Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky
arrives for trial at the Centre County courthouse in Bellefonte,
Pennsylvania, in 2012. Monday, an attorney for the convicted child sex
abuser asked a judge for a new evidentiary hearing to produce new
evidence and seek a new trial. File Photo by George M Powers/UPI
| License Photo
BELLEFONTE, Pa., May 2 (UPI) --
Former Penn State University assistant football coach and convicted
child sex abuser Jerry Sandusky returned to court Monday as part of his
legal team's new effort to throw out his 2012 conviction.
Sandusky's attorneys argued for an evidentiary hearing
to allow them to produce potential new evidence in the case -- a
request Judge John Cleland questioned whether there was a need for.
"The law is very clear. You have to give me a certification
of, if I have a hearing, 'Judge, this is who I'm going to put on the
stand and this is what they're going to say,'" Cleland said, describing
what is needed for him to rule on the matter.
If the judge decided that new evidence creates new doubt in the case, Sandusky could receive a new trial.
Prosecutors argued that defense lawyers have no new evidence and that a jury's conviction four years ago was a just verdict.
Sandusky, 72, was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual
abuse and is serving a prison term of 30 to 60 years. The incidents of
abuse occurred while Sandusky was an assistant coach to the Penn State
Nittany Lions football team between 1969 and 1999.
After filing numerous appellate claims,
defense attorney Al Lindsay wants to be able to question lawyers who
previously represented Sandusky, investigators, prosecutors, and a man
who has claimed to be the person referred to by prosecutors as Victim 2
-- a key witness for the prosecution, USA Today reported Monday.
One particular concern Lindsay expressed was a claim that
former prosecutor Joe McGettigan knew the identity of Victim 2 at trial
in 2012 -- but made a false statement when he told jurors he didn't know
the man's identity.
Cleland, though, wasn't impressed.
"That's a long way from saying that you've got a witness
that's going to come in here and say (the man) was Victim 2, McGettigan
knew it and lied about it," Cleland said.
"There's a leap here that I'm having some trouble making,"
he added. "You say: 'I think I have a claim... (but) I won't know it
until I call a witness and hope they say A, B, C & D.'"
"What else am I supposed to do? I'm mystified by the court's
response," Lindsay replied, emphasizing that an evidentiary hearing
might be Sandusky's only chance to get answers to the defense's
questions.
Another concern is what defense attorneys believe was a
media leak during the grand jury investigation -- an issue that could
lead to court testimony by Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.
Monday, Cleland gave Sandusky's team 10 days to refile and add Kane to
the witness list.
Lindsay has indicated that he plans to call as many as two dozen witnesses at the new hearing to establish new evidence.
"This was a profound injustice that occurred here," Lindsay
said of the 2012 trial. "We'd like to get a fair shake. That's all we've
ever asked... What happened before was not a fair trial."
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to hear the first appeal by Sandusky's legal team in early 2014.
Post a Comment