E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMike McQueary's father failed to recall his own earlier testimony that was intended to corroborate his son's testimony at Jerry Sandusky's trial. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.
ANALYSIS
It was an odd moment in court Wednesday when Jerry Sandusky's lawyer was shut down while cross-examining Mike McQueary's father.
Wes Oliver is a professor at Widener University who teaches criminal law and procedure. This fall he will join the faculty of the Duquesne University School of Law as a professor and director of the school's criminal justice program.Defense counsel Karl Rominger started by asking John McQueary whether he remembered his testimony during a preliminary hearing in the criminal case involving perjury charges against former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and former senior vice president Gary Schultz. John McQueary didn't recall that testimony.
This isn't a terribly rare occurrence. Witnesses who have testified frequently forget appearances. Those new to litigation don't always remember the names the legal system assigns to the proceedings in which they testified.
When John McQueary testified that he didn't recall the preliminary hearing, Karl Rominger showed him the transcript of his testimony.
Read the full transcript of the December 2011 hearing (.pdf)
This is a common tactic, and it usually works quite well. But McQueary still didn't recall the proceeding.
Lawyers on cross-examination are accustomed to such eventualities. One easy response is to restate the question, vaguely describing the earlier proceeding: "Did you recall testifying in December that ..."
Rominger, however, seemed like a deer in the headlights. He consulted his co-counsel, Joe Amendola. He then tried to ask McQueary again about the preliminary hearing, specifically referring to the proceeding McQueary said he couldn't remember.
It didn't help that Rominger might have confused McQueary by mischaracterizing the hearing when he first asked about it, calling it "this other grand jury in Dauphin County." The December hearing wasn't, in fact, a grand jury session — it was a preliminary hearing before a judge in a separate but related case.
Alleged victim testifies Sandusky threatened him unless he kept quiet
Full coverage of the Jerry Sandusky trial
Judge John Cleland was clearly frustrated with Rominger, who seemed lost as how to proceed. On Tuesday, he had demonstrated similar frustration with Rominger, whose cross-examination seemed to go nowhere.
On Wednesday, Cleland pointedly instructed Rominger that the witness didn't remember this hearing and to move on.
Judges often give counsel some latitude when witnesses are confused, but they have extraordinary discretion to limit the scope of cross-examination. They have not only to ensure that each side gets a fair shake but also to manage the case, to keep the case moving. Lawyers who appear to ask meaningful questions and appear not to waste the court's time are given more leeway when they get caught in a tough spot.
Rominger's performance Tuesday may have come back to haunt him Wednesday.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Metallica helps FBI try to track down killer of Virginia Tech student
- Blinded soldier aims for Paralympic Games in London
- Boy Scouts board member opposes anti-gay policy
- Video: Caught on camera: Toddler tossed during car chase
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
I do hope this doesn't open the door for an appeal based on incompetent, ineffective council. What a couple of bafoons these lawyers are.
Why is this even going to trial? To torcher this mans victims??? Because the prosecutors refuse to offer a deal???.. If the the jury finds him guilty he deserves the MAXIMUM SENTENCE!!
It makes sense that the prosecution should offer some sort of deal, I don't know however what the 'deal' could be except life in prison with no chance of parole. Considering all the damage Sandusky has done to an untold number of kids, it too bad the old fag couldn't be been given the death penalty.
The defense seems clueless, but to be fair, with all the mounting evidence against Sandusky, it's almost imposible to defend him. I believe they're just going through the motions.
Because the 6th amendment says that he has the right?
Did the prosecutor's not offer a deal, or did the defense reject a deal?
I hope that coward McQueary is prosecuted too. Any man who witnessed what he did and not stop it immediately is a coward. How did he keep his job at Penn State?
At least McQueary came forward, even if belated, i'm sure a lot of people at Penn State knew things about Sandusky and have chosen to keep their mouths shut. Let's not put all the blame on McQueary for not stopping it.
I'm still waiting for any actual EVIDENCE. All I hear is a few guys telling awful stories about a guy that they continued to interact with and accept gifts from well into their adulthood...until they realized they could get real money out of this. Witness testimony has changed numerous times throughout the investigation and trial...and now the witnesses are playing games and refusing to acknowledge previous testimony out of fear that they will compromise themselves.
What is 'actual' evidence to you? Witness testimony IS evidence, and quite compelling when supported with other similar witness testimony. Unfortunately, victimized children often tell their stories well after physical evidence is long gone, due to the manipulation, confusion, shame, and even blocked memories. If these young people really wanted a financial pay off, they could have skipped the criminal courts and just sued him in civil court, where the threshold for guilt is much lower (50% plus 1). While OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, he was held civilly liable for the deaths. Keep supporting Jerry and his admissions of playing with the soaped up little boys in the shower.