The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to take up a case in which an attorney representing convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky had sought to invoke the work-product doctrine to avoid complying with a protective order issued by the judge who presided over Sandusky’s trial, which was put in place days after grand jury materials in the case were allegedly leaked to the media.
In July, a three-judge Superior Court panel led by former President Judge Correale F. Stevens rejected attorney Karl E. Rominger’s position that the work-product doctrine applied to Commonwealth v. Sandusky. Even if it did, Stevens said Rominger had failed to show how the doctrine was violated by the order, adding, “We simply decline to develop this argument for attorney Rominger or otherwise become his advocate in this regard.”
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
