Sandusky And Charges, Disgraced former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky said in December at a preliminary hearing in Bellefonte, Pa. that he and his defense team would "stay the course for four full quarters," a reference to his legal strategy in the wake of 52 charges of sexual abuse of 10 boys over a 15-year period.
Sandusky's attorney, Joseph Amendola, waged a fourth-quarter blitz, filing a motion Thursday in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County (Pa.) asking that all 52 charges be dismissed. He argued in the filing that many of the counts contain "non-specific allegations," that the statute of limitations has expired with regard to eight alleged victims' allegations and that the prosecution has failed to turn over enough information for Sandusky to adequately prepare for his defense.
Amendola also asked to delay the start of the trial, scheduled to begin May 14.
A spokesman for the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, which filed the charges against Sandusky in November, said the motion was "expected," and that it is “being reviewed and we will respond to the court."
In the motion, Amendola argues that 38 of the counts "lack specificity and are so generalized that they fail to adequately provide the defendant with sufficient notice to prepare his defense to those charges and violate his right to due process."
With regard to three of the alleged victims, Amendola argues that the prosecution "cannot present sufficient evidence at (Sandusky's) trial to warrant presenting certain charges to the jury for its consideration."
One of those alleged victims is the person Penn State receivers coach Mike McQueary said under oath that he saw being sodomized by Sandusky in a university shower in 2002, when the alleged victim was a boy. Amendola writes that McQueary, who was a graduate assistant at the time of the alleged incident, was the only witness and that his testimony at a December preliminary hearing for two other former PSU administrators charged in connection to the scandal, "did not establish sufficient evidence to support these charges."
Amendola writes that accusations brought by eight of the victims should be tossed, saying the alleged offenses "allegedly occurred prior to the effective date of an enlarged statute of limitations which became effective on August 27, 2002 and the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the commission of defendant's alleged illegal conduct had run prior to the Commonwealth filing charges."
The 95-page motion also delves into some of the key aspects of the scandal, including Amendola's argument that certain statements by law enforcement officials should be suppressed in connection to a 1998 investigation of Sandusky that never produced any charges because Sandusky was not "advised" of his Miranda and other constitutional rights. He also argues that authorities who conducted a search warrant on Sandusky's State College home last summer "did not have legally sufficient probable cause to obtain such a search warrant."
Amendola argues for an individual voir dire of prospective jurors and that prospective jurors be sequestered during the selection process so they won't be influenced by any media coverage.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/jerry-sandusky-lawyer-asks-judge-dismiss-52-charges-sexual-abuse-penn-state-assistant-article-1.1049259#ixzz1px7T7NdV
Posts
