Ziegler Slaten today 4:30 PM ET

[indynittany]

You're the one saying Jerry is innocent. You said Clemente would change his mind even though there is no new evidence that would lead him to flip. Of course you can make up fantasy statements online based on nothing, but it doesn't make them accurate.

I never once said Jerry was innocent. If you're going to resort to lying, then I'll have nothing more to do with you.

There is plenty of evidence that has come out since the trial to call into question its integrity. Where would you like to begin? Alan Meyer's statement to Amendola? The janitor's statement that JS was not the person he saw?

 

[WeR0206]

How much are you getting PAID to spew this BS!!!!
By certifiable trial actions alone....Both lawyers showed that they could not effectively represent ANYONE!! REASON - well..... maybe its because both lawyers have the potential for "outside influences" being a factor in how they conducted themselves in their case development and trial strategies. Honestly, a legal intern would not conduct as poor a defense as what we saw here.

NEXT...Your statement about Sandusky's representation being better than 99% of criminal defendants in this country....What????....maybe better than a Black person who was accused in 1931 in Mississippi and was judged by a jury of KKK members.. THAT kind of justice I agree applies to the Sandusky's case.

Come on...the number of legal question marks in this entire matter is staggering!!!

You miss the REAL CORE OF THIS.....Its not a matter of Sandusky's guilt or innocence - it a matter of protecting core legal rights and ultimately our system of American justice. Justice is NOT JUST ABOUT is that person guilty or not. Its about was the process, evidence and legal representation. Was it good enough to insure a trial fair was conducted - was the evidence used to evaluate the accused untainted by process irregularities and was their reasonable proof that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not "tampered" with. THERE ARE SERIOUS and CREDIBLE doubts about these issues.

Let's face it 4 YEARS LATER....we really don't know with any certainty that what was accused was evaluated on REAL FACTS. ..."Guilty or Innocent"...no matter WHAT "side" people believe is the ultimate judgement on Sandusky - rational people who want true justice to prevail have no choice but to say that what we know about the Sandusky trial is it was a sham. A new trial with better oversight of evidence and effective legal representation is not an unreasonable request.

Excellent post, as always Legion. I couldn't agree more. The fact that CDW claims to be a lawyer is disturbing ...if he really is representing people God help them.

Just because someone is accused of a henious crime doesnt mean the rules of court and a fair trial can be tossed out the window for kangaroo court fiasco. In this case not only was there ineffective counsel but also prosecutorial misconduct, and incorrect julings by the judge (allowing police to perjure themselves and JM to claim he didn't remember testifying at the 12/16/11 prelim for CS--are you freakin kidding me?!?). Thats a lot of things right there that can taint the fair trial process.

 

[Misder2]

I don't consider Karl Rominger a qualified attorney, not after he has admitted misappropriating $535,000 of his client's money for personal use.

Joe Amendola may have been better than a public defender but probably not. I don't believe he was at all effective in his defense of Sandusky and I believe he made mistakes that a competent attorney would not have made which more than likely would have changed the result of the trial.

He was totally unprepared. He should have walked away from the case when his request for continuances were denied and he realized that he was unable to offer a defense that his client deserved. He provided Jerry Sandusky with terrible advise:
-advised him to not challenge the AF charges when he was first indicated
-advised him against having a preliminary hearing that could have exposed more of the accuser's stories
-promised the jury that JS would testify and then walked it back
-was totally unprepared for cross examining the accusers and challenging their accounts
-advised him to give Costas interview without preparing him and telling him how to deny charges
-total mismanagement of v2 charges and not introducing AM statement
-total mismanagement of v8 charges and not bringing in Calhoun statement
-not calling out the deplorable behavior of the OAG for their acts of prosecutorial misconduct

1. The false grand jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the shower
2. The illegal OAG grand jury leak in March 2011 to Sara Ganim in their quest to identify more accusers
3. The OAG investigators suggesting testimony to v4 after he already made a statement and before he went before the grand jury (this was taped unbeknownst to investigators)
4. The OAG making a knowingly false statement when they said v2 was "unknown to us...known to God but not to us."
5. Using Sandusky's constitutional right to remain silent against him in closing arguments
6. Charging Spanier, Curley, and Schultz with criminal offenses when they apparently have no intentions of prosecuting them so they wouldn't be defense witnesses

Jerry Sandusky did not get a fair trial. The question of his guilt is unresolved. If Judge Cleland has a shred of objectively, I believe he will order hearings into the issues identified in the PCRA. What do you believe the Commonwealth will have to say in their response to the Petition? What does Lindsay have wrong?

It's almost as if Amendola knew what he had as a client. I don't consider that fair, but I do consider it a possibility/probability.

 

[SteveMasters]

It's almost as if Amendola knew what he had as a client. I don't consider that fair, but I do consider it a possibility/probability.

You have said in the past that Sandusky did not receive a fair trial. Are you for or against a new trial?

 

[Misder2]

You have said in the past that Sandusky did not receive a fair trial. Are you for or against a new trial?

I don't consider myself qualified to make that judgment. To me, from the outside looking in the trial seemed like a joke. I don't know whether or not a joke of a trial, in a layman's eyes, constitutes an "unfair trial". Law enforcement and the judicial community blew this thing starting long ago. A new trial? I don't care, it changes nothing for me.

 

[L.T. Young]

Why would they?

You're the one who said Clemente would write a much different report today.

 

[SteveMasters]

I don't consider myself qualified to make that judgment. To me, from the outside looking in the trial seemed like a joke. I don't know whether or not a joke of a trial, in a layman's eyes, constitutes an "unfair trial". Law enforcement and the judicial community blew this thing starting long ago. A new trial? I don't care, it changes nothing for me.

At least you aren't against it. I think it is hypocritical to believe the trial was unfair but then be against a new trial.