Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.
- Thread starter OXLion
- Start date
this is fake news
Lionlurker says - "there will be no plea deal"
Lionlurker says - "there will be no plea deal"
Maybe this is why? From the article:
"Curley and Schultz entered their pleas in morning proceedings before Senior Judge John Boccabella. The agreement sets up the possibility that they will testify for the prosecution at next week's scheduled trial of the only remaining defendant in the case, former Penn State president Graham Spanier."
"Curley and Schultz entered their pleas in morning proceedings before Senior Judge John Boccabella. The agreement sets up the possibility that they will testify for the prosecution at next week's scheduled trial of the only remaining defendant in the case, former Penn State president Graham Spanier."
They were convinced they wouldn't get a fair trial due to a tainted jury pool and a corrupt legal system?
they could have done this 4 yrs ago, I guess is my point.
True, but they were really up against it with the trial starting next week.
Given today's events, why did the state drop other charges?
I was wondering the same. Maybe when the judge decided to reinstate a conspiracy charge that the superior court already quashed they saw the writing on the wall?
Who knows, but it sounds like Spanier (the state's case against him is the weakest IMO) is riding this out. Should make for some interesting court sessions.
wow...wonder if this still means an overall g
So everything falls on Spanier?
Wow..I guess Corbett wins...sad.
Not a lawyer, but I would have to assume the state had them and they knew it. You don't plead guilty if you know the state cannot prove their case. This all just hit the fan, so maybe we'll just have to see what happens next though.
Why would they plea with no plea agreement? They're no better off than they'd have been going to trial. Unless there really is some huge dirt on Spanier.
But it still all comes back to a misdemeanor in a case where there is no victim and there's a shaky at best witness who testified he never witnessed anything.
But it still all comes back to a misdemeanor in a case where there is no victim and there's a shaky at best witness who testified he never witnessed anything.
Maybe now McQueary, McQueary, Dranov and TSM get charged, too, since they all did the exact same thing C/S/S did
That would make the most sense but wouldn't you want your sentencing part of the plea? Seems very strange to say ok we are guilty, we will test for you against Graham, but not have the sentencing ironed out. They could have just rolled the dice at trial then
bwifan
Well-Known Member
They plead guilty to charges that don't apply to them or weren't even law at the time?
Reading this board you'd think there was no way they would ever be guilty and the constant delays were because the prosecution was trying to save face... or something...
When you're dealing with a jury pool that awarded McQuery millions of dollars and planning on getting a fair trial based on actual evidence, it's a risk to gamble on prison time, not matter how remote that may be.
If this plea deal kept them out of prison, you probably have your answer as to why they bit the bullet before trial.
If this plea deal kept them out of prison, you probably have your answer as to why they bit the bullet before trial.
How many thousands of angry posts have been placed on this board since November 2011 claiming that the University and its leadership had no culpability in Sandusky's abuses? I still need to be convinced of a deliberate conspiracy of silence, but was the University negligent? Unfortunately, hell yes.
In a normal judicial system I would agree with you, but PA isn't a normal judicial system. It is more like a kangaroo court. The shenanigans (see baldwin, ex post facto, and statue of limitations) the state was allowed to get away with during the whole process of charging CSS would send shivers down any defense attorney's back.
Then you have a high court quash a consolidated conspiracy charge only to have a lower judge reinstate one of the charges. When the eff has that ever happened?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually you have to have some leverage to get something out of the plea deal. They also waited a long time to strike up this deal and what was on the table a few years back maybe left the table? Again, I don't know, but a week before an now this. Apparently the state had a bit more than the talking heads here thought I imagine, myself included.
No, they plead guilty to one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. You are thinking of the failure to report charges.
It's fine to say how bad the courts are, but you don't plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit if you don't think the state has the goods on you. I know this was discussed non stop for years on here, but it's also entirely possible there were some things the state had on them that maybe didn't get out to everyone. I'm not stating this as fact either as I don't know, but I find it odd that your proclaim innocence all along and then throw in the towel 2 seconds before the fight. Very odd indeed.
From my buddy on another board:
"I'm guessing the recent verdict in MM's civil case give the AG office confidence that if they can get anything in front of a jury, they will win so they are throwing more shit on the wall. Those of us raised to believe the justice system has checks and balances to correct obvious prosecutorial abuses are being proven mistaken.
It appears to me that the Pennsylvania courts, prosecutors and politicians have been coalescing to protect some seriously influential people. As I have written often before, Pennsylvania courts and politics are as corrupt, perhaps more so than in any other state."
yup....you don't plead guilty unless you know the state has you. Well at least we are close to some closure around here.
Ahhhh the conspiracy excuse already....
The whole article (I know many of you don't like to give PennLive clicks)
Former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and former senior vice president Gary Schultz pleaded guilty Monday to endangering the welfare of children in the alleged Jerry Sandusky cover-up case.
Curley and Schultz entered their pleas in morning proceedings before Senior Judge John Boccabella. The agreement sets up the possibility that they will testify for the prosecution at next week's scheduled trial of the only remaining defendant in the case, former Penn State president Graham Spanier.
They each pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count that carries a maximum possible penalty of a $10,000 fine and five years in prison. The judge said there was no agreement on the sentence they will received.
"There is no provision of the agreement that would limit my ability to impose sentence as I see fit," Boccabella said.
The guilty pleas specifically related to a report by former assistant coach Mike McQueary that he saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in a shower at Penn State in February 2001. He reported what he saw to Coach Joe Paterno, who in turn reported it to his supervisor, Curley.
Prosecutors said that none of the Penn State administrators who were told of the allegation reported it to law enforcement, childcare and youth services or made any effort to locate or identify the child.
Curley entered his plea first, followed by Schultz. Both mean answered questions posed by the prosecutor and the judge, but did not otherwise speak.
The move comes just a week before all three men -- Spanier, Schultz and Curley -- were scheduled to stand trial on accusations they were criminally negligent in handling child-sex accusations against Sandusky in 2001. Prosecutors claim their actions, or lack of same, exposed several more boys to molestation by Sandusky.
The case has been winding its way toward trial for four years, delayed in part to await a state Superior Court ruling that dismissed charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and other counts against the three defendants. Those charges involved violations of grand jury procedures, specifically the use by prosecutors of testimony against all three men that was obtained from former university counsel Cynthia Baldwin.
In the time that Spanier, Curley and Schultz have been awaiting trial, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of dozens of charges of child sexual abuse, former graduate assistant Mike McQueary won a millions in a civil case against Penn State, and the university has paid tens of millions to Sandusky victims.
Former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and former senior vice president Gary Schultz pleaded guilty Monday to endangering the welfare of children in the alleged Jerry Sandusky cover-up case.
Curley and Schultz entered their pleas in morning proceedings before Senior Judge John Boccabella. The agreement sets up the possibility that they will testify for the prosecution at next week's scheduled trial of the only remaining defendant in the case, former Penn State president Graham Spanier.
They each pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count that carries a maximum possible penalty of a $10,000 fine and five years in prison. The judge said there was no agreement on the sentence they will received.
"There is no provision of the agreement that would limit my ability to impose sentence as I see fit," Boccabella said.
The guilty pleas specifically related to a report by former assistant coach Mike McQueary that he saw Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in a shower at Penn State in February 2001. He reported what he saw to Coach Joe Paterno, who in turn reported it to his supervisor, Curley.
Prosecutors said that none of the Penn State administrators who were told of the allegation reported it to law enforcement, childcare and youth services or made any effort to locate or identify the child.
Curley entered his plea first, followed by Schultz. Both mean answered questions posed by the prosecutor and the judge, but did not otherwise speak.
The move comes just a week before all three men -- Spanier, Schultz and Curley -- were scheduled to stand trial on accusations they were criminally negligent in handling child-sex accusations against Sandusky in 2001. Prosecutors claim their actions, or lack of same, exposed several more boys to molestation by Sandusky.
The case has been winding its way toward trial for four years, delayed in part to await a state Superior Court ruling that dismissed charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and other counts against the three defendants. Those charges involved violations of grand jury procedures, specifically the use by prosecutors of testimony against all three men that was obtained from former university counsel Cynthia Baldwin.
In the time that Spanier, Curley and Schultz have been awaiting trial, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of dozens of charges of child sexual abuse, former graduate assistant Mike McQueary won a millions in a civil case against Penn State, and the university has paid tens of millions to Sandusky victims.
I had been informed that they were not guility, and had only sought to have charges dropped, because of a corrupt jury system. LMAO.
Apparently they disagreed, since they both pled guilty.
Apparently they disagreed, since they both pled guilty.
3/12/2017 9:08 AM
lionlurker said:
Unless something's changed recently, I don't see any deals or flipping. And if they've got something on Spanier, it makes no sense that he was first in line to sue Freeh.
bjf said:
.
You're trying to apply logic/common sense
I can't think of any more futile endeavor over the last 6 years
Forget logic - - - - and observe
All your "certainty" aside:
The chances C or S or S EVER speak out and "tell all"?
About 0%
The chances C or S or S would take a plea - - if the deal is sweet enough?
About 100%
It ain't hard to spot a trend
lionlurker said:
You know not of what you speak.
bjf said:
One way or the other - time will tell
lionlurker said:
Don't you live in State College? Get someone there to flesh it all out for you. It's a small town.
bjf said:
The fact that it has BEEN five years - - - is kinda' a good indicator as to the likelihood of the "tell all" that some seem to cling to.
Alas - it is what it is
It's one thing to hope......and I still hold out hope (I'm trying to be optimistic - all evidence to the contrary)
It's another to believe.....
It's yet another to be "certain"
It is what it is
About the only thing that is CLEAR - is that NOTHING will EVER be "CLEAR"....... Ever
There are a lot of folks, with a lot of influence, working to keep things "under cover".....
And..... enough to make you weep .....
There is damn near NO ONE who stands for anything approaching "righteous"
At one time there was a chance - a small one - that if enough folks came together, to pursue "righteous" over self-interest......... that maybe, just maybe, righteous had a chance
I don't know if that chance exists anymore. I hope it does - - - but I don't know
Whatever the chances are - they are a lot SLIMMER than they were five years ago - - - and that is disconcerting.
Kinda' easy to handicap the outcome when you know who's playing for each side - - - and one of those sides looks awful lonely
first no plea deal. they are confident in their case. they can't wait to speak.
now all of the excuses flying .................
when Tim and Gary testify next week I will be around to hear all of those excuses about how it can't be true....... they are only lying to avoid jail time.
misinformed wishful thinking can only last so long.......................
now all of the excuses flying .................
when Tim and Gary testify next week I will be around to hear all of those excuses about how it can't be true....... they are only lying to avoid jail time.
misinformed wishful thinking can only last so long.......................
You must be happy Evan.
And the "angry" posts weren't because people felt the University had NO responsibility. They were and are directed at the idea that the University and everyone associated with the University (i.e., all of us) placed the value of winning football games over the welfare of children being raped. Of course, you know that, but to admit it would require a least an ounce of intellectual honesty, something of which you are totally void.
You make solid points, but this is tinfoil hat land, where all victims are liars and Ziggy is the truth....
Explain how excusing Baldwin's actions here aren't a "conspiracy". Laws are just ignored when convenient.
Former Pa. attorney general: Tim Curley, Gary Schultz case a ‘miscarriage of justice’
By Mike Dawson - mdawson@centredaily.com
A former Pennsylvania prosecutor thinks charges against ex-Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were a “miscarriage of justice” resulting from the disputed role of in-house university lawyer Cynthia Baldwin.
Walter Cohen, who was acting attorney general in 1995 and a first deputy attorney general from 1989 to 1995, offered a scathing review for the defense lawyers of Curley and Schultz, who wanted to have Cohen testify as an expert witness at a hearing in December. The review, in a signed affidavit, was filed in Dauphin County Court under seal, and it was just unsealed by the judge last week.
Cohen didn’t mince words in his review, saying prosecutors, the judge presiding over the grand jury and Baldwin herself failed Curley and Schultz. He said if it weren’t for those failures, the two wouldn’t have been charged in the first place.
Cohen arrived at his opinion after reviewing a number of documents in the case, such as the grand jury presentments, transcripts, and letters between Baldwin’s lawyer and the lawyers for Curley and Schultz.
“Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley suffered the complete deprivation of their rights to counsel,” Cohen wrote. “In fact, the harm to them was even worse than if they had no counsel at all. They believed they had an attorney who would protect their interests.
“The result here was a miscarriage of justice that improperly led to criminal charges being placed against two witnesses whose rights were violated.”
According to grand jury transcripts and arguments made by the two men’s lawyers throughout the case, Curley and Schultz believed Baldwin was representing them when they appeared to testify to the grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky in January 2011.
But the men apparently became targets during their testimonies, and when Sandusky was indicted months later in November 2011, Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury and failure to report abuse properly.
The defense lawyers have asked for the criminal case against their clients to be dismissed because they say Baldwin first violated grand jury secrecy by being present for their testimonies. The defense lawyers charge that Baldwin later violated attorney-client privilege when she testified against them to the grand jury in October 2012.
Baldwin’s lawyer, Charles De Monaco, has said very little publicly, but he has defended Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice and former university trustee.
“The suggestion by anyone that Ms. Baldwin did not fulfill her ethical and professional duties to the Pennsylvania State University and its agents and administrators, or testified untruthfully, is untrue,” De Monaco said in December when the issue flared up again after a court hearing.
Here’s how Cohen sees the issues pertaining to Baldwin’s representation:
Baldwin prepped Curley and Schultz ahead of their grand jury appearances, and owed them “loyalty, confidentiality and competent representation.” But Baldwin had a conflict of interest in representing both of them, didn’t get a waiver of the conflict of interest and did not represent them adequately during their grand jury appearances.
The judge supervising the grand jury, Barry Feudale, believed Baldwin was the attorney for Curley and Schultz, but he and the prosecutor in charge should have challenged the joint representation of the two men.
Further, Cohen said, if Baldwin was only representing Penn State, as she has maintained after her role came into question, then she had no business being in the grand jury room, as it was a violation of grand jury rules.
Cohen said he’s seen that judges and prosecutors are vigilant about grand jury secrecy and forbid lawyers who don’t represent witnesses from being in the grand jury room. He posits that Baldwin’s presence at the grand jury shows that either everyone involved believed she represented Schultz and Curley or there was “at least tacit approval” by the prosecutor and judge to overlook the law.
In addition, Cohen said, the pre-testimony interviews that prosecutors and state police had with Schultz and Curley should have been a red flag. Authorities indicated to Baldwin that an incident reported to Schultz and Curley involved the sexual assault of a young boy.
“This was a materially different story than that which Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley were prepared to tell,” Cohen said. “Ms. Baldwin should have alerted her clients that they were at serious risk of prosecution for perjury and failure to report child abuse, based on the information she received from the prosecutors.
“However, she did nothing to act on this information, with disastrous results for her clients.”
Cohen said that Baldwin should have recognized hostility during those pre-testimony interviews, too, and should have discussed seeking immunity with Curley and Schultz.
Cohen said that the public records show that Baldwin didn’t explain to Curley and Schultz their rights against self-incrimination. If they had invoked the Fifth Amendment, the grand jury testimonies could have stopped, and they would have had more time to consider options.
Cohen also recounted a conversation he had with Feudale on Oct. 22, 2012, that led to his opinion about Curley and Schultz.
Feudale had just wrapped up a discussion with a witness to the statewide grand jury in Harrisburg who was represented by Cohen. Feudale wanted a quick word with Cohen, who he’d known for quite some time.
Feudale told Cohen he would never allow a lawyer into the grand jury room with a witness unless he was sure the lawyer represented the witness. But, because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, Feudale couldn’t divulge to Cohen which proceeding he meant.
Cohen figured it was about Curley and Schultz, because Cohen had made critical public comments about prosecutors bringing charges in light of Baldwin’s role.
It wasn’t until sometime later that Cohen realized the timeliness of Feudale’s chat. The day he met with Cohen, Feudale had just had a discussion with Baldwin over her offering testimony to the grand jury where she sat and listened to Curley and Schultz testify more than a year before.
Baldwin testified to the grand jury Oct. 26, 2012.
“This testimony offered by the person who the judge and both witnesses thought was their counsel just compounds the initial injustice that they suffered at the hands of the supervising judge and (the) chief deputy attorney general,” Cohen wrote.
