process. Sandusky was subjected to serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct as well as to totally ineffective defense counsel.

Isn't it funny that those who profess that JS is guilty beyond any doubt.....fear a retrial?

 

[PSU Mike]

What are your thoughts about Shubin changing the testimony of one of his perspective clients to win as big a settlement as possible from Penn State? Are you upset, fine with it, have no opinion or something else?

I’ve finally reached the point in my life where I accept that greed, to various degrees, rules more lives than not. In a vacuum it would upset me. But show me definitive evidence that PSU’s legal team pored over each claim individually, and developed an improved strategy to discriminate the fraud by taking them all collectively, and I’ll concede PSU is a victim. PSU was clearly advised that throwing out big mea culpas early and often was going to paint them in a better light in public opinion than fighting tooth and nail. And here we are.

 

[marshall23]

I’ve finally reached the point in my life where I accept that greed, to various degrees, rules more lives than not. In a vacuum it would upset me. But show me definitive evidence that PSU’s legal team pored over each claim individually, and developed an improved strategy to discriminate the fraud by taking them all collectively, and I’ll concede PSU is a victim. PSU was clearly advised that throwing out big mea culpas early and often was going to paint them in a better light in public opinion than fighting tooth and nail. And here we are.

I find this ironic because Frazier became rich dancing on the graves of Vioxx victims. In any event, the(BOT) strategy failed.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Isn't it funny that those who profess that JS is guilty beyond any doubt.....fear a retrial?

Three things I believe…
1. Sandusky had a crappy defense team, and that didn’t do him any favors

2. Sandusky is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (and is exactly where he belongs)

3. Another trial would do more harm than good to my alma mater as it brings these awful events back into the news cycle once again

 

[Moogy]

Isn't it funny that those who profess that JS is guilty beyond any doubt.....fear a retrial?

No, it's not funny. A retrial would only serve to dredge up these awful memories and cast PSU in a negative light, once again. And given how obviously guilty Sandusky is, the only thing a retrial could "accomplish" is to allow a guilty man to walk free (a highly, highly, highly unlikely outcome, but the only change that could possibly occur).

 

[OuiRPSU]

No, it's not funny. A retrial would only serve to dredge up these awful memories and cast PSU in a negative light, once again. And given how obviously guilty Sandusky is, the only thing a retrial could "accomplish" is to allow a guilty man to walk free (a highly, highly, highly unlikely outcome, but the only change that could possible occur).

If there is a retrial and he does walk free, it might not mean he’s not guilty. But, in order for that to happen, some serious new evidence would have to be presented to question the legitimacy of the original verdict(s).

 

[realfrancofan]

Three things I believe…
1. Sandusky had a crappy defense team, and that didn’t do him any favors

2. Sandusky is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (and is exactly where he belongs)

3. Another trial would do more harm than good to my alma mater as it brings these awful events back into the news cycle once again

I believe that Sandusky is innocent beyond not only any reasonable doubt, but beyond any real doubt.

I base my opinion on extensive research that has been done in the case including Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America," John Ziegler's With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast, Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog on the Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal, and the report on John Snedden's federal investigation into where Graham Spanier's top level security clearances were renewed.

I believe a retrial would do an order of magnitude more good than harm to the reputation of my alma mater. It would expose the vendetta that former governor Tom Corbett had against Graham Spanier and would expose the travesty of justice that has occurred at Penn State.

 

[realfrancofan]

No, it's not funny. A retrial would only serve to dredge up these awful memories and cast PSU in a negative light, once again. And given how obviously guilty Sandusky is, the only thing a retrial could "accomplish" is to allow a guilty man to walk free (a highly, highly, highly unlikely outcome, but the only change that could possibly occur).

If you are so sure sure of how obviously guilty that Sandusky is, please identify the single accuser/witness that you believe makes the strongest case that Sandusky harmed any child and that you would be willing to bet your house on. I don't believe you can answer this simple question of the best single accuser because there is no good answer. There were no contemporaneous reports and all the accusations changed for the worse over time.

 

[realfrancofan]

If there is a retrial and he does walk free, it might not mean he’s not guilty. But, in order for that to happen, some serious new evidence would have to be presented to question the legitimacy of the original verdict(s).

There has been a ton of new evidence in the last 10 years since Sandusky's trial that has come out including Snedden's report on the federal investigation he conducted, the alumni BOT critical review of the Freeh report, the McChesney diary, the tape of Andrew Shubin trying to change the story of possible client AJ Dillen and the suspension of lead prosecutor Frank Fina license to practice law in Pennsylvania due to his conduct in this case among other things.

 

[Erial_Lion]

I believe that Sandusky is innocent beyond not only any reasonable doubt, but beyond any real doubt.

So you're comfortable with the fact that not just was Jerry showering with boys after short, light workouts, but that he

• Got caught red-handed after showing with the boy in 1998, and was so shook up by it that he said he wished he were dead
• And then, just a few years later, he's again showering with someone in an empty locker room late at night where he's expecting privacy

Showering along with a kid in those situations is basically Grooming 101. If your opinion is that there is no doubt at all that Jerry was looking for opportunities to get those kids alone in a shower, then I don't know what to tell you (unless you feel it's necessary to shower after 10 minutes of "Polish Soccer"). I can't imagine any sane person being accused of inappropriate actions with a minor, and then going right back and doing those inappropriate actions a few years later unless they have a problem.

 

[realfrancofan]

So you're comfortable with the fact that not just was Jerry showering with boys after short, light workouts, but that he

• Got caught red-handed after showing with the boy in 1998, and was so shook up by it that he said he wished he were dead
• And then, just a few years later, he's again showering with someone in an empty locker room late at night where he's expecting privacy

Showering along with a kid in those situations is basically Grooming 101. If your opinion is that there is no doubt at all that Jerry was looking for opportunities to get those kids alone in a shower, then I don't know what to tell you (unless you feel it's necessary to shower after 10 minutes of "Polish Soccer"). I can't imagine any sane person being accused of inappropriate actions with a minor, and then going right back and doing those inappropriate actions a few years later unless they have a problem.

Allan Myers was like a son to Sandusky and stated in his November 2011 interview with Curtis Everhart that Sandusky had never done anything sexual to him.

Sandusky has stated that he never said he wished he were dead during the 1998 investigation. There was an thorough investigation done in 1998 with no charges filed against Sandusky and Sandusky not being indicated for child abuse. The advise that the investigator gave to Sandusky in 1998 is disputed. Sandusky has stated that he believes he was advised not to work out or shower with v6 in the future as opposed to being advise not to shower with any minor.

 

[Moogy]

If you are so sure sure of how obviously guilty that Sandusky is, please identify the single accuser/witness that you believe makes the strongest case that Sandusky harmed any child and that you would be willing to bet your house on. I don't believe you can answer this simple question of the best single accuser because there is no good answer. There were no contemporaneous reports and all the accusations changed for the worse over time.

I have no interest in entertaining your ranting and raving on the topic.

 

[BobPSU92]

I have no interest in entertaining your ranting and raving on the topic.

He isn’t ranting and raving. He is simply raising cogent points.

 

[Moogy]

He isn’t ranting and raving. He is simply raising cogent points.

Oh, you ... always with your jokes! You're too much!

Ziegler & Co. are the equivalent of flat-earthers.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Sandusky has stated that he never said he wished he were dead during the 1998 investigation.

So two police officers and the mother both testified that he was recorded using those words. After the fact, Jerry said "I can't believe I would have said that" and "I'm 95% sure I wouldn't have said those words". And you'll fully buy into Jerry's side of things.

Obviously, there is no point in discussing any of it with you, since you're blind to anything that doesn't set Jerry free.

 

[realfrancofan]

He isn’t ranting and raving. He is simply raising cogent points.

Thank you Bob.

Nobody can answer the question because there is no good answer. All of the accuser's stories have serious problems. I saw the following graphic on this question on twitter: