Jerry Sandusky's Conviction Upheld
A Centre County judge has refused serial child abuser and former Penn State football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky's request to have his conviction thrown out.
October 18, 2017 at 08:15 PM
3 minute read
Jerry Sandusky.
A Centre County judge has refused serial child abuser and former Penn State football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky's request to have his conviction thrown out.
Judge John Henry Foradora's ruling Wednesday afternoon is the latest legal defeat for Sandusky in his bid for freedom. Sandusky is currently serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence.
He was convicted in 2012 on 45 of 48 counts related to sexually abusing numerous children. In August of last year, the Centre County Court of Common Pleas held a three-day hearing regarding Sandusky's claims that his trial counsel had been ineffective and that he had been the subject of prosecutorial misconduct.
In his ruling Wednesday, Foradora said “the bulk of Sandusky's claims are meritless.”
“The bulk of Sandusky's claims pertain directly to counsels' advocacy decisions, including steps they took or failed to take in preparation for trial,” Foradora said. “From the grand jury process through the judge's final charge, he contends that counsel's errors were so numerous and egregious as to warrant a new trial. Numerosity, however, does not create a presumption of merit; each claims must stand or fail independently.”
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro lauded the denial of a new trial to Sandusky.
“We achieved justice for the victims in this case and are confident that these convictions will continue to stand,” Shapiro said in a statement released Wednesday. “Hopefully, today's decision will allow the victims of Mr. Sandusky to live their lives knowing that this serial sexual abuser will remain behind bars. We will continue to fight to defend the jury's verdict. I have zero tolerance for the sexual abuse of children, and our office will pursue anyone who preys on children wherever we find them.”
Reached Wednesday, Sandusky's lawyer, J. Andrew Salemme of the Lindsay Law Firm said, “Obviously we're disappointed with the ruling and we disagree with it as well and we intend to appeal to the Superior Court very soon.”
Sandusky has 30 days to appeal Foradora's ruling.
Foradora took over the case almost a year ago, when then-presiding Judge John Cleland recused himself. At the time, Cleland issued a sharp rebuke to Sandusky's defense team for making “misleading” arguments.
In a strongly worded opinion issued Nov. 18, 2016, Cleland said that although his decision to step away from the case ”virtually invites the evils of 'judge shopping,'” he had to recuse from the case because of claims by the defense that he acted unethically with regard to the waiver of Sandusky's preliminary hearing.
Cleland also questioned the propriety of Sandusky's counsel's actions, writing that accusations against “attorneys, judges, jurors, investigators and victims” “is a form of advocacy that transcends the traditional boundaries of an honored profession.” The conduct, Cleland added, “should merit the attention of the Disciplinary Board.”
Sandusky's counsel has suggested that Cleland “participated” in a nighttime meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College regarding Sandusky's preliminary hearing. Although Cleland said his only involvement was being told by both prosecutors and Sandusky's trial counsel that an agreement to waive the hearing had been reached, he said he needed to remove himself from the case.
P.J. D'Annunzio can be contacted at 215-557-2315 or [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @PJDannunzioTLI.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readSlip-and-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark
3 minute readVolunteering for Voter Protection Efforts, Pa. Firms Brace for Contentious Election
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250