cabiness42 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Was there every really any chance that he would? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) Was there every really any chance that he would? I still don't know how he could possibly have a successful defense without him on the stand, unless the old "protect penn state" happens to the jury.l Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 If he is acquitted the federal government will step in and correct the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 One of the jurors called in sick on the last day. Her replacement is a recent PSU grad, Sandusky spoke at her graduation. Combined with Sandusky not testifying, can't help but sense something shady in the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) I still don't know how he could possibly have a successful defense without him on the stand, unless the old "protect penn state" happens to the jury.l Frankly, the defense was, first, to intimidate the witnesses (but that didn't seem to work) and, second, hope that the jury won't convict (which is still possible). Otherwise, it doesn't seem that they ever denied that the contact occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:55 AM) If he is acquitted the federal government will step in and correct the situation. Yup, they have him flying over state lines for rape. If the PSU jury finds his innocent they will finally be confirmed as the laughing stock of the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 http://deadspin.com/5919859/pedobear-shows...sanduskys-trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) Yup, they have him flying over state lines for rape. If the PSU jury finds his innocent they will finally be confirmed as the laughing stock of the country. Unless those charges are included in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Double jeopardy gets really tricky in these cases. I think Sandusky gets convicted of something in this trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 12:57 PM) Unless those charges are included in this case. This is a state-level trial for now. Crossing state borders would have to be a federal charge, if I understand it correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 02:21 PM) This is a state-level trial for now. Crossing state borders would have to be a federal charge, if I understand it correctly. You do. And the Feds have already made noise about bringing charges against him. If he's in jail for life thanks to the state they probably won't bother, but it sure seems like they probably have a case sitting there waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Its complicated. Something across state lines should almost always be federal jurisdiction. But there is a possibility that there was some state law "illegal transportation of a minor" that could potentially bar the federal claim. Without seeing a federal complaint, its impossible to guess whether double jeopardy would be a problem. I also wouldnt be so sure that the federal govt will be the knight in shining armor. 2nd Mile had a lot of rich/famous people, the govt doesnt always want to go down that rabbit hole. Or at least not during an election year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Its complicated. Something across state lines should almost always be federal jurisdiction. But there is a possibility that there was some state law "illegal transportation of a minor" that could potentially bar the federal claim. Without seeing a federal complaint, its impossible to guess whether double jeopardy would be a problem. I also wouldnt be so sure that the federal govt will be the knight in shining armor. 2nd Mile had a lot of rich/famous people, the govt doesnt always want to go down that rabbit hole. Or at least not during an election year. Double jeopardy doesn't apply to different sovereigns. Regardless of the state laws, the federal suit can continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Yeah I was confusing multiple counts (substantially related) with 2 sovereign entities. Im not a criminal lawyer so I should have researched it first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Judge has thrown out 3 of the 51 remaining counts, so the jury is going to get to deliberate "only" 48 counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 It gets worse. His adopted son says he was a victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) It gets worse. His adopted son says he was a victim. I really thought it couldn't get any worse. It did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) It gets worse. His adopted son says he was a victim. Good Lord. I just read that he was prepared to testify. I can't fathom why he wasn't called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) Good Lord. I just read that he was prepared to testify. I can't fathom why he wasn't called. He probably came forward after the prosecution rested. He would have been used if Sandusky testified to how much he cared about his children, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 From the Tribune article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-...0,6833033.story The session began with Judge John Cleland giving final instructions to jurors ahead of the deliberations, telling them a sex abuse conviction must be based on more than whether a child "feels uncomfortable." "The critical issue is not that the child feels uncomfortable ... the issue is not what the child felt, the issue is what the adult intended," he said. That instruction definitely favors Sandusky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:30 PM) From the Tribune article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-...0,6833033.story That instruction definitely favors Sandusky. What a bunch of s***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:30 PM) From the Tribune article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-...0,6833033.story That instruction definitely favors Sandusky. That depends, is it "uncomfortable" to be forcibly raped? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 01:30 AM) That instruction definitely favors Sandusky. Nah, no way to apply any innocent intention behind the things he's accused of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 QUOTE (G&T @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) He probably came forward after the prosecution rested. He would have been used if Sandusky testified to how much he cared about his children, etc. That has to be it, but I wonder if he could still have been called to rebut similar testimony from the wife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I read a tweet last night saying he told the grand jury initially that he was not abused so if he were to testify otherwise it could lead to perjury charges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.