Jerry Sandusky is being considered for a new hearing that may get him a reduced sentencing term on his original charges. The Pennsylvania appeals court heard testimony from Sandusky’s lawyers claiming a new trial because of insufficient time to prepare for the case. In addition, they argued the judged bungled instructing the jury on the verdict.
Sandusky 60-years-old was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in a Pennsylvania state institution last year. He was convicted on 45 counts. The sexual abuse charges were brought when it was discovered he showered with youth using university facilities. Individuals later stepped forward of other abuse allegations which landed Sandusky in trouble with officials.
Sandusky’s lawyer, Norris Gelman, argued that the judge in the previous trail did not expound upon the reporting time of the victims to the jury. He was of the opinion that the victims waited too long to raise accusations against his client. The lawyers argued that in some allegations the reporting time was greater than 10 years. The statute of limitations may become relevant in many report times related to specific crimes.
Jerry Sandusky may get a new hearing if the appeals judge rule in his favor. The superior court judges did not give indications on when they would rule on the issue. Critics contend that Sandusky’s lawyers are only participating in legal maneuvering and have no firm cause for argument. “All of the concepts that needed to be conveyed to this jury were conveyed to them,” said James Barker, Office of Attorney General.
Sandusky’s lawyers believed the trail was rushed do to the pressure of the media and public appeal. They contend the prosecution railroaded them into a predicament that clearly should have been given additional time for evidence gathering. Gelman made statements that the prosecution overwhelmed the defense with paperwork without consideration of the defense timelines for preparation.
The prosecution in the previous trial stated that the documents presented to the defense were an adequate amount for trail and that anything else asked for were inconsequential to the proceedings of the case. Barker stated the material given to the defense could be place in two boxes, the size of the boxes were not indicated.
After the previous trial one of Sandusky’s lawyers made statements to the fact that nothing in the records would have changed the approach by the defense to the trial. Appeals judge jack Panella questioned Gelman in reference to the remark. “That’s after the fact, that’s long after the fact,” Gelman said. “During the trial he was flying blind – – a bad way to try a case.”
With the legal maneuverings o f his lawyers Jerry Sandusky may get a new trial hearing and could possibly get a reduced sentencing with time served. The appeals courts have the issue under consideration and have been analyzing all the angles of the previous ruling. If substantial errors are discovered the judges may rule in Sandusky’s favor.
By Thomas Barr