Tuesday in Court - What we can expect
by aurabass on Dec 12, 2011 1:57 AM EST
Email
PrintTuesday has the potential to be a huge day for Penn State, Joe Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz - particularly if Mike McQueary and or Dr Jonathan Dranov M.D.take the stand. If you are unfamiliar with the peculiarities of PA law as I am you will benefit from this.
A hearing of this nature is far more important in Pennsylvania than it is in 48 other states. This is not an arraignment but a full blown hearing to determine if the case is strong enough for trial. Therefor the prosecution will have to put on their witnesses to establish the basis for their case. This way we should learn far more about the particulars.
Reporters continue to emphasize Mike McQueary as a key witness. Mike is going to have to tell what he saw and said in public for the first time and we will know far more by Wednesday morning than we do now. Follow me below the jump to see what took for from this hearing:
The complete article can be seen here:
SANDUSKY IN COURT THIS TIME WITH ACCUSERS Judge Will Decide if Case Goes Forward ; Small Pennsylvania Town Readies for 'Our O.J. Trial'
This hearing on Tuesday is not an arraignment and is unusual because PA—like one other state, Connecticut—doesn't let grand juries indict suspects. Instead, the prosecutors must convince a judge at a preliminary hearing that the case is worth taking to trial. The prosecution must present enough evidence to persuade the judge that the case should go to trial. But, if the prosecution holds back too much, the judge could simply dismiss the case.
"The bar is low, but the risk is high if they fail," says Wesley Oliver, a professor at the Widener College of Law in Harrisburg, Pa. "For that reason, what you'll see is almost a like full trial proceeding."For the first time several alleged victims are expected to testify and confront Sandusky. Lawyers for the alleged victims say their clients want to take the stand.
"My client is ready to testify," says Jeffrey P. Fritz, who represents one of the eight alleged victims in the grand jury's report.Mike McQueary will likely testify and we will finally get to know the full and accurate truth about what he saw and said.
Also expected to testify is the state's key witness, assistant Penn State coach Mike McQueary, who, according to the grand-jury report, said he saw Mr. Sandusky rape a young boy in a Penn State shower in 2002 and relayed that to athletic director Tim Curley and a campus vice president, Gary Schultz. "He's nervous, but he's also ready to rebut what Jerry Sandusky and his wife have been saying." .The drama from the preliminary hearing will likely come from Sandusky's lawyer, questioning the witnesses. Rules prohibit Amendola from raising issues about their credibility.
There is a possibility that the charges concerning Victim 2 will not be held for court if Victim 2 is not available or if he denies abuse That would be the end of the case against Curley and Schultz and would set up the vindication of Joe Paterno and the Penn State administration.."You'll probably see him pushing, and the judge pushing back," says Mr. Fritz.
Mr. Amendola fully expects the case to go to trial. "We anticipate many of the charges will be held for court, not because Jerry is guilty, but only because this is a probable-cause proceeding at which credibility is not in play," he said in a lengthy email interview.The prosecutor has been named and he has experience with Catholic abusers
Joseph E. McGettigan, a former Philadelphia assistant district attorney, has been appointed as a special prosecutor in this case by state Attorney General Linda Kelly. Mr. McGettigan couldn't be reached for comment. One of the 62-year-old Mr. McGettigan's specialties is sexual-abuse cases; he once prosecuted a Catholic priest in such a case. The priest pleaded guilty.McQueary has not made public comment since the Grand Jury presentment and there is only the email to teammates. The perjury charges against Curley and Schultz will not be heard until Friday but this hearing will be very important for them due to McQueary's testimony. Depending on what he says there may not be a case against Curley and Schultz.
"We have not seen the grand jury transcript, so it would be imprudent to comment on its content," Caroline Roberto and Tom Farrell, attorneys for Messrs. Cruley and Schultz, said in a statement. "But, if this information is true, and we believe it is, it would be powerful, exculpatory evidence, and the charges against our clients should be dismissed."
We may be able to celebrate on Tuesday night for two reasons. First if the victims are credible we may see a clear path to conviction for Jerry Sandusky and Second we may find ample reason to vindicate Joe Paterno and Penn State University because it will be evident that they did the right thing.
.It's a shame that there will be no cameras in the courtroom because seeing the body language and hearing voice stress would benefit and inform us. We have to depend on accurate reporting from the media free from characterization to get an impression of credibiliy. We don't need a summary - we need the exact testimony and wording. Despite that I'm looking forward to Tuesday's results to further inform our impressions of the situation for JoePa and PSU.
If we do not get a complete picture on Tuesday, because Tuesday is mostly about Sandusky. It is quite definite that Friday's hearing on the Perjury and Failure to Report charges against Curley and Schultz wiill certainly feature Mike McQueary and Dr. Jonathan Dranov M.D. along with Tim Curley and Gary Schultz testimony concerning what Mike said to them. This week is as big as it gets in this case for JoePa and PSU.
Aww, look at you. You created a Fanpost! Any content from a premium site that requires a subscription will be deleted once we catch wind of it. If you simply want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using Fanshots instead. Thanks.
21 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"We don't need a summary - we need the exact testimony and wording."
This is so true.
I’ve said it many times how the Pgh media have for years had it in for PSU and Joe. Whatever they could do to portray PSU & Joe in a bad light, they would do it. So I would read their articles and the quotes from Joe and sometimes cringe at what Joe said at his press conferences. He sounded like a jerk many times. Then a few years ago the Post-Gazette screwed up and started posting online the ENTIRE press conference transcript (they no longer do this). So naturally I would read it and was amazed at how benign the quotes really were when I read them in context that used to make me cringe.
Also, as you said, we have to depend on accurate reporting from the media, free of any biases. Good luck and God help us with that one!
So what were to happen...
If McQueary sticks to his guns about what he said in the GJ transcript and says he actually saw the rape, then Dranov continues to insist that McQueary’s story in 2002 was very different? The reason I ask is because I can definitely see it playing out like that… I really hope we get some solid answers this week but I’m afraid the situation won’t change much for Curley/Shultz/Paterno if it comes down to a “he said, he said” issue.
by Domin8ing the Big Ten(11) on Dec 12, 2011 9:40 AM EST reply actions
Not necessarily
The perjury charges hinge on what McQueary told Curley and Schultz, not on what he told Dranov. If McQueary confirms the reports about what he told Dranov, but continues to insist he gave Curley and Schultz more details, the perjury charges could still go forward. That being said, if McQueary or others do in fact confirm that he gave conflicting accounts to different people, then his credibility likely takes a hit and I think the perjury charges will probably go away.
That which we are, WE ARE...PENN STATE.
Forever.
by Nittany_Ryan on Dec 12, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
I'd rather see what's actually presented on Friday before passing judgement.
We’re all assuming that the perjury charge will be based on what’s in the presentment – I wouldn’t guarantee that there wouldn’t be additional testimony that isn’t even mentioned.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 12, 2011 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
He said what if Dranov continues to insist MM's story was different.
If that is the case, there is no way the charges stick.
Could this also open up McQueary to perjury charges?
If he did tell 2 very different accounts of what he saw, he had to have been lying to someone at some point… if Dranov insists on his version, could that not potentially lead to perjury charges for McQueary?
by Domin8ing the Big Ten(11) on Dec 12, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
McQueary has only told one version while under oath.
What he said in other venues doesn’t really matter.
I’ll tell you why. Because we’re talking about Joe Freaking Paterno here.
-Jitterbug
by leeharvey418 on Dec 12, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The Credited Response.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Dec 12, 2011 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
Since we only have the prosecutor's summary version of MM's testimony
we have no idea exactly what he said under oath
He could have simply answered yes to a leading question including exculpatory wording
example"
Did you think it likely that Sandusky was anal raping the young boy from the sounds you heard?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Vindication
we may find ample reason to vindicate Joe Paterno and Penn State University because it will be evident that they did the right thing.
Yeah, I don’t know about that. While the moral grandstanding about this has been way over the top, there could be evidence that saying Joe/PSU could have done more is a valid argument. Again, let’s wait for as much information as possible to come out.
exactly why i use the word "may" in the statement
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
But Joe saying "In hindsight..."
I wish I had done more." Sort of implies that he could have done more. In fact, it can hardly ever be said that someone couldn’t do more when talking about anything.
For example, I could be doing more to advance my career right now by working well into the night. Someone saying that I could do more would be 100% correct. Someone saying that I should do more might also be correct. And if you thought it was possible that I started work at 3pm, you might also think I should do more. However, I have a feeling that most people would think I had done sufficient work today if they found out that I had worked from 9am to 9pm… even if I could be doing better things than posting here.
The extent of Joe’s knowledge of the situation certainly determines whether it is reasonable to think he should have done more. And, unfortunately, that’s a moving target. Not to mention, I think everyone has enjoyed their conspiracy theories too much to give up on them that easy… which is the uphill climb any exoneration of Joe, Curley, or Schultz is going to have to climb when it comes to public opinion (after all, Joe is not on trial, as much as the media treated him like he is).
I’ve said a few times… Occam’s Razor… the easiest explanation for why so many people at PSU did nothing is that: 1) pedophiles are good at hiding it, and 2) McQueary isn’t being 100% accurate about what he told everyone. And there’s a lot of reasons, many completely subconscious or at least not consciously malicious, that McQueary might make comments that make his reaction/story sound better or more self-assured than it really was… especially with the amount of time he’s had to think about it (I’m not a lawyer, but I am a psychologist, there’s so many shortcuts we take and biases we allow in daily life it isn’t even funny). Then there’s also the fact that the GJ summary is not McQueary’s actual testimony and various reasons a DA might try to tie PSU into the charges (especially if they were hoping that the GJ summary and circus-like press conference might flush out more witnesses that would directly strengthen their case against PSU).
I’ll be glad to finally get some new information about this case, but unfortunately, I don’t think anything that comes out is going to exonerate Joe… I’m a negative Nancy on this, but everyone will just assume that Joe still had to know more because of his ‘god-like status’ and ‘immeasurable power.’ A made up mind isn’t going to change. It may, however, allow those who have reserved judgment or given Joe the benefit of the doubt to finally make up their mind about whether he has deserved that opportunity. Are there enough people out there still in these camps that it will really matter? I’m skeptical…
by BNittsDeMilo on Dec 12, 2011 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
Well Joe is exonerated if and when the victim 2 charges are dropped
preferably when victim 2 testifies that he was not molested.
That is exoneration but it may not alter the perception of a significant number of the public. The damage to his reputation may never be undone, but Penn State can and should make every effort to undo the damage done when he was fired by the Board of Trustees.
A public apology and several large scale events celebrating his tenure and his “retirement” should show the public that Penn State is behind him and fully apologetic for what has been done. The University should take out a full page advertisement in USA Today and on every PSU publication explaining why Joe is not guilty of any moral or legal lapse acknowledging the mistake by the BOT.
This type of action will go along way in altering public opinion. They could even do television ads on ESPN in place of the pieces that run during every ballgame for each opposing school.
Depending on what happens in the two hearings Tue and Fri this week, I think there is a good chance that the Victim 2 charges might be not go to trial and the perjury charges will be dropped. The University should take advantage of that to tell the country that essentially ends all speculation that there was anything that could have been done to stop Sandusky over the 2002 incident.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Dec 13, 2011 4:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Question for PA attorneys
Would Danov’s testimony about what McQueary allegedly told Danov be admissible? It seems like hearsay that wouldn’t fall under any exceptions that I can think of.
not sure that it's hearsay. He's not saying it to prove that inappropriate conduct happened, he's saying to prove that he was told what he was told.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
Nothing in the GJ investigation is admissible until it is presented to the presiding judge.
If the prosecution wants to use any testimony from the GJ investigation, those people or that evidence will have to be presented in court anew. They cannot use transcripts from the GJ investigation in court.
His legacy is US. The legacy of the young men who he took from a variety of backgrounds, races, religions, economic circumstances and set on a right path, and that's the legacy. WE ARE... the legacy, not his 409 wins and certainly not this incident." -Jimmy Cefalo
I think you misunderstood
My question wasn’t about the transcripts, it was on whether Danov would be allowed to testify as to his conversation with McQueary.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Black Shoe Diaries
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
