Jerry Sandusky Appeal Heads to Court

Lawyers for former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky will return to court today launching their appeal for a new trial.

Sandusky will have his case heard at 3 p.m. Tuesday at the Luzerne County Courthouse in Wilkes-Barre.

Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of sexually abusing boys he met through his charity, The Second Mile. He is currently serving a sentence of 30 to 60 years in prison.

Though Sandusky’s criminal trial lasted for weeks back in June 2012, his first appeals hearing will most likely take barely an hour.

State College Attorney Matt McClenahen says these types of hearings before the Pennsylvania Supeior Court are relatively short, and are almost like question and answer sessions between the judges and the attorneys. McLlenahen is not involved in the Sandusky case.

“What this really is, is a chance for the judges to ask questions of the lawyers if they’re not clear on a particular argument,” McClenahen says. “Both sides will get somewhere around 15 minutes to make an oral argument, and the judges will interrupt them with questions. They almost never get through all their points.”

McClenahen says this is very different from a criminal trial, where an attorney’s opening and closing statements can make or break cases and influence people in one direction if they are on the edge. 

Sandusky’s attorneys are asking for a new trial, based on their claim that the defense wasn’t given enough time to prepare for he original trial. Those lawyers also believe that Senior Judge John Cleland wrongly allowed hearsay testimony from a Penn State janitor.

McClenahen believes it’s unlikely defense lawyers will get very far by claiming they weren’t granted enough time.

“The superior court would have to find Cleland abused his discretion in not letting the defense have enough time to prepare,” McClenahen said. “The superior court almost never rules that.”

McClenahen said the best chance the defense has in getting a new trial is highlighting prosecutor Joe McGettigan’s remarks in his closing statements during Sandusky’s criminal trial — when he told the jury that Sandusky should have said more in the court room.

McClenahen said Sandusky has a right to not incriminate himself, and McGettigan shouldn’t have challenged that in court. While the state could argue that it was a harmless error on McGettigan’s part, it could be grounds for a new trial.

After the three judges hear the arguments, they will most likely deliberate for upwards of seven months, McClenahen said. After that, they will issue an opinion on the appeal.