Sandusky trial....one of you lawyers explain this.............
- Thread starter futaba.79
- Start date
you're seeing the complete bastardization of the general principle that the accused is tried "before a jury of his peers." The imperfections of our system show up in a myriad of ways. And yet, it is clearly the best system going.
The only way the jury composition could be any more jilted in this molester's favor would be if they put 14 overweight, pale, 50 year old white dude's with thick glasses who cruise in windowless vans up there.
The only way the jury composition could be any more jilted in this molester's favor would be if they put 14 overweight, pale, 50 year old white dude's with thick glasses who cruise in windowless vans up there.
to get a lot of people with ties to the biggest industry in town. Can you imagine Jackie Sherrill going to trial in Starkville? Every potentialy juror they'd have to choose from would involved with MSU somehow.
They just need to get the trial moved.
But I will say this... this story is definitely one of my favorite's this week. We're going to see pictures from the trial when it's over and the jury is going to all be wearing Penn State jerseys.
A ****** paint fark for you... Weak sauce for sure.
</p>
They just need to get the trial moved.
But I will say this... this story is definitely one of my favorite's this week. We're going to see pictures from the trial when it's over and the jury is going to all be wearing Penn State jerseys.
A ****** paint fark for you... Weak sauce for sure.
</p>
If some pervert brought that much bad press on Mississippi State and caused the most beloved person in the history of the university to resign, he sure as hell wouldn't want me on the jury.<div>
</div><div>Why is everyone looking at this like they're going to take it easy on him? Surely they don't think that letting him off will somehow make this go away sooner or make the school look better.</div>
</div><div>Why is everyone looking at this like they're going to take it easy on him? Surely they don't think that letting him off will somehow make this go away sooner or make the school look better.</div>
This was my thought process as well. I'd be more inclined to hang this bastard for several reasons.<div>
</div><div>1. he's molesting kids in my town</div><div>2. heembarrassedthe **** out of my school</div><div>3. he brought shame on a legendary head coach forcing him to retire right before he dies.</div><div>
</div><div>Can you imagine if one of Bear's assistants did this and caused Bama to fire him? That dude would never make it to trial.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>1. he's molesting kids in my town</div><div>2. heembarrassedthe **** out of my school</div><div>3. he brought shame on a legendary head coach forcing him to retire right before he dies.</div><div>
</div><div>Can you imagine if one of Bear's assistants did this and caused Bama to fire him? That dude would never make it to trial.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
yeah, i'm not sure folks with direct ties to penn st are going to go lightly on sandusky.
also, like someone said, without the trial being moved, there is no way to avoid penn st ties.
also, like someone said, without the trial being moved, there is no way to avoid penn st ties.
People who look at this as a good thing for Sandusky aren't considering that this guy's alleged actions brought to an end one of the greatest coaching careers in the history of college football in a maelstrom of shame and disgrace that will tarnish his and the universities legacy forever and could be argued contributed to his death! If I were associated with PSU I would be out for blood.
In my work I deal with quite a few of them. I've found that they really don't like him for what he has done. But I think it's a combination of three things that make them act the way they have.
1. The treatment of Joe Pa
2. The negative publicity they feel this has caused the University
3. They feel theworld is picking on them and their school
I'll never forget we had an auditor in duringfootball season. I askedhim where he was from to which he answered PA. Of course my next question was are you a PSU grad. It was almostas if I offended him inasking the question...he simply repiled"You're damn right I am".
They have a very difficult time in dealing with the treatment of Paterno. </p>
1. The treatment of Joe Pa
2. The negative publicity they feel this has caused the University
3. They feel theworld is picking on them and their school
I'll never forget we had an auditor in duringfootball season. I askedhim where he was from to which he answered PA. Of course my next question was are you a PSU grad. It was almostas if I offended him inasking the question...he simply repiled"You're damn right I am".
They have a very difficult time in dealing with the treatment of Paterno. </p>
I assumed you shared the opinion of the article you linked. Some of those links are pretty shaky. One lady's husband used to work with a witness's father. I hardly know the people my wife works with, much less people she used to work with, and even less so those people's kids.<div>
</div><div>However, it does seem pretty ridiculous that someone who works for the athletic department would be on the jury, regardless of which direction his bias leans.</div>
</div><div>However, it does seem pretty ridiculous that someone who works for the athletic department would be on the jury, regardless of which direction his bias leans.</div>
However, to me the more pro-Penn State you are, the more anti-Sandusky you would be. <div>
</div><div>As to the above quote, if they think finding him not guilty will minimize the scandal, then the problem with them being on the jury isn't their bias, it's their complete lack of mental capacity to serve as a juror. That's completely idiotic.</div>
If the evidence is good enough, which I think it will be, then there will likely be enough people on the jury who hate this creep for tarnishing PSU and Joe Pa. They will convince anyone who is out of line hopefully.
The sad thing is, like Futaba pointed out, they will likely be convicting him more because he made the university look bad than because he brutally attacked some kids.
The sad thing is, like Futaba pointed out, they will likely be convicting him more because he made the university look bad than because he brutally attacked some kids.
if someone like this was tainting my university in the news, I would be more inclined to vote guilty. I would be even more mad at this dude. If he walks, he will try to associate himself with the university because they will have no evidence to keep him away from the campus.
• Juror 7: A male who is a Penn State rising senior who played for a high school football coach who hired Sandusky as a volunteer assistant. He also works for the Penn State athletic department part time and came to court wearing a PSU archery shirt.
If America was a nation that still took law & order seriously, there would be a huge uproar over this nonsense.
But since we have all come to accept the system is rigged to protect the privileged, you won't hear a peep.
If America was a nation that still took law & order seriously, there would be a huge uproar over this nonsense.
But since we have all come to accept the system is rigged to protect the privileged, you won't hear a peep.
Both of my parents are Penn State alum and feel the same way that most people on this board feel about him. If he is guilty (which is looking very likely) they want him to pay for it. My folks were in State College last week and people are claiming up there that the prosecutor has hand written love letters from Sandusky to the accusers. If so very sick and disturbing
You are right, though. Penn State people are mainly upset by the treatment of Joe Paterno. There is a movement going on right now by the alumnithat is trying to replace all acting members of the board of trustees (3 have already been replaced). They are also upset by the media's portrayal of the University (and Joe Paterno) as opposed to the treatment of Syracuse and Assistant Coach Bernie Fine who is accused of similar charges as Sandusky.
If they moved the trial, it wouldnt matter anyways. 85% of that state is pro Penn State, so unless they moved the trial toOhio,you would have sympathetic people to the school. I am a big Penn Sate fan myself and I want to let the system do what it is meant to do. If he isguilty then lock him up for good.
Just my take.
You are right, though. Penn State people are mainly upset by the treatment of Joe Paterno. There is a movement going on right now by the alumnithat is trying to replace all acting members of the board of trustees (3 have already been replaced). They are also upset by the media's portrayal of the University (and Joe Paterno) as opposed to the treatment of Syracuse and Assistant Coach Bernie Fine who is accused of similar charges as Sandusky.
If they moved the trial, it wouldnt matter anyways. 85% of that state is pro Penn State, so unless they moved the trial toOhio,you would have sympathetic people to the school. I am a big Penn Sate fan myself and I want to let the system do what it is meant to do. If he isguilty then lock him up for good.
Just my take.
he should have been treated very differently. I can agree that it may have been better to wait until after the trial of Sandusky tofire Paterno. After all, he was not accused of actually committing any of these crimes. On the other hand, I can see how the board of trustees would come to their decision for the sake of the university. It had to be an extremely difficult decision to make and one that they knew would end up causing a major **** storm.
With that being said,it is utterly amazing to hear people sayPaterno literally did nothing wrong in this matter.
With that being said,it is utterly amazing to hear people sayPaterno literally did nothing wrong in this matter.
Not a lawyer, but here's my understanding:
The prosecutor is basically asking for a change of venue because the citizens of the town where the victim and accused live, and where the alleged crime occured, might be prejudiced against the prosecution. the judge is saying 'tough ****', as he should, because those are his peers and it's the prosecutions job to convince them despite whatever prejudices they may have.
all it takes is one crazy fan in complete denial to get a hung jury, and that seems to be what Sandusky is gambling on. he's gonna die if he gets even a year in prison, or wish he did, so i can see why he's going for broke.
now if Sandusky were asking for the change in venue, it would very likely be granted.
The prosecutor is basically asking for a change of venue because the citizens of the town where the victim and accused live, and where the alleged crime occured, might be prejudiced against the prosecution. the judge is saying 'tough ****', as he should, because those are his peers and it's the prosecutions job to convince them despite whatever prejudices they may have.
all it takes is one crazy fan in complete denial to get a hung jury, and that seems to be what Sandusky is gambling on. he's gonna die if he gets even a year in prison, or wish he did, so i can see why he's going for broke.
now if Sandusky were asking for the change in venue, it would very likely be granted.
Dawghouse said:
No one is to blame for what happened to the head coach but the head coach himself. He could have ended all of this crap many years ago but he turned his back and let it continue. He shot himself in the foot on this one.
And that's actually how they convicted that guy. He was beloved in his town, so the DA requested a change of venue and got the trial moved 50 miles away to another town. It happens
didn't theyfine accusers drop their accusations, and at least 1 or 2 of them come out and say they made it all up? i'd say that has more to do with the difference in treatment than anything.GABully24 said:
I think you are right about one of the accusers saying he made it all up, but the other accuser has a taped phone conversation with Fine's wife with her admitting to have known about the affair.All the while,ESPN isabsolutely blasting Joe Paterno for not having done enough to prevent what happened at Penn State, and had been sitting on the taped conversation with Fine's wife for over 8 years. Definition of Hypocrisy.
The poster who said it couldn't be better for Sandusky unless held at a NAMBLA convention was right.
that was a town of ~6000. This case is in a town of ~100,000.
I think the standard is, determined by the Judge, whether a jury can be empanneled that will fairly weigh the evidence. that they may be sympathetic to the defendent is irrelevant, that they would be biased to the point of not considering the evidence would not. That standard would be entirely different if the defendent was asking for the change of venue. I probably should have said, the prosecutor has a much harder case to make for a change of venue, a much more difficult standard, but it can be done.
IMO, the very first question should be "Do you know who Jerry Sandusky is?" If they do, dismiss them. If there's not enough jurors left, change the venue.
i also saw a case where the prosecution was trying a sitting official, and their reasoning was that he had the power to affect the juror's lives directly out of retribution. anything that would indicate a jury would be influenced to reach a verdict at odds with what they truely believed would be grounds for moving the case for the prosecution.
though i still can't believe that someone from the PSU AD office is on the jury. that's just ridiculous. his employer has a vested interest in the outcome, so he should be dismissed.
I think the standard is, determined by the Judge, whether a jury can be empanneled that will fairly weigh the evidence. that they may be sympathetic to the defendent is irrelevant, that they would be biased to the point of not considering the evidence would not. That standard would be entirely different if the defendent was asking for the change of venue. I probably should have said, the prosecutor has a much harder case to make for a change of venue, a much more difficult standard, but it can be done.
IMO, the very first question should be "Do you know who Jerry Sandusky is?" If they do, dismiss them. If there's not enough jurors left, change the venue.
i also saw a case where the prosecution was trying a sitting official, and their reasoning was that he had the power to affect the juror's lives directly out of retribution. anything that would indicate a jury would be influenced to reach a verdict at odds with what they truely believed would be grounds for moving the case for the prosecution.
though i still can't believe that someone from the PSU AD office is on the jury. that's just ridiculous. his employer has a vested interest in the outcome, so he should be dismissed.
For one thing, nobody gives a **** about assistant coaches. The Sandusky story was always going to be a bigger deal than the Fine case because of Paterno's involvement. Almost all of the discussion about the Sandusky case was debating how Paterno handled the whole thing. If he hadn't known about it, it wouldn't have been nearly the story it was. Obviously everyone was appalled by what Sandusky did, but there's really not much to discuss there. Everyone agrees it was terrible and he should be at best thrown in jail forever, so what is there to talk about at that point?<div>
</div><div>Secondly, you're treating "ESPN" as if it is a single person. A few people associated with the show Outside the Lines knew about that tape you're referring to. The opinion makers on Sportscenter and ESPN Radio that, in your opinion, were "blasting Joe Paterno" have next to nothing to do with the Outside the Lines reporters. A radio host can't be considered a hypocrite for something someone in a completely different branch of his company said or did. That's an impossible standard.</div><div>
</div><div>Lastly, there have been some in the sports media that have heavily criticized the reporter who broke the Fine story for being overzealous and reporting an extremely flimsy story, yet you are accusing the company of not reporting it enough or hammering the point home enough.</div>
</div><div>Secondly, you're treating "ESPN" as if it is a single person. A few people associated with the show Outside the Lines knew about that tape you're referring to. The opinion makers on Sportscenter and ESPN Radio that, in your opinion, were "blasting Joe Paterno" have next to nothing to do with the Outside the Lines reporters. A radio host can't be considered a hypocrite for something someone in a completely different branch of his company said or did. That's an impossible standard.</div><div>
</div><div>Lastly, there have been some in the sports media that have heavily criticized the reporter who broke the Fine story for being overzealous and reporting an extremely flimsy story, yet you are accusing the company of not reporting it enough or hammering the point home enough.</div>
I'm not sure the Prosecution really wants a fair trial either. Sure they've requested a change of venue.... But how could you in good faith allow the jury makeup to stand?
Judge, Prosecution, Defense, Defendant.... all might just want to get this over and put it behind Penn State. I've worked with some Penn State folks. State college is a severly inward looking place. Sounds crazy right, but it's the type environment where thiskind of abusecan go on under watchful eyes for years and nobody does anything.
Judge, Prosecution, Defense, Defendant.... all might just want to get this over and put it behind Penn State. I've worked with some Penn State folks. State college is a severly inward looking place. Sounds crazy right, but it's the type environment where thiskind of abusecan go on under watchful eyes for years and nobody does anything.
Once the story broke and everyone knew about it, you can count ESPN as a single entity.Boeheim publicly lashed out at the accuser saying that they were "liars" and "out for money" before therecording came out. After the recordings were releasedFine was fired and there was no consequences for Boeheim. Why? He knew about the accusations, but chose to defenda suspected child molester.The reason is that ESPN wasn't going to make themselves look bad since they were involved in the wrongdoing.
In other words, you can only pick from what you've got. This isn't to say that the trial shouldn't have been moved to another jurisdiction, but when you are in one jurisdiction your venire (jury pool) is typically only drawn from your peers within that jurisdiction. There are exceptions but they are rare.<div>
</div><div>Typically what is done (at least in MS or TN) is the judge and lawyers question the jurors and the judge will kick off anyone he doesn't believe can be fair and impartial. The lawyers can then argue for more to be kicked off by the judge "for cause" but if unsuccessful, then they must use one of four strikes (per party) to remove the juror from the potential panel. After your strikes are used, you are stuck with the next juror irregardless of whether he/she was better or worse for your cause or you knew what you were getting. There is an art to it picking a jury and a lot of that is using your strikes effectively. </div><div>
</div><div>An example is Smith County, Mississippi, where Gene Tullos practices law. Because Gene Tullos does a large amount of free legal work in Smith County, a large majority of the populace has employed him and has a connection to him. Because of the limited population, it is virtually impossible to exclude all jurors without some connection to Mr. Tullos or his firm. As a result, if you're going to try a jury trial in Smith County against Gene Tullos, the cards are already stacked against you. </div><div>
</div><div></div>
</div><div>Typically what is done (at least in MS or TN) is the judge and lawyers question the jurors and the judge will kick off anyone he doesn't believe can be fair and impartial. The lawyers can then argue for more to be kicked off by the judge "for cause" but if unsuccessful, then they must use one of four strikes (per party) to remove the juror from the potential panel. After your strikes are used, you are stuck with the next juror irregardless of whether he/she was better or worse for your cause or you knew what you were getting. There is an art to it picking a jury and a lot of that is using your strikes effectively. </div><div>
</div><div>An example is Smith County, Mississippi, where Gene Tullos practices law. Because Gene Tullos does a large amount of free legal work in Smith County, a large majority of the populace has employed him and has a connection to him. Because of the limited population, it is virtually impossible to exclude all jurors without some connection to Mr. Tullos or his firm. As a result, if you're going to try a jury trial in Smith County against Gene Tullos, the cards are already stacked against you. </div><div>
</div><div></div>
Paterno did it to himself by not doing anything to prevent that sick 17 from hanging around Penn State's campus for an extra 10 years, molesting more kids along the way. There's no proof that he actively participated in a coverup, but he at least was aware that nothing was being done to arrest or prosecute Sandusky.<div>If Paterno had 1/10th of the integrity and character he claimed to have, this would have been over a decade ago. It would have been embarrassing to Paterno and the university, but it wouldn't have destroyed his legacy.<div>
</div><div>If the jurors decide to convict Sandusky because they blame him for Paterno's fall from grace, their priorities are way out of whack. They should throw the book at him for destroying those kids' lives, not any misplaced personal vendettas over their hero turning out to be a scumbag.</div><div>
</div><div>Unfortunately, all Sandusky's defense has to do is convince one of those delusional cultists that acquitting him will restore their Savior's memory, or some BS like that, and Sandusky doesn't go to jail (hopefully it would be a hung jury and they could find a better location to try him again). It's sickening.</div> </div>
</div><div>If the jurors decide to convict Sandusky because they blame him for Paterno's fall from grace, their priorities are way out of whack. They should throw the book at him for destroying those kids' lives, not any misplaced personal vendettas over their hero turning out to be a scumbag.</div><div>
</div><div>Unfortunately, all Sandusky's defense has to do is convince one of those delusional cultists that acquitting him will restore their Savior's memory, or some BS like that, and Sandusky doesn't go to jail (hopefully it would be a hung jury and they could find a better location to try him again). It's sickening.</div> </div>
First of all, ESPN and other media raked Fine and Syracuse through the coals right away, even though there were obvious holes in the accusers' stories. Fine even lost his job.<div>
</div><div>Eventually all of the accusers recanted. Fine and his wife are now suing ESPN.</div><div>
</div><div>Not a remotely similar situation, even though ESPN treated it like it was at first.</div>
</div><div>Eventually all of the accusers recanted. Fine and his wife are now suing ESPN.</div><div>
</div><div>Not a remotely similar situation, even though ESPN treated it like it was at first.</div>
