I know there are a lot of lawyers on this board, so there are a few technical legal questions I thought might be worth discussing in our little corner of the internet.
First, after taking a closer look through reports on the testimony (yesterday's in particular), it seems like Amendola is letting a lot of damaging stuff into the record that he should be objecting to. Letting the witness speculate about what Tom Bradley was thinking was particularly egregious, but there were a couple of other spots where I was left thinking, "How is Amendola letting this into the record?" At first, I just laughed it off as Amendola being the crazy, not particularly good attorney we all thought he was back in the winter.
But I was just talking to a friend who's a trial lawyer, and she brought up an interesting point: could Amendola be leaving the door open for Sandusky to make an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the event of a conviction? It sounded like a crazy theory at first, but Amendola was so epically ineffective yesterday, I can't discount the possibility.
What do the JD's in the room think? If Amendola lets enough objectionable prejudicial material onto the record, could Sandusky be walking free a year from now, released from prison thanks to a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim?