Sandusky lawyer J. Andrew Salemme recently submitted a brief regarding subject matter jurisdiction that was posted this morning to the Centre County web pages. IMO, he destroys the Commonwealth's arguments that the OAG had subject matter jurisdiction in the Grand Jury that was impaneled to investigate alleged Victim 1's accusations against Sandusky.
Salemme asserts that the Commonwealth conflates the distinction between power to investigate and subject matter jurisdiction. He states that Sandusky has never contended that the OAG doesn't have power to prosecute under the Commonwealth Attorney's Act, but rather the salient issue is the jurisdiction of a statewide investigative Grand Jury. The plain language of the Investigating Grand Jury Act provides that a multi-county investigating Grand Jury only has jurisdiction into public corruption and organized crime and those were not circumstances in the Sandusky case. Salemme's painstaking review of the history of multi-county investigative Grand Jury shows that they were clearly meant only for public corruption and organized crime cases and not cases focused at individuals primarily nor the commission of ordinary crimes.
Salemme concludes, that because the Grand Jury that investigated alleged Victim 1's accusation lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that that information and investigation served as the primary basis for the November 2011 Grand Jury presentment, that the presentment must be quashed.
It will be very interesting to see how Judge Cleland rules on this matter. If he rules against Sandusky, I think that Sandusky would have a very strong case on appeal.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY REPLY BRIEF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ISSUE.pdf
Salemme asserts that the Commonwealth conflates the distinction between power to investigate and subject matter jurisdiction. He states that Sandusky has never contended that the OAG doesn't have power to prosecute under the Commonwealth Attorney's Act, but rather the salient issue is the jurisdiction of a statewide investigative Grand Jury. The plain language of the Investigating Grand Jury Act provides that a multi-county investigating Grand Jury only has jurisdiction into public corruption and organized crime and those were not circumstances in the Sandusky case. Salemme's painstaking review of the history of multi-county investigative Grand Jury shows that they were clearly meant only for public corruption and organized crime cases and not cases focused at individuals primarily nor the commission of ordinary crimes.
Salemme concludes, that because the Grand Jury that investigated alleged Victim 1's accusation lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that that information and investigation served as the primary basis for the November 2011 Grand Jury presentment, that the presentment must be quashed.
It will be very interesting to see how Judge Cleland rules on this matter. If he rules against Sandusky, I think that Sandusky would have a very strong case on appeal.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY REPLY BRIEF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ISSUE.pdf