ADVERTISEMENT

Spanier loses appeal.....

Well from the jury foreman mouth the Spanier lawyer was correct. The foreman said all the jurors wanted innocent except for one that had to have a guilty verdict on one count as that person thought somebody has to pay for what happened. So in any normal case that wasn’t a tainted jury pool this case is dismissed
 
  • Like
Reactions: nits74 and 91Joe95
That is not how I remember it. As I remember it, many experts said that the prosecution had no case and made no case. In fact, one of their star witnesses (Curley) turned while on the stand. After all of the charges were dropped with the exception of one, the jury twisted the child endangerment law to appease a holdout jurist so they could go home on a friday afternoon and enjoy their weekend. So after five years and millions spent to get a prosecution, they got a single misdemeanor that seems to not apply to the case.

The juror acknowledged that they rushed the decision to get home on a Friday. He also was remorseful over the decision, as he thought they got it wrong.
 
Question to which I believe I know the answer. Can anyone find a case where charges were filed, let alone a conviction was obtained on similar actions?
#2 is there a record anywhere of individuals serving prison time (first offenders) for the charge to which Gary and Tim pleaded guilty?
This is and was a political prosecution. The OAG has been used for this for decades.
How is Graham Spanier anymore culpable than Jack Raykovitz. Josh Shapiro? Hello? Hello?
The Commonwealth of Pa. is a totalitarian state, plain and simple.
 
Sadly, totally agree. I am not familiar with PA's judicial system but in Ohio, most judges are former prosecutors and their friends. They have each other's backs. So, follow this case:
  • tons of elicit PR to get name recognition when you decide to run for office
  • over charging by a mile
  • dropping charge after charge while using unlimited state resources to obfuscate and wear down the defendant
  • Judge allows ridiculous charges to stand
  • Jury drops everything but one misdemeanor because they want to go home on a Friday afternoon (as the jury foreman said)
  • prosecutors declare victory
  • Appeal judges have the cops, prosecutors and lower level judge's backs
As much as I hate it, this is why NFL players kneel (along with the racial side of the corrupt system).


Where you guys reading this about this jury foreman
 
Here's how I read it: The defense didn't put up a defense because they were absolutely convinced the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury, however, had to have no reasonable doubt in order to reach a verdict of guilty. These are polar opposites (in theory, at least), so either the jury made the wrong decision based on the evidence presented or Spanier's defense was completely incompetent. It can't be both.

Well, I guess it can, but probably isn't.

Everybody thought it would be difficult for him to get a fair trial. With that in mind, it was pretty negligent of his defense team to not offer up much of a defense.

I think that’s
i tend to agree with you, but that is all hindsight. They could have put him on the stand and have a meltdown where he ends up serving several years. Regardless, if you follow the logic, if the jury was going to find him guilty of something, anything, in these trumped up charges, it probably didn't matter anyway. He could be Mother Teresa and would have been found guilty of something..
I think that is kind of a cop out and too simplistic. It’s easy to say they were going to find him guilty of something. If he could provide testimony that showed he was not guilty of failing to protect a minor it would have helped him out.
 
Where you guys reading this about this jury foreman
LOL....

tumblr_oiv32ruCtp1u501aoo1_400.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: NedFromYork
Everybody thought it would be difficult for him to get a fair trial. With that in mind, it was pretty negligent of his defense team to not offer up much of a defense.

I think that’s

I think that is kind of a cop out and too simplistic. It’s easy to say they were going to find him guilty of something. If he could provide testimony that showed he was not guilty of failing to protect a minor it would have helped him out.

well, I miscommunicated. In the arena, you have to make the calls without knowing the conclusion. The defense successfully defended Spanier to the point where he got away with a simple misdemeanor. That, in and of itself, is a major level of success. On top of that, most pundits felt that the prosecution had no case. Finally, even the jury foreman stated that he felt spanier was innocent but they found a charge to convict him on so that they could appeas a jurist and go home for the weekend. Who would anticipate a jury would so damage the system, put a guy in jail, so they aren't inconvenienced for a weekend. It is truly amazing. So, when you add it up, Spanier won most of his trial (which in and of itself is pretty rare) and probably won complete exoneration except the jury wanted to go home for the weekend. This, balanced with the risk, that Spanier would say something wrong and open up a whole line of attack that got him convicted on all counts. Its hard to say the defense did much wrong given the circumstances. With that, I am out of this conversation.
 
Pa. Superior Court lets Graham Spanier's child endangerment conviction stand
Updated Sep 13, 3:33 PM; Posted Sep 13, 3:33 PM
-670e608bf88e5755.jpg

Former Penn State president Graham Spanier leaves after the close of his trial at the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg, Pa. in March 2017. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has declined a reargument on Spanier's appeal of his conviction on a child endangerment charge. Dan Gleiter | dgleiter@pennlive.com (Dan Gleiter | dgleiter@pennlive)
By
Charles Thompson

cthompson@pennlive.com

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has refused a request by former Penn State President Graham Spanier's attorneys for new arguments on his 2017 child endangerment conviction.

The decision, dated Sept. 7, lets stand a three-judge panel's ruling earlier this summer that upheld the Dauphin County jury's original verdict.

Spanier was convicted after a week-long trial of exposing a child to further danger by failing to take a 2001 report of alleged child sexual abuse by retired Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky to police or child welfare authorities.

Prosecutors have argued that act of omission was a missed opportunity to put an earlier stop to Sandusky's serial predations on boys he was meeting through his Second Mile youth charity.

According to court records, Sandusky was charged with abusing at least four more boys between the 2001 incident and a 2008 report that ultimately put him on notice that he was under investigation.

Spanier has insisted he was never fully informed about the severity of the 2001 shower room incident at the heart of his case, and was of the understanding that it was just "horseplay."

But prosecutors brought charges against him after recovering emails and other documents that suggested he and his top aides were looking into the issue as potential child abuse from the first report, and that they apparently misled grand jurors about what they knew how how they responded to it.

More severe perjury and obstruction of justice charges lodged against Spanier were thrown out by a separate Superior Court panel in 2016 because of alleged attorney-client privilege issues before the grand jury.

But the child endangerment charges remained, and they have become the last obstacle in Spanier's personal crusade to clear his record - if not his name - of any responsibility for the Sandusky scandal at Penn State.

Spanier does have one appellate avenue still open: A request that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court take up his case. Bruce Merenstein, a member of Spanier's legal team, said Thursday that they do intend to seek that review.

The stakes are high for Spanier, 70, whose 16-year tenure at Penn State came to an abrupt end when he was pushed out of office by trustees in the midst of the gathering firestorm over Sandusky's November 2011 arrest.

First, he faces the prospect of 4-month prison term, with two months in county jail followed by two months under house arrest.

But aside from that, as long as Spanier's criminal conviction stands it will be difficult if not impossible for him to tackle the next phase of his battle - a defamation suit against Penn State's Sandusky case investigator, Louiis Freeh.

In that case, Spanier claimed Freeh's report to Penn State officials on the university's role in and responsibility for the Sandusky scandal unjustifiably smeared his reputation.

Senior Judge Robert J. Eby issued an order last September noting both sides in the Centre County Court case have agreed Spanier's conviction on a crime relating to the scandal make the defamation suit moot.

However, Eby has left Spanier the option to reinstate the case if he is successful in getting the child endangerment overturned.

Sandusky, 74, was convicted of the sexual abuse of 10 different boys in June 2012, and is currently serving a 30-year minimum jail term in a state prison in Somerset County.

Spanier remains a tenured faculty member at Penn State on paid administrative leave at an undisclosed salary.

A $600,000-per-year salary he was paid via a formal separation agreement negotiated in 2011 expired last year.

Reading the entire article it’s easy to see why no one wants to let this succeed - can’t have the false narrative jeopardized
 
so, what is the next step? Can Spanier appeal to beyond the PA court system even with the Pennsylvania Superior Court refusing the request for new arguments?
 
so, what is the next step? Can Spanier appeal to beyond the PA court system even with the Pennsylvania Superior Court refusing the request for new arguments?

The next step is an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that Spanier’s lawyers have already said that they will do. IMO, Spanier’s chances for a successful appeal at this level seem reasonable. I would give odds at 50-50.
 
[/QUOTE="Obliviax, post: 3660845, member: 1414"]. Finally, even the jury foreman stated that he felt spanier was innocent but they found a charge to convict him on so that they could appeas a jurist and go home for the weekend. Who would anticipate a jury would so damage the system, put a guy in jail, so they aren't inconvenienced for a weekend. It is truly amazing.
That is not what he (Black) said.
Just to be clear..... I think this Jury - like many - was put together with a significant representation of "idiots", and if Black (the Jury Foreman) was the best choice for that role - - - - God help us all.
That said:

What the Jurists actually said was quite a bit "different" than the common narrative put out there by those who have argued the Spanier shoulda' been found innocent..... here it is - in much more context and completeness:



______________________________________________

"We didn't ask ourselves the right question," retired Susquehanna Township truck driver Richard Black said of the panel he deliberated with for more than 12 hours over two days last week before eventually convicting Spanier of one count of child endangerment.
That question?
"What did Graham Spanier know?"
"In my opinion, I don't think Graham Spanier knew (this was reported as a sexual assault)" "They (former Athletic Director Tim Curley and former Senior Vice President for Business and Finance Gary Schultz) did not make him understand how serious a situation this might be."

Black, 78, said after reflection he believes the jury lost sight of that question in their desire to punish Spanier for the eventual harm to other children caused by what all on the panel agreed was an effort to protect Penn State's brand.

"They did that," Black said of Spanier, Curley and Schultz. "They were more interested in protecting the brand than in protecting the children."



One other panelist, Victoria Navazio, told The Associated Press Monday that an email thread that shows Spanier, Curley and Schultz agreeing to a plan to handle the 2001 report internally convinced her Spanier knew children could be left at risk.

In that chain, Spanier told the other two administrators that the "only downside" would be if Sandusky did not respond properly "and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it."

"How else can you take that, other than they knew they should have been reporting it" to child welfare officials, said Navazio. "Obviously he knew children were at risk for something... He knew there was a problem."

At one point, Black even appeared to describe Spanier as Sandusky's latest victim.

But minutes later, he also asserted that he's at peace with the group's decision because it was the result of an honest effort to deliberate the case as it was presented in court.



"It is not unprecedented for a juror who convicts to regret his verdict or to have a reasonable doubt after the verdict is announced," said Harrisburg area defense attorney William Costopoulos. "But under our system, it's too late."

The only exception, Costopoulos said, would be in a case of blatant juror misconduct where a juror stated that he or she felt they were forced to make a decision under duress.

Black made plain that was not the case here.

"I had tears in my eyes on Saturday and Sunday. But I'm at peace with this now... because we made an honest effort to the best of our ability with what was laid out in front of us."
Far from duress, Black said the deliberations - while at times passionate - were always respectful. "I feel I have 11 new friends that I didn't know before this started."

Describing the ebb and flow of the deliberations, Black said the panel was stuck for a long time at nine for conviction on the last child endangerment count. and three for acquittal when deliberations resumed Friday morning.

But as the day wore on, the holdouts winnowed down to one - Black himself.

After awhile, Black said, he didn't think it was fair to the other people in the room for him to hold out, but that's a decision that he says he believes he would have handled differently had Spanier testified.

That's where Black was critical of Spanier's defense.

"We're not mind readers," the foreman said.

He said jury members needed to hear from Spanier directly about issues like whether or not the president knew Schultz had consulted with Penn State lawyers shortly after hearing McQueary's report, and what his version was of what the his top aides had told him about then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary's account.

That testimony, Black said, could have given him and other hold-outs what they needed to drive the case to a hung jury, though he also said he doubted Spanier would ever have won a unanimous vote for a total acquittal.

"If something had been a little different, I would have hung the jury," he said. "But I wasn't given enough information to make a different decision."

As Black considers it all now, he said Thursday, "I personally believe that I had made a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

But he also tried to explain why he's prepared to move on.

"In this particular case I can live with it, even though I feel it was wrong, because I feel it was an honest endeavor. I didn't go whispering around a corner somewhere, or have somebody whisper to me around a corner.

"It was 12 people sat in that room and hammered back and forth, and honestly did what they were asked to do."


Unabridged version here, for those who are interested: https://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/reasonable_doubt_spanier_jury.html[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that. if you've ever worked for a big company, you know the fog of war and the messaging becoming distorted. I've been in organizational groups were the exercise is to line us up and whisper a message into the first person's ear. That person turns and whispers the message into the next and so on until done. The last person relays the message and everyone laughs at how distorted the message.

at PSU, the problem starts with MM giving a distorted message to JVP. Then to Curley and Schultz. They, then, give a message to GS. They decide to report it to the second mile, who, apparently, told jerry to wear a bathing suit. Can you F---ing believe that? Regardless, it was reported to the responsible party, TSM, who for some reason is being protected.

That was clear in the trial and it is amazing a jury couldn't figure that out. Someone wanted somebody punished a GS was sitting right in front of them and they wanted to go home for the weekend.
 
The next step is an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that Spanier’s lawyers have already said that they will do. IMO, Spanier’s chances for a successful appeal at this level seem reasonable. I would give odds at 50-50.
Forever the optimist. It should be clear by now that these people are crooks.
 
Hey, none of this matters because any day now the A9 will be releasing the results of their review of the Freeh Report. I think September 17th is the target date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stormingnorm
ADVERTISEMENT