Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated

[Tom]

The state didn't even try to present a case against Spanier. And they called witnesses that directly contradicted each other!

[tjb]

It's the same case everyone has presented: They must have covered it up.

It might be enough!

[Tom]

That's the sad part. It might be enough.

[Tom]

Defense In Graham Spanier Case Rests Without Calling One Witness

[mjg]

I wonder if Curley's informal agreement to be spared jail for home arrest if he gets jail time is jeopardized by this ....

Is it the same judge? Given the mockery made by the prosecution, the judge should toss out those pleas and send everyone home. If anything can be read into the jury instructions given by the judge (based on someone's post, so who knows how accurate), it seems like he was telling the jury that the prosecution didn't do enough (ironic words) to prove their case.

[tjb]

If anything can be read into the jury instructions given by the judge (based on someone's post, so who knows how accurate), it seems like he was telling the jury that the prosecution didn't do enough (ironic words) to prove their case.

Where is that?

By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net

One of the issues with obsessively following this is everyone chooses different facts to report. This one is great - it shows that Spanier's attorney raised the issue of whether the law applied to him:

Silver returned to the language of the child endangerment statute. To find Spanier guilty, Silver said, the jury would have to conclude that the government had presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Spanier had "knowingly violated" his duty of care to the welfare of children that he was supposedly supervising.

"Graham was not aware that children's welfare would be endangered," Silver said. To find Spanier guilty, the jury would have to conclude that Spanier was supervising the welfare of Second Mile victims abused by Sandusky, many of whom were visitors to the Penn State campus.

The jury would also have to find that Spanier had acted "knowingly, intentionally and recklessly" when he allegedly interfered or prevented anyone from reporting a suspected crime of child sex abuse.

Another element to the crime of child endangerment, Silver said, was that the jury would have to find that in the course of performing his official duties, that Spanier "came into contact with that child" he had allegedly endangered, namely the boy in the showers. Because the child endangerment statute required that Spanier would have had to knowingly endangered the welfare of a child he was supervising.

[tjb]

Jack Stripling (jackstripling)

[tjb]

Matt Maisel (Matt_Maisel)

[Skeeza]

That's the sad part. It might be enough.

So, you think he is innocent?

[Tom]

I think the state did absolutely nothing to prove all the aspects of EWOC that they needed to prove to get a conviction.

I mean the state attorney focused on calling her own witnesses "criminals" during closing arguments instead of focusing on why Spanier is guilty.

[tjb]

I mean the state attorney focused on calling her own witnesses "criminals" during closing arguments instead of focusing on why Spanier is guilty.

Do you have access to a transcript?

[tjb]

Matt Maisel (Matt_Maisel)

[Tom]

Do you have access to a transcript?

No, I just pulled that out of that bigtrial.net article:

"Gary Schultz and Tim Curley are not our star witnesses," she said, "They're criminals." And you can't count on criminals to tell you that they knowingly committed crimes.

[tjb]

Thought you might have some better insight that led you to say she focused on the criminality of those two instead of focusing on Spanier. What we get from trial coverage is necessarily selective.

I wonder what weight the jury will give to the documentary evidence (which is old and boring) versus the sworn testimony (which is new and exciting - to use, anyway, and the journalists).

A refresher on the documentary evidence:

1998

• Schultz notes from May 4, 1998 about the 1998 investigation (presumably from the police) "at best inappropriate - at worst sexual improprieties" and May 5 "is this opening of pandora's box? Other children?"

  
  
  
  
  
  5/5/1998 pp 3 and 4:
  
  

• A May 6, 1998 email reply from Schultz to Curley updates Curley that DPW will interview with Sandusky; Curley's original email said he had touched base with coach

• A May 13, 1998 email from Curley to Schultz says "Coach is anxious to know where it stands". Curley seeks another update on May 18, and again on May 30.

• A June 9, 1998 email that includes the text of a June 1 email from PSU Police Director Thomas Harmon to Schultz:

  

• June 9, 1998: Schultz writes to Curley:

1998 Summary: That's it for 1998. Schultz was well informed, according to his notes.

Schultz, Curley, Spanier and presumably Paterno* were aware of the 1998 allegation; Spanier was copied on the May 6 Schultz email about the pending DPW interview and the June 9 Schultz "hope it is now behind us" email; Curley expressed much interest in the investigation; the investigation seemed to be definitive (not criminal) and Schultz was told that Jerry did this kind of stuff with other children in the past.

2001

• Feb. 12 Schultz note that @unclelar referenced above, "unless he confesses", DPW.
  

• Feb 25, 2001 Schultz note. No mention of "unless he confesses", just three-part plan - 1. No kids in Lasch, 2. Report to DPW, 3. Tell TSM chair. Feb. 12 Schultz email check with Harmon that the 1998 incident is documented.

• Schultz Feb. 26 email to Curley, again no mention of optional contact of DPW.

• Feb. 27, 2001 email to Spanier from Curley and Spanier's response: Curley wants to confront Sandusky and tell him they think he has a problem and have a responsibility to inform TSM and "maybe the other one" (presumably the state). "If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization." Spanier's response the same day: acceptable to him, and the downside is that "we become vulnerable for not having reported it" if the message isn't heard.

  

• Feb. 28 Schultz email to Spanier and Curley signing off on not informing DPW.

  

2001 Summary Jerry needs to "confess" to something. Plan is to notify agency if he doesn't. Later notes from Schultz, including email, drop the optional part. Tim thinks about it,. talks to Joe, decides to confront Jerry directly with the plan that they all sign off on: No kids in Lasch, seek professional help, inform TSM "and maybe the other" organization.

---

*(I think that the 1998 emails contradicts Paterno's grand jury testimony that he was not aware of the 1998 case was a big turning point in the public perception of Paterno.)

[Tom]

This would be the "wear swimming trunks next time" testimony

Angela Couloumbis (AngelasInk)

[MarkH]

The longer the Jury deliberates, does that portend a bad strategy by the defense to go ahead and only present a closing argument? If I'm Spanier, I'm beginning to question the strategy of not presenting "MY" side of the story to the jury the longer this thing goes.

[tjb]

If I'm Spanier, I'm beginning to question the strategy of not presenting "MY" side of the story to the jury the longer this thing goes.

The "conventional wisdom" is that the longer a jury deliberates, the better it is for the defense. The theory is that it suggests doubt.

Like "common sense", the conventional wisdom is often wrong.

[rwd5035]

The longer the Jury deliberates, does that portend a bad strategy by the defense to go ahead and only present a closing argument? If I'm Spanier, I'm beginning to question the strategy of not presenting "MY" side of the story to the jury the longer this thing goes.

That's certainly one outcome that I think can be speculated on at this point. If it was as much of a home run as believed for the defense, then a quicker verdict would've been preferred I think.

[tjb]

They've only been going for five hours or so. We've spent longer than that on whether intentionally fouling when up three in the waning seconds is a good strategy.

[rwd5035]

They've been going for closer to 10 hours. Began yesterday afternoon and started at 9 this morning.