FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
Failure to Report was a summary offense, punishable by 30 days and.or a $500.00 fine. Only Spanier faced that charge.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
Charges were filed in 2011, correct? So that's after the SOL for events in 2001 and certainly outside of the events of 1998. I believe the state was arguing that this was an ongoing offense, i.e. the offense didn't just occur in 2001 it occurred every day that they didn't report it. Which is absurd.
So my opinion (IANAL), is that the SOL always precluded these charges from sticking and frankly, I don't see why they don't apply to the other charges as well.
The SOL for the "failure to report" was a laughable situation from the start.
The FTR was all based on the 2001 situation - - - - which was already past the SOL on the initial filing
The AG made the (insanely ridiculous) argument that the failure to report was an "ongoing act" - since they "failed to report" the 2001 incident , and continued to FTR every day since .........
. Doesn't take a legal scholar to LOL at that (and yet it took 5 years to toss it)The EWC IS being pursued, as best I can tell, as a "ongoing act".......beginning in 2001 (or before - well have to see what if any evidence is presented if things go to trial) and the EWC continued on .........basically, a "conspiracy" to EWC
That is a 1000 X more reasonable argument than the one wrt FTR, but still a tough hurdle to overcome, I would think
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.
Edit: I just read Barry's post. A new FTR offense every day, as an "ongoing violation." That is just laughable. BTW, it also seems laughable with respect to the endangering the welfare of a child charges. Whose welfare are they now endangering, and where are the more current incidents to substantiate that continuing endangerment? Mind boggling.
Last edited:
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?
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.
And yet.......five - - - years - - - later - - -
Now - you wanna' get really righteous???
If I analyze this correctly:
1 - The FTR stuff - largely based on the entire MM / CS conversations, is tossed
2 - The Grand Jury based "perjury" allegations are dead (or on life support, i'd have to check to be sure,,,,,, JimmyW??? )
____________
On other words;
EVERYTHING that tied the case to "Penn State Football".......if I'm reading this right....... Is now DEAD
All that is left is the EWC for CSS, which, again - if I'm reading it right, will have to be pursued as if the "charge" is that CSS exhibited a pattern of somehow "facilitating JS's actions" - and thereby "endangering children", from 2001 to some point in the future
Now - even if that is all PROVEN (i.e. Guilty verdicts are reached) ........ NONE of that can even be tangentially considered a "Penn State Football" issue
And yet - look at all the destruction, the lives charred, look at what MM went through, look at what JVP went through, look at what EVERY PENN STATER had to deal with, look at the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS squandered - gone - burned at an altar of "f$cked up".......
For shit that ain't even being prosecuted
How's that grab ya'?
Last edited:
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.
kind of.
remember the OAG first tried to put this incident in 2002
once it was established to have occurred in Feb 2001, it was outside the SOL.
THEN they argued . . . the law changed in 2007, so they are literally being charged for FTR in 2007 for an incident from 2001, even as the OAG also acknowledged in its amended filing that they were not required to have reported ANYTHING in 2001.
The OAG said, when the law changed in 2007, C/S/S SHOULD have known to report what happened in 2001.
friggin mind bending, eh?
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.
It is very possible that is their argument, but that is a HUGE stretch and will fall apart as soon as it becomes clear that this was a TSM program, not a PSU program.
So in summary, Judge Boccabella is presiding over this trial, just as Ira instructed him....enough DENIALS such that the spotlight stays off Lubert , PSU and the 2nd Mile.
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.
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.
It would not be politically nor publicly popular to allow this case to go away. They are doing everything they can to NOT drop the charges because they would catch heck for dropping them.
That doesn't mean they think they can win.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Right, Spanier wasn't charged at this time either. I'm also not saying whether it'd be right for Joe to be charged, just that I wouldn't have been surprised if it occurred.
