By now most of those who have followed the story from the beginning know that Jerry Sandusky is in a county lockup as he awaits a judge’s sentence for his crimes—convicted on 45 of 48 felonies involving child molestation.
At the least, due to mandatory minimum sentencing applicable to those guilty findings, Sandusky will face 60-years behind bars—he’ll die in prison… he’s already 68-years old.
For months leading up to the trial, every “used-to-be” prosecutor and every wannabe defense attorney pontificated on the merits, or lack thereof, of this case.
And, for the past 48-hours, most of those pontificators have been talking, ad nauseum, about the “no win” scenario they had predicted for him. Even the ones who didn’t see a slam-dunk conviction for prosecutors have been doing yeoman labor at explaining why they were wrong.
Have you ever noticed that, after the fact, it’s never “I was full of crap from the start” with these prognosticators?
Anyway, I don’t care about any of this. Based on the facts as they emerged, Sandusky got what he deserved—at least legally.
However, this could change quickly if certain emissaries from the prison’s general population ever get a chance to visit him. He’ll learn, firsthand, what his “love” felt like to his young victims. And, they won’t soap him up first, either!
What DOES fascinate me about high profile cases, especially whenever kids are involved victim-wise, is the public’s response to the outcomes.
If you need proof that knuckle-draggers walk among us, check out various Internet Portals (Yahoo is a prime one). All of them provide response forums for the public to post their “feelings.”
Nothing projects sheer illiteracy like many of the postings on these forums. It becomes crystal clear in short order that most of these people have no clue as to how the criminal justice system works in this country.
I’m not talking about intellectually curious people who merely express an often justified frustration over the system’s frequent spats over a relative definition of “IS” and a perpetually glacial pace in arriving at it.
As absolutely slow and seemingly like trying to “flick-fly-shit-out-of-pepper” as this appears, it makes sense when we consider that the process involves the potential for executing people or sending them to prison for very long times.
No, I’m talking about people with what appear to be natural foreheads—thanks, most likely to electrolysis—who continually express their incoherent brain pings in digital monosyllabic grunts.
These folks are limbic-brain dominate because their neocortical-brain has been virtually stunted for various reasons. But, the fact is that, empathy notwithstanding, most of these people are flat-out STUPID!
Professional criminologists have known for decades that guilty people, no matter how unwittingly, always attack the evidence without denying the charges.
On the other hand, innocent people—every bit as unwittingly—always deny the charges and often become highly indignant toward their accusers.
It’s true that Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, always publicly claimed that his client was “innocent.” But, even had he been convinced his client was guilty as hell, he’s not stupid enough to have told the press!
However, Sandusky never personally denied the charges. He said on a couple of occasions that he “had done nothing wrong.” And he continually attacked the evidence as nothing more than innocent interactions between a sincerely caring mentoring adult and socially needy youngsters.
Whenever people get themselves caught breaking the law (red-handed most of the time), we hear the same thing: “I’ve done nothing wrong.” But the public has to understand that this is NOT the same thing as saying, “I didn’t do it.”
Once the judge sentences Sandusky, his defense team will be able to appeal the outcome if they feel that one or more judicial errors occurred. Mr. Amendola has already stated his intentions of doing so in that the presiding judge failed to grant enough time to mount an adequate defense.
Good luck with this; but his attorney should not depend on a successful outcome to get a reversal and new trial for his client.
While it’s a technically legitimate question to put before Pennsylvania’s State Supreme Court—even though several forum responders think Joe Amendola should be disbarred just for defending Sandusky, let alone appealing his conviction—the justices are highly likely to deny the appeal.
While a jury at the trial level must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, judicial rulings are not so governed. A PREPONDERANCE of the evidence is sufficient.
And it not only applies to trial judges, it applies to appellate justices: both state and federal, including the U. S. Supreme Court.
Had Judge Cleland granted the Sandusky defense team even as much as SIX more months to prepare its defense, the question before the appellate court is whether it would have been more likely than not to have altered the final outcome of the trial.
Looking at the trial transcripts relative to jurisprudential performance, not to mention the quality of the direct evidence against him in conjunction with the high consistency of supporting circumstantial evidence, Sandusky’s appeal, other than consuming copious amounts of time and money, will go nowhere.