Graham Spanier shouldn’t serve jail time | PennLive letters (Written by jury foreman)

[Keyser Soze 16801]

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/20...houldnt-serve-jail-time-pennlive-letters.html

As foreman of the jury that convicted Dr. Graham Spanier, I have carried (since then) the burden that the verdict was a gross miscarriage of justice! At the time, I voiced this privately with the friends and associates. It was my hope and prayer that the verdict would be set aside on appeal and that justice would prevail.

Now I see that a jail term has been imposed and I can no longer remain silent.

It is my firm and considered opinion that the prosecution of Dr. Spanier must end forthwith!

Richard Black, Susquehanna Township, Pa.

 

[Art]

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/20...houldnt-serve-jail-time-pennlive-letters.html

As foreman of the jury that convicted Dr. Graham Spanier, I have carried (since then) the burden that the verdict was a gross miscarriage of justice! At the time, I voiced this privately with the friends and associates. It was my hope and prayer that the verdict would be set aside on appeal and that justice would prevail.

Now I see that a jail term has been imposed and I can no longer remain silent.

It is my firm and considered opinion that the prosecution of Dr. Spanier must end forthwith!

Richard Black, Susquehanna Township, Pa.

Don't verdicts in criminal trials in PA have to be unanimous?

 

[KanePoster]

No idea why the jurist didn't simply "Jury Nullify" the conviction.

No reason whatsoever to follow the instructions of the law if you believe the law to be morally unjust, as is the case here.

 

[LongJakk]

They probably were following the judges instructions even tho they didn't agree with them.

 

[PSUSignore]

The million dollar question is if this juror feels so strongly then why did he agree to guilty verdicts during the trial? Going along with it then and repeatedly coming out publicly as against it is a cop out, likely to make himself feel better because his post trial comments accomplish little else.

 

[Pardlion]

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/20...houldnt-serve-jail-time-pennlive-letters.html

As foreman of the jury that convicted Dr. Graham Spanier, I have carried (since then) the burden that the verdict was a gross miscarriage of justice! At the time, I voiced this privately with the friends and associates. It was my hope and prayer that the verdict would be set aside on appeal and that justice would prevail.

Now I see that a jail term has been imposed and I can no longer remain silent.

It is my firm and considered opinion that the prosecution of Dr. Spanier must end forthwith!

Richard Black, Susquehanna Township, Pa.

So, Richard Black didn't have the guts to do the right thing and he hoped that someone else should do it for him. Don't be a Richard Black.

 

[Cletus11]

So, Richard Black didn't have the guts to do the right thing and he hoped that someone else should do it for him. Don't be a Richard Black.

if i remember his interview shortly after the verdict, he said something along the lines of multiple jury members wanted to find Spanier not guilty but there were one or two that insisted he be found guilty of something for the reason mostly that children were abused and therefore some punishment was due regardless of the law. basically that Spanier 'should' have done more type of attitude. And that he as the foreman didn't want a hung jury and complete retrial due to all the issues even having the trial in the first place and knowing the judge would tell them to go back and come up with a verdict and he didn't want to have to spend another week talking as he knew this one or two people would never change their mind. so basically he and a few other decided to give in and find guilty to the charge that was the least/smallest charge they could assuming that a misdemeanor in the end would be a slap on the wrist.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I believe he said something similar after the trial:

Jury foreman calls guilty verdict against Spanier a 'mistake'

www.inquirer.com

It is a shame he didn't stand up to the other jurors. I recall seeing other quotes that they (the jury) "just wanted to reach a verdict so they could go home for the weekend" (paraphrase) which is a travesty of justice.

 

[KanePoster]

The principle to uphold is that we are ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY responsible for our own behavior, but not others'.

The criminal is Sandusky.

Those who failed to stop him are not criminals, unless they were WILLINGLY aiding him. We have gotten stupid with these things like "Mandatory reporters" and so forth. Are we going to jail the two cops who listened in on Sandusky at the mother of one of the victim's house? Seriously? How is their failure to stop him any different than Spanier's or Paterno's or whoever? I'm sure the law indemnifies them, but morally speaking, how is it different? It isn't.

Please, no replies that Sandusky is innocent - let's save that for another discussion.

 

[Art]

if i remember his interview shortly after the verdict, he said something along the lines of multiple jury members wanted to find Spanier not guilty but there were one or two that insisted he be found guilty of something for the reason mostly that children were abused and therefore some punishment was due regardless of the law. basically that Spanier 'should' have done more type of attitude. And that he as the foreman didn't want a hung jury and complete retrial due to all the issues even having the trial in the first place and knowing the judge would tell them to go back and come up with a verdict and he didn't want to have to spend another week talking as he knew this one or two people would never change their mind. so basically he and a few other decided to give in and find guilty to the charge that was the least/smallest charge they could assuming that a misdemeanor in the end would be a slap on the wrist.

That's horseshit. If someone doesn't agree with the verdict favored by the majority, that person holds out until the judge declares a hung jury. Where it goes from there is not that person's problem.

 

[BOSCO2]

That's horseshit. If someone doesn't agree with the verdict favored by the majority, that person holds out until the judge declares a hung jury. Where it goes from there is not that person's problem.

Was Henry Fonda on that jury?

 

[Obliviax]

Don't verdicts in criminal trials in PA have to be unanimous?

IIRC, one woman was holding out for a guilty verdict. It was Friday! What could go wrong?

The jury compromised on a low-level misdemeanor to give that woman a "win" and they could enjoy the weekend thinking the judge would fine a wealthy guy a few thousand dollars and we'd all put this behind us.

This guy came out and said this before. They simply made up the guilty finding so they could go home for the weekend.

 

[Obliviax]

if i remember his interview shortly after the verdict, he said something along the lines of multiple jury members wanted to find Spanier not guilty but there were one or two that insisted he be found guilty of something for the reason mostly that children were abused and therefore some punishment was due regardless of the law. basically that Spanier 'should' have done more type of attitude. And that he as the foreman didn't want a hung jury and complete retrial due to all the issues even having the trial in the first place and knowing the judge would tell them to go back and come up with a verdict and he didn't want to have to spend another week talking as he knew this one or two people would never change their mind. so basically he and a few other decided to give in and find guilty to the charge that was the least/smallest charge they could assuming that a misdemeanor in the end would be a slap on the wrist.

I just posted the same thing as you without seeing your comment. And to @Art s point, it is horseshit but that is what the jury did so they could go home for the weekend.

 

[CentexLion]

if i remember his interview shortly after the verdict, he said something along the lines of multiple jury members wanted to find Spanier not guilty but there were one or two that insisted he be found guilty of something for the reason mostly that children were abused and therefore some punishment was due regardless of the law. basically that Spanier 'should' have done more type of attitude. And that he as the foreman didn't want a hung jury and complete retrial due to all the issues even having the trial in the first place and knowing the judge would tell them to go back and come up with a verdict and he didn't want to have to spend another week talking as he knew this one or two people would never change their mind. so basically he and a few other decided to give in and find guilty to the charge that was the least/smallest charge they could assuming that a misdemeanor in the end would be a slap on the wrist.

I hope Richard Black never has to sit in front of a jury of his peers, and they decide that they'd rather be home for the weekend, versus doing the right thing.

Juror #8 thinks Richard Black is a pu$$y

 

[PSU2UNC]

IIRC, one woman was holding out for a guilty verdict. It was Friday! What could go wrong?

The jury compromised on a low-level misdemeanor to give that woman a "win" and they could enjoy the weekend thinking the judge would fine a wealthy guy a few thousand dollars and we'd all put this behind us.

This guy came out and said this before. They simply made up the guilty finding so they could go home for the weekend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the "low level misdemeanor" was the only charge that actually went to trial.

 

[Cletus11]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the "low level misdemeanor" was the only charge that actually went to trial.

i thought he was charged with a couple of felonies and multiple misdameanours.

 

[Obliviax]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the "low level misdemeanor" was the only charge that actually went to trial.

I don't recall, maybe someone else does. But I thought, by the time it went to the jury, they had the option of doing several things. Child endangerment's definition was expanded by the prosecution, a lower court through it out while a higher court threw out the lower court's throw out.

A complete tire fire.

But to your question, I don't recall the deets.

 

[PSU2UNC]

i thought he was charged with a couple of felonies and multiple misdameanours.

Sorry, you are correct. Some charges were dropped before they got to trial, but not as many as I recalled.

Prosecution rests in trial of former Penn State president Graham Spanier

Conflicting testimony to given by Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, calls Paterno's 2011 grand jury testimony into question.

www.collegian.psu.edu

 

[Obliviax]

Sorry, you are correct. Some charges were dropped before they got to trial, but not as many as I recalled.

Prosecution rests in trial of former Penn State president Graham Spanier

Conflicting testimony to given by Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, calls Paterno's 2011 grand jury testimony into question.

www.collegian.psu.edu

right...and from Wiki:

Shortly before their cases were to go to trial, Curley and Schultz accepted plea deals for one misdemeanor count each of endangering the welfare of children.[55] Spanier refused a similar deal and went to trial on March 20, 2017 on two counts of endangering the welfare of children and one charge alleging conspiracy with Curley and Schultz to cover up a molestation allegation against Sandusky; both Curley and Schultz testified at Spanier's trial.[56] On March 24, Spanier was found not guilty of the conspiracy charge and one of the endangerment counts.[56] He was, however, found guilty of one count of endangerment in a split verdict.[56][57] His attorney indicated they would appeal the guilty verdict.[58]

On June 2, 2017, Spanier was sentenced to two months jail and two months house arrest. Additionally, Spanier was ordered to pay a $7,500 fine and perform 200 hours of community service. Curley and Schultz began serving their sentences on July 15,[59] but Spanier remained free while he appealed his conviction.[60] On June 26, 2018 his appeal to the Superior Court was rejected by a vote of two to one.[61] One of Spanier's attorneys said that Spanier would pursue a further appeal.[61]

On April 30, 2019, one day before Spanier was to have reported to Centre County Correctional Facility[62] to begin serving a two-month sentence, his conviction was overturned. U.S. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick ruled the conviction "was based on a criminal statute that did not go into effect until six years after the conduct in question, and is therefore in violation of Spanier’s federal constitutional rights.”[63]

On December 1, 2020, Spanier's conviction was reinstated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third District.[3]

On May 27, 2021, was handed an order to begin serving two months at the county jail on July 9, followed by two months of house arest, for a misdemeanor conviction of endagering the welfare of children. He was convicted by a jury in March 2017 but he remained out of jail due to appeals.[64]

 

[Media Fan]

The million dollar question is if this juror feels so strongly then why did he agree to guilty verdicts during the trial? Going along with it then and repeatedly coming out publicly as against it is a cop out, likely to make himself feel better because his post trial comments accomplish little else.

ABSOLUTELY. Media and public pressure seems to have driven this discomforting series of actions.

 

[Obliviax]

ABSOLUTELY. Media and public pressure seems to have driven this discomforting series of actions.

he said why he did it. They thought a low level misdemeanor would result in a slap on the wrist and be forgotten. They had no idea that the judge would go postal and are disturbed by it.

 

[PAgeologist]

I can't believe that a mistrial couldn't be declared due to the jurors quotes. I also can't believe that they caved to go home for the weekend. What an abortion of the justice system. Of course that gutless puke Shapiro doesn't have a moral and just bone in his body to do the right thing here.

They should throw Black in jail for being an asshole and finding an innocent man guilty.

 

[ouirpsu]

if i remember his interview shortly after the verdict, he said something along the lines of multiple jury members wanted to find Spanier not guilty but there were one or two that insisted he be found guilty of something for the reason mostly that children were abused and therefore some punishment was due regardless of the law. basically that Spanier 'should' have done more type of attitude. And that he as the foreman didn't want a hung jury and complete retrial due to all the issues even having the trial in the first place and knowing the judge would tell them to go back and come up with a verdict and he didn't want to have to spend another week talking as he knew this one or two people would never change their mind. so basically he and a few other decided to give in and find guilty to the charge that was the least/smallest charge they could assuming that a misdemeanor in the end would be a slap on the wrist.

Having served as foreperson on two juries (both civil cases), I can understand the frustration he must have experienced. Even so, a jury should never convict/find somebody liable based on anything other than the evidence presented in court (and reasonable inference, when necessary). This shows me a lack of leadership by the foreperson, and/or a lack of understanding by the jurists of the charge given them by the judge, which is inexcusable since the jury is free to ask the judge clarifying questions during deliberation. If they came to the conclusion they did because they were tired OR because they thought he should be punished due to the general nature of the charges, they failed miserably in their civic duty. But, again, it’s not that surprising. I was shocked at how many people who served with me either wanted to punish a defendant simply because they didn’t like a witness or felt bad for a defendant and wanted to find in his/her favor, even though there was zero evidence to support that decision.

In this case, the foreman should have tried harder to reexamine/reevaluate the evidence and enlist other jurors to help him explain/clarify things to the rest of the jury. That’s what really helped me. Without others providing a different perspective, I honestly don’t know if both of my experiences would’ve ended as they did. At the very least, the foreman should have told the judge there was a hung jury and let him decide what to do next.

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

Like him or not, Spanier is extremely intelligent

In a very real sense, he did not face a jury of his peers

 

[Art]

Like him or not, Spanier is extremely intelligent

In a very real sense, he did not face a jury of his peers

Yes, and if you don't believe that, just ask him.

And that's not what a jury of one's peers means.

 

[bvillebaron]

Was Henry Fonda on that jury?

Obviously not.

 

[bvillebaron]

right...and from Wiki:

Shortly before their cases were to go to trial, Curley and Schultz accepted plea deals for one misdemeanor count each of endangering the welfare of children.[55] Spanier refused a similar deal and went to trial on March 20, 2017 on two counts of endangering the welfare of children and one charge alleging conspiracy with Curley and Schultz to cover up a molestation allegation against Sandusky; both Curley and Schultz testified at Spanier's trial.[56] On March 24, Spanier was found not guilty of the conspiracy charge and one of the endangerment counts.[56] He was, however, found guilty of one count of endangerment in a split verdict.[56][57] His attorney indicated they would appeal the guilty verdict.[58]

On June 2, 2017, Spanier was sentenced to two months jail and two months house arrest. Additionally, Spanier was ordered to pay a $7,500 fine and perform 200 hours of community service. Curley and Schultz began serving their sentences on July 15,[59] but Spanier remained free while he appealed his conviction.[60] On June 26, 2018 his appeal to the Superior Court was rejected by a vote of two to one.[61] One of Spanier's attorneys said that Spanier would pursue a further appeal.[61]

On April 30, 2019, one day before Spanier was to have reported to Centre County Correctional Facility[62] to begin serving a two-month sentence, his conviction was overturned. U.S. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick ruled the conviction "was based on a criminal statute that did not go into effect until six years after the conduct in question, and is therefore in violation of Spanier’s federal constitutional rights.”[63]

On December 1, 2020, Spanier's conviction was reinstated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third District.[3]

On May 27, 2021, was handed an order to begin serving two months at the county jail on July 9, followed by two months of house arest, for a misdemeanor conviction of endagering the welfare of children. He was convicted by a jury in March 2017 but he remained out of jail due to appeals.[64]

Thanks for the history. So the 3rd Circuit doesn’t understand an ex post facto law.

 

[francofan]

The million dollar question is if this juror feels so strongly then why did he agree to guilty verdicts during the trial? Going along with it then and repeatedly coming out publicly as against it is a cop out, likely to make himself feel better because his post trial comments accomplish little else.

He had plans for the weekend and he didn’t think Judge Boccabella would sentence Spanier to jail for a misdemeanor.

 

[Art]

He had plans for the weekend and he didn’t think Judge Boccabella would sentence Spanier to jail for a misdemeanor.

Someone should have told this asshole that shit happens.

 

[PSUSignore]

He had plans for the weekend and he didn’t think Judge Boccabella would sentence Spanier to jail for a misdemeanor.

The potential sentence should be immaterial, either you think the defendant is guilty or not based on the evidence and you should be aware that as a juror you have no idea how the sentencing will go. Those chips fall where they may on the verdict and judge. Opting for guilty simply to settle a difference of opinion among jurors more quickly because you think the sentence will be light is a completely flawed and idiotic thought process.

 

[KanePoster]

I can't believe that a mistrial couldn't be declared due to the jurors quotes. I also can't believe that they caved to go home for the weekend. What an abortion of the justice system. Of course that gutless puke Shapiro doesn't have a moral and just bone in his body to do the right thing here.

They should throw Black in jail for being an asshole and finding an innocent man guilty.

I get the anger - but then we're really throwing him in jail for what we are saying Spanier should not be thrown into jail - failure to cope with an insanely difficult situation.

Think about this guy - he has a judge telling him that Black is not to decide what is right and wrong, but to judge only the facts. The judge/law is to say what is right and wrong.

Black knows that the facts can be twisted to support a conviction, so he relents. Weak, but understandable.

 

[PAgeologist]

I get the anger - but then we're really throwing him in jail for what we are saying Spanier should not be thrown into jail - failure to cope with an insanely difficult situation.

Think about this guy - he has a judge telling him that Black is not to decide what is right and wrong, but to judge only the facts. The judge/law is to say what is right and wrong.

Black knows that the facts can be twisted to support a conviction, so he relents. Weak, but understandable.

I get it, it's a big responsibility if taken seriouly. I'm more pissed that he basically agreed convict so they could go home. An Attorney general with any morals would see that and get rid of Spaniers sentence. We don't have one of those here.

 

[interrobang]

Too late for that jury foreman. Your ass clown jury are the ones that convicted him of a crime that wasn't even a crime at the time.

 

[ouirpsu]

He had plans for the weekend and he didn’t think Judge Boccabella would sentence Spanier to jail for a misdemeanor.

That’s a gross dereliction of duty with no accountability and tremendous detrimental impacts.

 

[ouirpsu]

Too late for that jury foreman. Your ass clown jury are the ones that convicted him of a crime that wasn't even a crime at the time.

It may be the jury’s fault, but it’s the forman’s job to prevent something like this from happening. In fact, the foreperson’s only real responsibility is to make sure every juror bases his/her decision on the law and evidence and facts presented.

 

[KanePoster]

It may be the jury’s fault, but it’s the forman’s job to prevent something like this from happening. In fact, the foreperson’s only real responsibility is to make sure every juror bases his/her decision on the law and evidence and facts presented.

Hard to be judgmental about a juror failing to do his duty when the state's own members of the legal system aren't doing theirs.

We need to get rid of our current class of leaders everywhere and replace them with smart, honest, respectable ones.

Then, and only then, does it seem to make sense to me to hold an average citizen to a higher standard.

 

[marshall23]

Hard to be judgmental about a juror failing to do his duty when the state's own members of the legal system aren't doing theirs.

We need to get rid of our current class of leaders everywhere and replace them with smart, honest, respectable ones.

Then, and only then, does it seem to make sense to me to hold an average citizen to a higher standard.

Think about the ruthless ass clowns that represented The Commonwealth....Eshbach, Fina, Ditka, Shapiro....to say nothing of the crooked judges.

 

[ouirpsu]

Think about the ruthless ass clowns that represented The Commonwealth....Eshbach, Fina, Ditka, Shapiro....to say nothing of the crooked judges.

Which makes a competent jury and foreperson even that much more important.

 

[marshall23]

Which makes a competent jury and foreperson even that much more important.

Of course it does. Have you ever been called to jury duty? The masses are asses.
Half the pool couldn't pass a saliva test.

 

[auxgym]

Was Henry Fonda on that jury?

Obviously, he was not....