Elessar78 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Yahoo! News has an article explaining why Matt didn't testify. And apparently, the prosecution can bring charges in Matt's case because the statute of limitations has not run.http://news.yahoo.com/ncaaf--matt-sandusky-jerry-trial-allegations-child-abuse-foster-son-jury-deliberations-20120622.html Dan Wetzel has done an excellent job covering this for Yahoo! Sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HooHog Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Yahoo! News has an article explaining why Matt didn't testify. And apparently, the prosecution can bring charges in Matt's case because the statute of limitations has not run.http://news.yahoo.com/ncaaf--matt-sandusky-jerry-trial-allegations-child-abuse-foster-son-jury-deliberations-20120622.html This is what I was going to say. If by some fluke the jury in the current case botches this thing, prosecutors bring new charges based on Matt's allegations and try again in a non-local venue. Insurance policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Yahoo! News has an article explaining why Matt didn't testify. And apparently, the prosecution can bring charges in Matt's case because the statute of limitations has not run.http://news.yahoo.com/ncaaf--matt-sandusky-jerry-trial-allegations-child-abuse-foster-son-jury-deliberations-20120622.html That's the explanation I read about too: "So why didn't special deputy attorney general Joseph E. McGettigan III call what would've been a blockbuster witness against his father, who faces 48 counts for abusing 10 boys over a 15 year period? He couldn't. At least he couldn't without risking the defense being able to call for a continuance that may have delayed the trial for months and caused the reseating of a jury and the potential retrying of a case the state feels very strong about. Matt Sandusky's revelations came too late. He wasn't included in the original indictment, meaning he couldn't be a prosecution witness without the defense arguing that they need time to prepare for the new charge. The only way for Matt Sandusky to become a witness would've been if Jerry Sandusky had testified in his own defense. Then on cross-examination, McGettigan could've addressed the potential abuse and later called Matt Sandusky as a rebuttal witness but not as an alleged victim. That may have played into the defense's decision to not put Jerry Sandusky on the stand, which defense sources say wasn't made until Wednesday morning, just hours before it rested its case." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I dunno, man. It only takes one. God forbid, but there maybe one hard core Nittany Lion fan on that jury who can't see the horrific facts behind that pretty blue curtain. This isn't to say all Penn State folk are like that, but there are those select few. That probably got asked in voir dire...and they are sequestered with no media access, from what I heard this a.m. on GMA, so I doubt they know about the 2 new victims/accusers. Chris Cuomo said that even though some juries try to get out by weekends, this jury was very solemn in getting justice served. (Wouldn't take me too long to swing the hammer, though.) What a sick man. And he thought he was actually doing good by these kids. edit-thanks LSF, hoo hog and Dan T. ....now we have a good explanation for why he wasn't on the original indictment. . ---------- Post added June-22nd-2012 at 11:00 AM ---------- I believe he's criminally responsible, but I also believe he is severely mentally ill. ---------- Post added June-22nd-2012 at 11:04 AM ---------- Sandusky is a sick, sick man. I believe he's criminally responsible, but I also believe he is severely mentally ill. When my husband ran up 2 flights of stairs a few days ago(not an easy task for him, lol)to tell me the defense was gonna try the "mentally ill" approach, all I could say was, "DUH!":doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arundelredskin Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I hope he gets all he deserves but knowing our justice system,after the Casey Anthony thing ,I would not be surprised if he walked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I was thinking about a huge potential pitfall that could come with this news. The jury is sequestered in a hotel. But how airtight is their sequestration? What happens if one or more of them somehow hears this bombshell revelation? Mistrial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Win4us Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I hope he gets all he deserves but knowing our justice system,after the Casey Anthony thing ,I would not be surprised if he walked. This crossed my mind as well. Our legal system is a joke with so may loopholes and angles for the defense to apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Here's hoping Sandusky gets a cell right next to the guy who killed Jeffrey Dahmer..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Two days and still no verdict? I have a bad feeling about this. For some strange and twisted reason, this country don't like convicting famous people in high profile cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I dunno, man. It only takes one. God forbid, but there maybe one hard core Nittany Lion fan on that jury who can't see the horrific facts behind that pretty blue curtain. This isn't to say all Penn State folk are like that, but there are those select few. This was probably already addressed in a different thread, but did anyone else find it a little weird that most (if not all) of the jurors had strong connections to Penn State? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 This crossed my mind as well. Our legal system is a joke with so may loopholes and angles for the defense to apply. People say crap like this and I have to scratch my head and wonder wtf they are talking about. The jury saw everything the prosecutors had to offer and they made their decision. What technicality did they use? You might disagree with the jury. That's fine, but it's not because the system is designed to have tricks so that criminals walk. Hell, even "Beyond a Reasonable" doubt is little more than a theoretical burden. Most people are presumed guilty. So, what loop holes? Defendants are presumed guilty by judges, prosecutors, police, juries. It is an uphill batter for every single criminal defendant as soon as charges are pressed. Those with money or access to competent public defenders may get a fair trial, but those folks are the exception. Thank god for DNA evidence though. Without it we wouldnt have any idea just how many people are railroaded by prejudiced or merely incompetent officers of the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I dunno, man. It only takes one. God forbid, but there maybe one hard core Nittany Lion fan on that jury who can't see the horrific facts behind that pretty blue curtain. This isn't to say all Penn State folk are like that, but there are those select few. My thoughts exactly. I just have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that there's going to be a PSU holdout or two that force a mistrial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Defendants are presumed guilty by judges, prosecutors, police, juries. It is an uphill batter for every single criminal defendant as soon as charges are pressed. Those with money or access to competent public defenders may get a fair trial, but those folks are the exception. Thank god for DNA evidence though. Without it we wouldnt have any idea just how many people are railroaded by prejudiced or merely incompetent officers of the court. So wait, you're claiming that most trials aren't fair, and that a vast majority of judges and juries automatically assume guilt? You do realize you're saying that the majority of judges are, essentially, corrupt, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Two days and still no verdict? I have a bad feeling about this. For some strange and twisted reason, this country don't like convicting famous people in high profile cases. Well, there were something like 48 separate counts... so it's a very complex case to sort through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 So wait, you're claiming that most trials aren't fair, and that a vast majority of judges and juries automatically assume guilt?You do realize you're saying that the majority of judges are, essentially, corrupt, right? No he didn't. Officers of the court is another term for lawyers. Anyhow, he's talking about psychology and he's talking about the messiness of the system. We can say "innocent until proven guilty" but deep down, we generally think defendants are guilty. Prosecutors do, juries do, and the rest of us do. And if you have ever practiced in criminal court, you would know how rough the justice system can be for those without lots of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 So wait, you're claiming that most trials aren't fair, and that a vast majority of judges and juries automatically assume guilt?You do realize you're saying that the majority of judges are, essentially, corrupt, right? Depends on what you mean by corrupt. The system is corrupt. Individual judges, prosecutors, and defenders have their own vices. What I am talking about is more like laziness, and just plain old not giving a ****. Is it corrupt for a judge to rather go home early than listen to motions by defenders? Is it corrupt for them to pressure defenders to not do what they are supposed to do so that they could have shorter work days? Is it corrupt when judges punish defenders who stick up for their clients by pushing their cases back so that theyre clients have to wait in jail longer? Is it corrupt for judges, to be buddy-buddy with prosecutors and not hold them accountable when they don't give up exculpatory evidence when required to? Is it corrupt for them to give less time and consideration to poor people charged of crimes? Is it corrupt to have 1 lawyer represent 900 felony defendants? Is it fair for those defendants to have a lawyer who never has the time (or the inclination) to ever even visit them in jail? How often do you hear about prosecutors being disbarred? How often do you hear about them being prosecuted? Is it because they are pure? Or is it because friends protect friends? Its these small biases that build up and create a poisonous culture within our criminal justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Win4us Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 People say crap like this and I have to scratch my head and wonder wtf they are talking about. The jury saw everything the prosecutors had to offer and they made their decision. What technicality did they use? You might disagree with the jury. That's fine, but it's not because the system is designed to have tricks so that criminals walk. Hell, even "Beyond a Reasonable" doubt is little more than a theoretical burden. Most people are presumed guilty.So, what loop holes? Defendants are presumed guilty by judges, prosecutors, police, juries. It is an uphill batter for every single criminal defendant as soon as charges are pressed. Those with money or access to competent public defenders may get a fair trial, but those folks are the exception. Thank god for DNA evidence though. Without it we wouldnt have any idea just how many people are railroaded by prejudiced or merely incompetent officers of the court. I was speaking of the legal system in general but since you asked about the Anthony trial how about her defense team accusing her dad of mollesting her or whatever. Maybe my terminology is off but i see that as an "angle" to pretty much draw attention elsewhere. IMO whether he did or didn't had nothing to do with it whether or not she killed/disposed of her child. How about that woman who sued McDonalds a few years back for spilling coffee on her lap and won, or burglars who successfully sue a homeowner when they get injured or maimed during the robbery. i's not just the defense lawyers i see a problem with either, the prosecution in way too many instances steps over the line. There seems to be little that a prosection or defense lawyer wouldn't use to gain an advantage in questionable tactics. And i can't stand the fact that most celebrities and atheletes can get far less jail time/fines (if at all) than a normal Joe.The system may not be designed to let criminals walk but it sure as hell happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 How about that woman who sued McDonalds a few years back for spilling coffee on her lap and won, or burglars who successfully sue a homeowner when they get injured or maimed during the robbery. Oh dear. Here we go. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that your feelings about the legal system may be based on anecdotal knowledge that is not particularly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Win4us Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Oh dear. Here we go.I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that your feelings about the legal system may be based on anecdotal knowledge that is not particularly accurate. They are in casual observation and obviously i don't study law, nor have claimed to. He was asking how i thought the system isn't right and the fact that so many bs cases are actually heard and won by individuals is what i was trying to point out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 They are in casual observation and obviously i don't study law, nor have claimed to.He was asking how i thought the system isn't right and the fact that so many bs cases are actually heard and won by individuals is what i was trying to point out. What I am telling you is that very, very, few BS cases are actually won. Believe me, I know. And the McDonalds case was not a BS case at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I was speaking of the legal system in general but since you asked about the Anthony trial how about her defense team accusing her dad of mollesting her or whatever. Maybe my terminology is off but i see that as an "angle" to pretty much draw attention elsewhere. IMO whether he did or didn't had nothing to do with it whether or not she killed/disposed of her child.How about that woman who sued McDonalds a few years back for spilling coffee on her lap and won, or burglars who successfully sue a homeowner when they get injured or maimed during the robbery. i's not just the defense lawyers i see a problem with either, the prosecution in way too many instances steps over the line. There seems to be little that a prosection or defense lawyer wouldn't use to gain an advantage in questionable tactics. And i can't stand the fact that most celebrities and atheletes can get far less jail time/fines (if at all) than a normal Joe.The system may not be designed to let criminals walk but it sure as hell happens. At the end of the day I don't think that angle was what won her case. But I have to stress that Casey Anthony was an exceptional case: a well off attractive white woman with a good defender. But what really lost it for the prosecutors was that they couldn't come up with a story that explained the whole situation, and the possibility of Anthony trying to cover up an accident (rather than murdering her own kid) created enough doubt. The legal system is not fair, those who are rich, famous, educated, or even look the right way are at a tremendous advantage than those who aren't. Most of what I know is from the criminal law, and the vast majority of the criminal justice system is one big unsympathetic machine that takes in poor people and churns out prisoners. And people look at these exceptional cases and create reforms that keep pushing back the rights of the accused. As for the McDonald's case. McDonald's knew that they were keeping coffee at temperatures that could burn. I don't mean ouch that hurts burns I mean oh **** I have to get to the hospital. If I recall correctly the burns on the woman's lap was so severe that she couldn't conceive children. And now because of that suit coffee is merely hot instead of scolding hot. I know that case sounds silly but it's one of those things were it doesn't make sense superficially but you look at it deeper and it can make sense. But on the whole (with a few small exceptions) our legal helps those who can help themselves the best (like corporations) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Verdict has been reached, supposed to be read in about 20 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I was speaking of the legal system in general but since you asked about the Anthony trial how about her defense team accusing her dad of mollesting her or whatever. Maybe my terminology is off but i see that as an "angle" to pretty much draw attention elsewhere. IMO whether he did or didn't had nothing to do with it whether or not she killed/disposed of her child.How about that woman who sued McDonalds a few years back for spilling coffee on her lap and won, or burglars who successfully sue a homeowner when they get injured or maimed during the robbery. i's not just the defense lawyers i see a problem with either, the prosecution in way too many instances steps over the line. There seems to be little that a prosection or defense lawyer wouldn't use to gain an advantage in questionable tactics. And i can't stand the fact that most celebrities and atheletes can get far less jail time/fines (if at all) than a normal Joe.The system may not be designed to let criminals walk but it sure as hell happens. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants they even made a documentary: http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp and here's a cheesy run down of some frivolous lawsuits, most don't amount to anything: http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/personal-injury/top-ten-frivolous-lawsuits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Verdict has been reached, supposed to be read in about 20 minutes. I'll save the drama..... GUILTY on all counts. See you guys tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Am I a terrible person if I want him to be shanked to death in jail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.