Juror: Sandusky's lack of emotion at verdicts was 'confirmation'

In an exclusive interview, juror Joshua Harper tells TODAY's Lester Holt that the decision to convict Jerry Sandusky hinged on the credibility of his accusers and the testimony of independent witnesses.

A juror in the Jerry Sandusky trial said Saturday that the look on the former Penn State football coach's face as the guilty verdicts were announced was "confirmation" that they had made the right decision.

Joshua Harper told TODAY that Sandusky had shown "no real emotion, just kind of accepting because he knew it was true," he added.


Sandusky, 68, was convicted Friday of 45 counts of child sexual abuse and faces a minimum sentence of 60 years in prison, NBC News reported.

The former longtime defensive coordinator for the Penn State football team had denied all 48 counts alleging that he abused 10 boys over 15 years.

Investigations will continue in the Sandusky case related to how Penn State handled the case, and some officials are facing perjury charges. NBC's Michael Isikoff, Ron Allen, and Legal Analyst Wes Oliver join MSNBC's Ed Schultz to discuss the details of the case as well as community reaction to the verdict.

Two grand jury reports accused him of having used his connection to one of the nation's premier college football programs to "groom" the boys, whom he met through his Second Mile charity for troubled children.

Harper told TODAY that the jurors "were on the same page" when they began their deliberations and had focused on "the facts and determining credibility."

MSNBC's Ed Schultz talks with Jeff Herman, an attorney who specializes in representing sexual abuse victims, about the difficulties the victims in the Sandusky case would have had in stepping forward with allegations.

He said the men who testified that they were abused appeared to be telling the truth.

"I think there were a couple that I felt [were] very credible. I mean, it's hard to judge character on the stand, because you don't know these kids, but most were very credible, I would say all," Harper told TODAY.

Defense attorney Joe Amendola speaks outside the courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa., after his client, Jerry Sandusky, was found guilty of sexually abusing children.

He added that the fact that they all told similar stories about Sandusky was "very convincing."

Harper said they had not convicted Sandusky of rape over the incident witnessed by former Penn State assistant Mike McQueary -- who said he had "no doubt" that Sandusky engaged in anal sex with a boy in a Penn State shower -- because McQueary "did not see any actual penetration."

Sandusky convicted of 45 counts, plans to appeal
Reaction to the Sandusky verdict

Analysis: Number of victims persuaded Sandusky jurors in 'he said, he said' case
Full coverage of the Jerry Sandusky trial

Ghosts of Sandusky's dreams haunt home where charity was born

"We did not have the evidence that that very first charge happened," Harper said. "We were in agreement ... that we could not convict him of that first count."

Sandusky was acquitted on two other counts as well -- one an indecent assault charge involving "Victim 6". The man testified that Sandusky had given him a bear hug in the shower but at one point he just "blacked out."

The other acquittal was an indecent assault charge related to "Victim 5", who said Sandusky fondled him in the shower.

The jury had worked "very well" together, he added, discussing misgivings about some parts of the case and discussing "inconsistencies." "We were patient," he said.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4 5

Dottie denial... wonder how she is going to deal with this.. live with it.

    Reply#29 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:28 AM EDT
    Reply

    All of these comments are interesting .... but I feel we are ignoring the mindset that created them.

    A valid university is for highter learning ... the jock aspect is "extra curricular" and should probably be paid for by those who feel this is the way to a degree.

    We certainly should not fund scum bags like Sandusky .... or Paterno.

    It's time for a complete reevaluation of what our higher education program is about.

    (Suggestion: "Higher Education" ....not grunts)

    • 2 votes
    Reply#30 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:29 AM EDT

    I agree, but good luck. Way too much money and entrenched interests to change this system.

      #30.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:38 AM EDT
      Reply

      Well done jurors. I ,too, once served on a sexual assault of a minor case and it is not an easy job. It is absolutely essential to start with the premise that the government must prove its case. But if they do, convict the SOB!!! Again WELL DONE and thank you.

      • 2 votes
      Reply#31 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:36 AM EDT

      just remember jeffery dahmer was in pc but they still got him cant wait till i read what they finally done to ole jerry

      • 2 votes
      Reply#32 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:44 AM EDT

      If Sandusky is placed in a general prison population, he won't last a month. Just like that Boston pedophile priest Geoghan.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#33 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:46 AM EDT

      agree. chicken hawks are more reviled in prisons than any other crime. strange but true.

      • 1 vote
      #33.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:04 PM EDT

      carl,

      "chicken hawks are more reviled in prisons than any other crime. strange but true."

      It isn't really so strange when you consider our Puritan heritage. Sex of any kind was just plain nasty to the Puritans, and any sexual "deviation" was considered even worse than murder.

        #33.2 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:07 PM EDT
        Reply

        prison guys be a little more creative this time more than just a mop handle

        • 2 votes
        Reply#34 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:50 AM EDT

        Yeah....now someone else will be singing "sometimes love don't feel like it should" to him. Bonerific eh Jer?

          #34.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:11 PM EDT

          One can only hope they send him to Graterford prison here in PA. Fitting end for sure

            #34.2 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:20 PM EDT
            Reply

            His lawyer was a bad joke. Any money he was paid should be returned. Ineffective assistance of council. Sand. probably guilty but that atty. is a moronic media whore who didn't care a whit about his client. Attorneys should be banned. They are organized criminals.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#35 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:57 AM EDT

            the thing here is that i wonder if Amendola was acting this way on purpose so Jerry can file some sort of appeal on ineffective representation.

              #35.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:21 PM EDT
              Reply

              "Lack of emotion confirms....."

              This kind of judgmental comment from jurors always bothers me regardless of "proven beyond doubt" quilty verdict .

              Nobody from this juror panel is an expert on human behavior. Interpreting human behavior is an expertise learned and acquired by well trained professionals...not everyday average Joe's, aka our peers. It is a well known fact humans behave differently in identical situations.

              I am still bothered by similar comment by a juror after Martha's conviction. He found her guilty because he did not like her attitude. Or Peterson's "body English".

              And yet, a defendant with excellent lawyers can be found not guilty partly based on catchy slogan, " If it does not fit, acquit"

                Reply#36 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:59 AM EDT

                it seems common sense won out. unlike the casey anthony fiasco. he should get at least 20 years and sent to a maimum security penitentiary for the security. nobody likes chicken hawks more than the prisoners. he will need alot of security.

                  Reply#37 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:02 PM EDT

                  Having been through an emotionally draining ordeal for months and seeing the hopelessness of his predicament and being powerless to alter it, his lack of emotion after the verdict didn't prove squat.

                    Reply#38 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:02 PM EDT

                    "Lack of emotion comnfirms..."

                    This kind of post-trial feedback comments from jurors always concerns me.

                    Humans behave and react differently under identical situations. Interpreting human behavior is an expertise learned and acquired by well trained professionals...NOT by regular Joe's, aka, our peers.

                    I am still bothered by similar judging comment from Martha's trial. He found her guilty mainly because "she had an attutude". Or Peterson's "body English".

                    Yet, a well funded defendent with shrewd lawyers can be found not guilty partly based on a catchy slogan, "If it does not fit, acquit"

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#39 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:10 PM EDT

                    So can lawyers act the same way when they free a gulity person....

                      #39.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:29 PM EDT

                      I agree Anton. The crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Was there any actual physical evidence to remove that doubt?

                        #39.2 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:31 PM EDT
                        Reply

                        Raven; there's nothing I said that contradicts what you're asserting. I fully agree that it's the attorney's job to provide a proper defense. But I think attorneys need to keep in mind that they are also known as counselors, and when the dust is all settled it would provide me at least with some solace to hear that they counseled him to do the right thing morally. Do you have sons? How would you feel if your son, having been molested by Sandusky was forced to come forward publicly and be abused in court by him again through his lawyers? How would you feel about an attorney if he was your father/brother/son and he participated in this public humiliation of someone who had already been privately violated without at least counseling the violator to stop his criminal behavior? Of course if Sandusky continued to maintain his innocence and refused this counsel, then the best defense should be made and I think it was here, but the outcome was pretty predictable wouldn't you agee? The other part of your comment I question is; just because none of the attorneys you worked for did the right thing, does that mean it's not still the right thing? It makes them look like money-grubbing villains in cases that are so open and shut like this one and in the Conrad Murray case. After the initial facts came out it was obvious he had zero chance of an acquittal; wouldn't it have been better law and better humanity for the lawyers to counsel Murray to try to obtain some leniency by taking responsibility? Just asking. Lawyers have a pretty bad rep in our society and though I don't feel a blanket contempt for them like many people do, in this case they really look ugly unless it comes out that they urged Sandusky to cut it out and cop to what he did.

                          Reply#40 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:17 PM EDT

                          drsm: i do have a son.

                          i agree with you in the sense that i have said all along that i thought it was deplorable that the defense was re-victimizing the victims in this matter. and i agree with you that Sandusky could have / should have plead guilty and saved the victims from having to testify in open court about what happened to them. but it's doubtful a defense attorney is ever going to do encourage their client to that. i don't think it's because they are money-grubbing villains, but more so because the job of a defense attorney is to stand up for the defendant. does this make it right? no.

                          i would suspect it has to do with a defendant admitting guilt rather than being convicted. the defense can always say that he is innocent and the prosecution was wrong, jury wrong, etc. if Sandusky would have ever said: "yea i did this, i'm guilty of all of it" ... can you imagine what would have happened?

                          it's definitely a fine line and would be a great world if people were accountable for their actions. unfortunately a small percentage are capable of doing that. and the bottom line is that by all accounts, Sandusky doesn't really think he did anything wrong - maybe the showering was wrong - but he didn't do any of the other things he was accused of.

                            #40.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:31 PM EDT
                            Reply

                            Say all you want but it is a "Very Sad" day for all involved. Anton, don't even GO THERE!!!

                            • 1 vote
                            Reply#41 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:18 PM EDT

                            How would you like to be sentenced to the death row because of your "body english"?

                            Point is, verdict should be based on objectively viewed evidences and testimonies...not attitude, lack of emotion or body english as perceived by untrained non-professionals.

                            This particular juror has no business alluding to defendent's emotion or lack thereof as a decision impacting ...or confirmatory factor.

                            Would this juror have second thought on the verdict had the defendent displayed strong emotions...like outbursts? Tirade? Tears?

                            • 1 vote
                            #41.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:45 PM EDT
                            Reply

                            I hold Penn State equally responsible. They became aware of his little secret yet never called the police. Sandusky knew he had this oddity in personality disorder and should have obtained medical help. I'm not sure what mental issues cause men to do such things, but they seem to come from all walks of life and are cursed with a disorder that they can't control. I've read about it over and over, where apparently normal men in all other respects have this sickness. I'd rather be a alcoholic, gambler or womanizer. At least it's accepted by society as a quirk in personality. But these mendestroy their life, their families and everything they own to practice this weird crime. I'm not even sure if they feel any guilt at all or even think they did something wrong. So damn strange.

                            • 2 votes
                            Reply#42 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:19 PM EDT

                            This where all rabbit animals should got for the rest of their lives and that is a fact.

                              Reply#43 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:23 PM EDT

                              The guy will probably go to a rich man prison where he will be catered to,

                                Reply#44 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:27 PM EDT

                                "We did not have the evidence that that very first charge happened," Harper said. "We were in agreement ... that we could not convict him of that first count."

                                What was the evidence for the other counts? I'm still just trying to figure out if there was ANY evidence other than testimony (video, audio, text, email).

                                • 1 vote
                                Reply#45 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:28 PM EDT

                                eye-witness testimony from the victims themselves is enough, don't you think?

                                  #45.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:33 PM EDT

                                  The Salem witch trials had eye witness testimony, and we all know what BS that was. It is not enough for me to get beyond a reasonable doubt...good I thing I wasn't on the jury then. I'm not saying he is innocent...

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #45.2 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:22 PM EDT

                                  eye witness testimony is less than 50%, if more juries understood that, fewer innocent people would be in prison

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #45.3 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:18 PM EDT
                                  Reply

                                  Maybe now Penn State can start reforming its entire image. Penn State has the reputation of being the most over-the-top, out-of-control party school in the country. The Penn State graduates I have met appear to have all majored in binge drinking, and have taken it up as careers after graduation. They also seemed to demonstrate a smug superiority about their alma mater. Perhaps now all that will change. It will take decades for Penn State to be perceived as anything other than "that child molester school" by the general public.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  Reply#46 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:29 PM EDT

                                  A juror in the Jerry Sandusky trial said Saturday that the look on the former Penn State football coach's face as the guilty verdicts were announced was "confirmation" that they had made the right decision.

                                  Huh?

                                  If he had broken down in tears, would you have felt you made the wrong decision?

                                  You sound like a highly skilled face reader.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#47 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:29 PM EDT

                                  I am a straight 68 year old and I wish all you would stop saying Jerry is a homosexual. He is NOT, he is a pedophile, pure and simple. I am extremely proud of that Jury (especially after all the comments re: too many Penn Staters on the jury), where in PA would they find ANYONE who doesn't have some feelings for Penn State? The DA putting the pics of the victims when they were children was, I think, the best strategic move of their case. How powerful! I also think the jury did a wonderful, thorough job, and that juror was just stating his own validation of how he voted. If you are going to send someone to jail for life (even a pedophile), you want a small token of validation - at least I would. It wouldn't mean that I had any doubts about how I voted. Now on to bringing the rest of the scumbags (who did nothing when they could've stopped all the bad acts after 1999) to justice. I want to see them in a jail cell also. Dottie has a lot to answer for (something had to "feel" wrong to her throughout all those years). May she live to regret everything she DID NOT do.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#48 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:34 PM EDT

                                  They should get "time" for being accomplices. How could Dottie not have known. I can't wait to see her interviews where she'll just say ,"Oh, I never knew....Jerry was such a "loving" man".....etc.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #48.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:49 PM EDT
                                  Reply

                                  KUDOS to this jury for having the guts to find him guilty. When I heard they all had ties to Penn State in one way or another, I was worried. The facts are overwhelming - the truth is so painful for these innocent kids. And the fact that they were in a program for troubled youth when the jerk assaulted them is even more painful and hard to accept. The words coming out of the defense attorney's mouth last night almost made me gag. Surely he cannot believe what he was saying................................And as for Sandusky's wife, Heaven help her - she will have her own hell to pay. She would have had to be blind, deaf and downright stupid to not know what was going on. Love is supposed to be blind but I don't think there was any love in that relationship..................now it will be interesting to see what the Penn State fans have to say. This has been a difficult time for the school and students - but the fact that some continued to defend him again makes me question what they could be thinking. I'm sure there will still be some who think he's innocent - and what about Paterno.....................just what did he really know and when and why didn't he do something.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#49 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:34 PM EDT

                                  I have a problem believing that pedophiles don't believe that what they are doing is wrong. I need some facts about this. Alcoholics, drug addicts etc. know they have a problem but hearing that pedophiles don't believe they have a problem is difficult to fathom.

                                  I'm hearing this but still can't believe that this is really true. "It's an illness"...."they don't believe that what they are doing is wrong" .....is what I'm hearing and it's the first time I've heard this. I ALWAYS thought these sick people with their sick fun know that what they are doing is WRONG!!!! Am I the only one who always thought this way?

                                  My God, these are children.

                                    Reply#50 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:37 PM EDT

                                    60 years. min. isn't going to bring back what those boys lost. Just give him life and be done. 60 years will be life for him anyway. He will die in prison. He will be given a cell by himself, that's what they give child molesters. Special treatment!!!Need to put them in regular inmates,right!!! He wouldn't last a day

                                      Reply#51 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:41 PM EDT

                                      The Paterno's, Penn State University, dottie sandusky, or any other person who didn't say anything when all this was happening for the past 15 years need to keep their mouths shut at this point! No one is going to believe that you are on the right side of morals, human decency, or the law for you to be patronizing the victims. Why couldn't they be more verbal when all this was happening and stop countless other boys from this guys awful hands of abuse. They are just as guilty as this low life who was protected by so many.

                                      Anyone who is affiliated with those who protected sandusky needs to distance themselves far and away from them. They don't deserve any compassion or companionship of anyone to be so calassed about the well being of the victims. It was such a selfish act not to say anything.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      Reply#52 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:44 PM EDT

                                      Too bad that don't cut his dick off also. Not to mention what I would like to do to his wife, and all the rest of the big shots that knew at Penn state and kept it under raps in order to bring in money to the football gods. Sick what sports has become t allow this.

                                        Reply#53 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:49 PM EDT

                                        I wonder...if others are brought up on charges for covering anything up, will Sandusky be required to testify? Will he be "offered" anything for his cooperation? If he does cooperate, will this be considered an admission of guilt? therapeutic? penance? a cure?

                                          #53.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:12 PM EDT

                                          yeah...50 years off of his 600 year sentence!!! LMFAO!

                                            #53.2 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:24 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4 5
                                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.