Superior Court Rules Baldwin Grand Jury Testimony Inadmissible!

[Elwood Blues]

Big victory for Schultz, Curley and Spanier. Short story on PennLive:

Spanier, Curley Schultz win round in court battle over Penn State coverup case

A state Superior Court panel on Friday reversed a Dauphin County judge's ruling that former Penn State University President Graham Spanier and two colleagues had proper legal representation when they testified before a grand jury.

Spanier and fellow former administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley claimed in appeals to the state court that Penn State attorney Cynthia Baldwin should not be allowed to testify for the prosecution in the criminal case against them. They also asked the state court to rule to void their grand jury testimony on which perjury charges against them are based.

The three are charged in connection with their involvement in the investigation of child-sex charges against Jerry Sandusky.

 

[91Joe95]

Big victory for Schultz, Curley and Spanier. Short story on PennLive:

Spanier, Curley Schultz win round in court battle over Penn State coverup case

A state Superior Court panel on Friday reversed a Dauphin County judge's ruling that former Penn State University President Graham Spanier and two colleagues had proper legal representation when they testified before a grand jury.

Spanier and fellow former administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley claimed in appeals to the state court that Penn State attorney Cynthia Baldwin should not be allowed to testify for the prosecution in the criminal case against them. They also asked the state court to rule to void their grand jury testimony on which perjury charges against them are based.

The three are charged in connection with their involvement in the investigation of child-sex charges against Jerry Sandusky.

Does this also give them an addidional avenue to argue the other charges should be dropped since she was deceiving them and not properly preparing them for the gj's and other document requests?

 

[LafayetteBear]

Would be great if a member of the Pennsylvania bar weighed in here. Is Pennsylvania's intermediate level appellate court really called the "Superior Court?" That's confusing to this California attorney, as that is what we call our trial courts.

Also, the OP said precious little about what the Superior Court actually did. Good to know that the trial court ruling (holding that C/S/S received adequate legal representation from Baldwin) was reversed, but the order surely said more than that. Was the case sent back to the trial court with instructions to retry it with C/S/S's grand jury testimony excluded? Was the case dismissed? (Doubt that.) Wonder exactly where the case is, procedurally.

 

[91Joe95]

Would be great if a member of the Pennsylvania bar weighed in here. Is Pennsylvania's intermediate level appellate court really called the "Superior Court?" That's confusing to this California attorney, as that is what we call our trial courts.

Also, the OP said precious little about what the Superior Court actually did. Good to know that the trial court ruling (holding that C/S/S received adequate legal representation from Baldwin) was reversed, but the order surely said more than that. Was the case sent back to the trial court with instructions to retry it with C/S/S's grand jury testimony excluded? Was the case dismissed? (Doubt that.) Wonder exactly where the case is, procedurally.

Court docket is in here...

Awesome news. Thanks to JimmyW for a link to the docket.

Charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy are quashed.

I guess FTR and EWOC are the remaining charges. I guess the state is still trying to go ex post facto on those... Amazing that of all the people to get charged with that its the admins and not anyone from CCCYS or TSM (JR and Heim). Smh