Thursday, June 14, 2012

The Trial

I've waited a few days before weighing in on the Sandusky trial in Bellefonte, so here it is.

I realize that while the prosecution is presenting its case, things look grim for the defendant.  However, I couldn't see one positive for the defense all week-- not in the opening statement, not in the cross examination of witnesses.  It was devastating.

It might be possible to discredit an alleged victim or two.  He'll never be able to knock down all eight-- plus the people who corroborate their stories.

Jurors were seen crying on Tuesday.  To many, it's a sign they bought the alleged victim's story.

I've been thinking, why did Sandusky and defense attorney Joe Amendola take this to trial?  What do they know?  What do they see that the rest of us don't?  There has to be a crack somewhere in the prosecution case.   ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams might have nailed it during Tuesday's World News broadcast.  Maybe there was no plea deal.  The prosecution said to Sandusky, you have a choice-- plead to everything or go on trial.

I used the words of an ESPN legal analyst in a Tuesday morning report on Newswatch 16.  He thought the jury could be confused by the huge number of criminal counts-- 52, and that could be good for the defense.  For Sandusky & Co., it was the only bright spot in a bad week.

Not only is it a bad week for Jerry Sandusky.  It's a bad week for an already battered Pennsylvania State University.  I'm sure the Sandusky trial will shed some light on what happened there, and what happened there.  We'll learn more about what Curley, Schultz, and Paterno knew.  Now, there's talk of former PSU President Graham Spanier involved in the cover up.  This is bound to get worse-- a lot worse, before it gets better.