I'm posting because I'm curious about opinions on this and I was hoping BSD Wentworth might be able to help me understand why a judge might not grant Amendola an extension.
I fully understand the 5th amendment and that Curley/Schultz are simply not going to testify in this case as long as they have charges pending. I should also say that although I've stated that I don't think Sandusky is completely innocent here, I do think the justice system should play out in a way that is both fair to the prosecution and defendant.
If the state's star witness is Mike McQueary and he is unable to convince a jury that Curley/Schultz are lying, then their testimony certainly applies in this situation, especially anything Curley/Schultz might have said to Sandusky in the aftermath of the incident MM witnessed. I want to hear that, so should a jury, and, on the surface, so should a judge interested in ensuring the justice system plays out the way it is intended. If Curley/Schultz are convicted of perjury, then I'm much more inclined to believe MM's version of events (and obviously more likely to ignore Curley/Schultz), which significantly strengthens the prosecutions case.
I get that our justice system is based on the accused's right to a fair and expedient trial (haha!). But it would seem that this is a case where the two are working against one another. And it seems to me, that if the defense would prefer to delay the trial a reasonable amount believing they will get a more fair trial, then why not allow it? After all, if the state can prove their case against Curley/Schultz, then Sandusky's defense actually has MORE to lose by waiting.
Don's tinfoil hat: Possible that the perjury charges were filed as a way to make MM's testimony seem more legit in the public eye knowing that it was further possible that it would keep Curley/Schultz's testimony in the Sandusky case out of a courthouse?