Just to provide some perspective on the biases the author, Chas Thompson is an unabashed cheerleader for Tom Corbett.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
copied the story from Penn Live ...I believe...reputable???Are there any reputable news sources for this story?
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:
As much as I hate it, this is why NFL players kneel (along with the racial side of the corrupt system).
- 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
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/graham_spanier_jury_foreman_vo.htmlWhere 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.
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.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..
LOL....Where you guys reading this about this jury foreman
Step, you, sir, are teeming with reputability. Pennlive, however, is a gossip blog.copied the story from Penn Live ...I believe...reputable???
LOL, the comments aren’t as kind to Corbett as the article.Just to provide some perspective on the biases the author, Chas Thompson is an unabashed cheerleader for Tom Corbett.
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.
Sorry, didn't mean it that way. Just when I read your question it reminded my of that old, traditional scene.Was a serious question. Because I missed that.
Pa. Superior Court lets Graham Spanier's child endangerment conviction stand
Updated Sep 13, 3:33 PM; Posted Sep 13, 3:33 PM
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.
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?
That is not what he (Black) said.[/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.
Forever the optimist. It should be clear by now that these people are crooks.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.
An oxymoron if there ever were one.Are there any reputable news sources for this story?