Failure to report was dropped. ONLY charge left, is Endangered Charges and they could be problem for these guys.
Joe reported and was never charged.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Failure to report was dropped. ONLY charge left, is Endangered Charges and they could be problem for these guys.
Joe reported and was never charged.
I am an attorney but not a litigator and not licensed in Pennsylvania, so maybe there is a Pennsylvania litigator on this Board who can answer this question: Why is the Failure to Report charge being tossed out as being barred by the statute of limitations? In civil matters, at least, the filing of a lawsuit before expiration of the limitations period ends all discussion regarding the statute of limitations as a defense. The criminal prosecution of these three defendants was commenced long ago.
In civil cases, there is typically a separate statute providing for either discretionary or mandatory dismissal of the plaintiff's case if the plaintiff fails to bring it to trial within a specified period. But we are talking about criminal cases here. Criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, which normally requires an even more expeditious prosecution of a criminal case. In this case, however, each of the defendants waived his speedy trial rights, hoping to get these various charges whittled down or dismissed prior to proceeding to trial. That has largely happened. So charges can't be dismissed due to a violation of any defendant's speedy trial rights.
I just don't understand how the statute of limitations could be relevant at this point, given that this prosecution was commenced long ago.
I am an attorney but not a litigator and not licensed in Pennsylvania, so maybe there is a Pennsylvania litigator on this Board who can answer this question: Why is the Failure to Report charge being tossed out as being barred by the statute of limitations? In civil matters, at least, the filing of a lawsuit before expiration of the limitations period ends all discussion regarding the statute of limitations as a defense. The criminal prosecution of these three defendants was commenced long ago.
In civil cases, there is typically a separate statute providing for either discretionary or mandatory dismissal of the plaintiff's case if the plaintiff fails to bring it to trial within a specified period. But we are talking about criminal cases here. Criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, which normally requires an even more expeditious prosecution of a criminal case. In this case, however, each of the defendants waived his speedy trial rights, hoping to get these various charges whittled down or dismissed prior to proceeding to trial. That has largely happened. So charges can't be dismissed due to a violation of any defendant's speedy trial rights.
I just don't understand how the statute of limitations could be relevant at this point, given that this prosecution was commenced long ago.
With what? Not your brand of bullshit.
The SOL for the "failure to report" was a laughable situation from the start.I am an attorney but not a litigator and not licensed in Pennsylvania, so maybe there is a Pennsylvania litigator on this Board who can answer this question: Why is the Failure to Report charge being tossed out as being barred by the statute of limitations? In civil matters, at least, the filing of a lawsuit before expiration of the limitations period ends all discussion regarding the statute of limitations as a defense. The criminal prosecution of these three defendants was commenced long ago.
In civil cases, there is typically a separate statute providing for either discretionary or mandatory dismissal of the plaintiff's case if the plaintiff fails to bring it to trial within a specified period. But we are talking about criminal cases here. Criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, which normally requires an even more expeditious prosecution of a criminal case. In this case, however, each of the defendants waived his speedy trial rights, hoping to get these various charges whittled down or dismissed prior to proceeding to trial. That has largely happened. So charges can't be dismissed due to a violation of any defendant's speedy trial rights.
I just don't understand how the statute of limitations could be relevant at this point, given that this prosecution was commenced long ago.
I haven't read the full appeal (packing to go out of town) . . .
but one thing people ALWAYS FAIL to acknowledge is the nature of the "failure to report" charges
the 2001 incident WAS outside the SOL. so the OAG made this time travel argument that the law was changed in 2007, so C/S/S had to comply with the law THEN, therefore the state could charge them with FTR
Doesn't child endangerment usually refer to a specific, known child or children, in an ongoing known situation they have direct responsibility over?
Do we hope for the remaining charges to be dropped? Or do we hope this goes to trial and that a lot of the crap that's been clogging the pipes for 5 years gets plunged out?
Any victory for any of the PSU admins is going to be spun as a technicality, no matter the reason. PSU will forever be guilty in the eyes of the media and the public, no matter what the outcome turns out to be at this point. The bell was rung a long time ago and can't be unrung.So the victory here is on the basis of the SOL, as opposed to, for example, not being mandated reporters, which the court was able to avoid ruling on by denying as moot. The media will spin this not as vindication, but rather prevailing on a technicality.
That would seem like a no brainer.
I am an attorney but not a litigator and not licensed in Pennsylvania, so maybe there is a Pennsylvania litigator on this Board who can answer this question: Why is the Failure to Report charge being tossed out as being barred by the statute of limitations? In civil matters, at least, the filing of a lawsuit before expiration of the limitations period ends all discussion regarding the statute of limitations as a defense. The criminal prosecution of these three defendants was commenced long ago.
In civil cases, there is typically a separate statute providing for either discretionary or mandatory dismissal of the plaintiff's case if the plaintiff fails to bring it to trial within a specified period. But we are talking about criminal cases here. Criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, which normally requires an even more expeditious prosecution of a criminal case. In this case, however, each of the defendants waived his speedy trial rights, hoping to get these various charges whittled down or dismissed prior to proceeding to trial. That has largely happened. So charges can't be dismissed due to a violation of any defendant's speedy trial rights.
I just don't understand how the statute of limitations could be relevant at this point, given that this prosecution was commenced long ago.
So moofafoo (pnnylion, marshall30, jansmuts, etc.) got banned.
If I understand it correctly, the argument (and they cited precedent) was that there was a continuous effort to conceal the 2001 incident. They not only charged with endangerment and corruption of minors, but with conspiracy to commit both.
As Nixon supposedly said in the Hiss case, "It's not the crime, it's the coverup." He should have heeded his own warning about 25 years later.
Thanks for posting TenerHall. So if I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations for Failure to Report had already run out in 2007, at which point the Pennsylvania legislature modified the statute which prescribed that statute of llmitations, presumably to either extend the limitations period or state that the statute does not start to run until the criminal offense is discovered (rather than committed)? If so, I can understand why the court ruled here as it did. That would seem like a no brainer.
It is, but I don't see how the state has a case here either. The text of the statute is below, but I think it is clear that they cannot be prosecuted under part 1 (i.e. they were not supervising the welfare of a child), so the OAG must be trying to say that they "prevented or interfered with the making of a report of suspected child abuse." I think this can be answered in one question under oath (which we already know the answer to):
"Mike McQueary, at any time did C/S/S tell you not to report what you saw in the shower to the police or use any other language that made you believe they were telling you not to make a report?"
PSU2UNC: I think you are correct on this, but am wondering if perhaps the prosecution's argument is that C/S/S were providing "education and training" to kids/victims who were on campus for these events, and were therefore "persons supervising the welfare of a child" within the meaning of Section 4304(a)(3). I think that's quite a stretch if all PSU did was make facilities available and third parties (e.g., TSM) actually operated these events.
If I understand it correctly, the argument (and they cited precedent) was that there was a continuous effort to conceal the 2001 incident. They not only charged with endangerment and corruption of minors, but with conspiracy to commit both.
.
They have nothing that can prove that, and they know it. They are going to look stupid trying this case, and they know that, too.
They are the ones that want the case to go forward.
I think they have something that will prove it and have had it since August 2012, at the very latest.
What did they do to conceal the 2001 incident?If I understand it correctly, the argument (and they cited precedent) was that there was a continuous effort to conceal the 2001 incident. They not only charged with endangerment and corruption of minors, but with conspiracy to commit both.
As Nixon supposedly said in the Hiss case, "It's not the crime, it's the coverup." He should have heeded his own warning about 25 years later.
You are a total moron, mbe.
What did they do to conceal the 2001 incident?
The operative words being "I think".They are the ones that want the case to go forward.
I think they have something that will prove it and have had it since August 2012, at the very latest.
They are the ones that want the case to go forward.
I think they have something that will prove it and have had it since August 2012, at the very latest.
What did they do to conceal the 2001 incident?
Wrong again, Ed. I even know what Diane found on your computer.
Failed to report it, failed to file a police report (of any type), didn't tell investigators.
Was that beforeThey are the ones that want the case to go forward.
I think they have something that will prove it and have had it since August 2012, at the very latest.
So you've now gone from "I think" to "I know".Well, I know they have something.
I could see the opening arguments of this trial being the premise of a movie. Is the person that did the screen play for "My Cousin Vinny" available? NOTE: Child abuse is..........very bad! The PA courts and the OAG are..........worse (legally speaking). Any actor recommendations to play the main characters involved?That is my question too.. child endangerment to what child? They were made aware of something with regard to a possible Second Mile child and reported it to the Second Mile. No child was ever identified though. The alleged victim from that period has come forward and said nothing occurred that night.
I guess I want it to go to trial because they will have to answer specific questions about what they were told by MM and Joe and what they did in response. We'll possibly get some context to some of those emails that Freeh based his assumptions on. I still think the rest of the charges get dropped because there's so little to them. What kind of jury are they going to find that can be neutral?
Ought to be tossed already, or else they better drag Dranov and Sr McQ in to court in handcuffs. It has already been stated under oath that the situation that was described did not warrant a call to police.Failed to report it, failed to file a police report (of any type), didn't tell investigators.
Joe reported and was never charged.
Any victory for any of the PSU admins is going to be spun as a technicality, no matter the reason. PSU will forever be guilty in the eyes of the media and the public, no matter what the outcome turns out to be at this point. The bell was rung a long time ago and can't be unrung.
The operative words being "I think".
They are the ones that want the case to go forward.
I think they have something that will prove it and have had it since August 2012, at the very latest.
I wouldn't have been surprised, given the case and how it has played out, if Joe would have been charged the same time as Spanier had he been alive.
Like it or not, you're the newbie. You'll need to do a little better than using italics as proof here.No, I know they have something and I think it will be enough.