E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Gene J. Puskar / AP
Jerry Sandusky leaves court Wednesday in Bellefonte, Pa.
ANALYSIS
The defense ended with a whimper Wednesday in Jerry Sandusky's trial in Bellefonte, Pa.
At one point, it appeared as though the defense might get some traction. It called investigators to the stand who testified that they never informed victims about complaints from other victims. Recordings of the investigators' own interviews revealed that the victims had been coached.
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.It would likely not seem unreasonable to most jurors for police to let victims know that there are others. Jurors may even have little problem with letting victims know some specifics of other complaints.
Jurors, however, should wonder why investigators tried to hide their methods of making alleged victims comfortable speaking. They should ask themselves what else the investigators told those men and didn't report. The defense scored some real points when the state's investigators denied techniques that they were revealed to have used in documents that were turned over to the defense before trial.
Other than that, the defense case was marked by missteps and largely tangential testimony.
There was a parade of witnesses who knew Sandusky as a neighbor, a colleague or a mentor. The rules of evidence place strict limits on the testimony of character witnesses. Formally, they are limited to addressing the defendant's reputation for honesty, peacefulness and law-abiding character. In introducing character witnesses, lawyers are able to describe how the witnesses know the defendant.
That process of introduction gave Sandusky's lawyers an opportunity to tell the jury that his colleagues never knew of any misconduct with children. It also gave those he mentored an opportunity to tell the jury that he hadn't molested them as children.
Character witnesses don't hurt the defense, but they can add only so much. The fact that there are people who never saw Sandusky do anything inappropriate isn't inconsistent with his guilt.
Defense abruptly rests without calling Jerry Sandusky
Full coverage of the Jerry Sandusky trial
And there were missteps during the defense case that really hurt.
Dr. Jonathan Dranov — who met with one of the prosecution's star witnesses, former assistant football coach Michael McQueary, after an alleged incident in a Penn State University locker room shower — had been expected to undermine McQueary's account. But the opposite happened. Dranov bolstered McQueary's testimony, describing him as having been very upset in describing the incident.
More damning, however, was that Dranov testified that McQueary reported hearing "sexual sounds" in the shower that night. At a preliminary hearing in December in a separate but related perjury case against two for top university officials, a lawyer cross-examining McQueary got him to admit that he heard two, at most three, "slapping" sounds. The defense's cross-examination of McQueary last week didn't confine his testimony to two or three slaps, and its examination of Dranov left the jury with testimony that "sexual sounds" were heard that night.
Finally, in calling an expert who testified that Sandusky had a personality disorder that could explain away some of his behavior, the defense had to let a prosecution expert examine Sandusky.
The defense expert's testimony was worthless at best and harmful at worst — he testified that he himself may suffer from the disorder, a disorder that he was unable to differentiate from the personalities many people have seen in their friends and colleagues.
By contrast, the prosecution's expert — a very sharp, impeccably credentialed, well-spoken psychiatrist — discounted the defense expert's theory and concluded that Sandusky's personality profile was consistent with a psychosexual disorder, with a focus on adolescents.
In exchange for raising the possibility of "histrionic personality disorder," the defense got a prosecution expert who said the defendant fits the profile of a pedophile, in other words. This was not a good trade.
The defense had quite the task facing it when it started presenting its case. It doesn't seem to have raised a reasonable doubt. On the whole, it seems to have aided the prosecution.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Chicago mayor: Tickets, not jail, for pot users
- No charge for man who killed daughter's molester
- Bridging the digital divide in America's rural schools
- 911 call on Rodney King: 'He's at the bottom of the swimming pool'
- Video: East Coast braces for heat wave
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
I'm guessing his habit of sodomizing little boys probably didn't help him out much either.
This man should just come clean, he needs to apologize to all the kids he hurt and their families.
I am so afraid that if he gets out of this he will continue to hurt any child who he thinks he can get away with hurting.
@CCB-1458346
This is a totally inappropriate post and there was no reason for it unless you got off writing it. Disgusting.
When you have that many people coming forward to tell the horrible things this pervert did to them,there is no good defense. To expect a defense attorney to pull a rabbit out of the hat to clear this pervert is asking too much.When you have live testimony with people giving the straight facts,you have to prove otherwise no matter how smart of an attorney you are. This defense attorney was in between a rock and a hard place and done what he could I am sure. Twisting words and spinning the facts would not change the very fact that Sandusky is a pervert.
"Faltering defense hurt Jerry Sandusky"
Actually Jerry Sandusky hurt Jerry Sandusky, not his defense team!!!
The defense expert's testimony was worthless at best and harmful at worst — he testified that he himself may suffer from the disorder, a disorder that he was unable to differentiate from the personalities many people have seen in their friends and colleagues. <<<----------
And this psychologist (not psychiatrist) was the best they could cull from the barrel?
If convicted, is this an open and shut case for "representation by incompetent counsel"?
I think Sandusky is guilty as hell, but the authorities 'coaching' people on tape and possibly leading them into a statement is not a good thing. Does that mean that only some of it really happened? Did the police possibly do this to allow for more counts to be filed against Sandusky? It's a very slippery slope and completely stupid on the part of the authorities involved.
Not to mention - does this mean the authorities in that area (and where else?) do stuff like that often?
From the reading of available info, Sandusky's defense was horrible and practically non-existent, which may help him on appeal.
On another side note - a lot of you seem to have some kind of infatuation with people being sent to prison and raped, which is just odd to me. You realize that stuff like that happens to some who are innocent or not hardened criminals who are horribly affected for the rest of their lives. People like Sandusky (if truly guilty, which I think he is) should just be put to sleep. Rape should not happen in or out of prison and your weird 'fantasies' around it are just odd.
For all the pretrial bluster of Amendola, he seemed to have presented a very weak defense. Of course, trying to defend Sandusky and his *alleged* actions would have been a Herculean task.
lady gag-me sez he was born this way!!
I swear to God, what does he have to smile about?
And even if the jury lets him go, someone'll kill the bastard. No way people are going to let him live.
Indefensible case - just lock him up already
It's tough to defend someone when there is no evidence to support a defense. The defense attorneys could not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and his so-called "character" witnesses were all they had. Sorry, Jerry, but your happy a$$ is going to jail for a very long time, and deservedly so.
Is it true that Sandusky did not testify because one of his own kids were going to testify against him??? Where has this kid been???? Sandusky wife and kids are total hiding information. What the hell is wrong with this family!!??!!?? I sure hope the jury finds Sandusky guilty!!!!!!!
Sandusky would have made a fantastic priest.
When i heard the verdict in the Simpson case, i damn near fainted. Stunned is probably more like it. Even though the prosecution had several lame witnesses no one could ever explain away the blood of his ex wife that was all over his vehicle that they found that evening. It was a racist decision of not guilty. It is as simple as that.
Anyway, Sandusky is a guilty as sin even before the case went to court. Nothing in the trial that came up has changed my mind. If for some unbelievable reason they find this guy not guilty, i will faint and may never get up. at my age nothing surprises me any more but this would. Unfortunately our judicial system has nothing to do about justice it's all about winning and the prosecution has won this time.
What hurt Jerry Sandusky was not his defense, but his actions, pure and simple. Any defense team that would have freed this guy would have deserved a Nobel Prize in law.
How can you morally defend a man you know in your heart is guilty? The defense didn't hurt Sandusky.....the truth came out for everyone to finally see -