Prosecutors in the Jerry Sandusky’s child sexual abuse trial wrapped up its case around 11 a.m. Monday, paving the way for the former Penn State University coach’s defense team to start presenting its case and putting its own witnesses on the stand.
According to 6 News’ Gary Sinderson, who is in the courtroom, Sandusky attorney Karl Rominger again asked the judge on Monday to dismiss a host of charges, calling the charges unspecific and arguing that the charges were too vague.
Rominger argued that the person referred to in court documents as Victim No. 2, who was a boy allegedly sexually assaulted in a shower, should be “indecent assault” at best. He then ask the judge to dismiss accusers No. 2, 6 and 8 in total.
The 68-year-old Sandusky has denied allegations of abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period, and his attorney has suggested the accusers have financial motives.
Prosecutors responded with specific case law to uphold and admitted that Victim No. 2 is a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors did withdraw one count, reducing the charges against Sandusky from 52 to 51.
The defense also raised a jurisdiction issue, asking if all of the alleged acts occurred in Centre County.
Cleland dismissed the defense’s arguments and motions. He said regarding Victim No. 2, that the jury should hear that case and make a decision. Cleland said at the beginning he was concerned about nonspecific charges, but said prosecutors have provided more details, and the case meets the standard for due process.
Jurors have already heard from prosecution witnesses including eight young men who say Sandusky sexually abused them as children. Jurors also heard testimony from assistant coach Mike McQueary, who said he saw Sandusky, naked in a team shower, apparently sodomizing a boy; a police detective who investigated Sandusky in 1998 and said charges should have been filed then; and a man who testified that his co-worker at Penn State saw Sandusky making a boy perform oral sex on him.
On Friday, Judge John Cleland ruled in favor of a Sandusky motion seeking to put evidence of “histrionic personality disorder” before jurors in his child sexual abuse case. The ruling means Sandusky can have an expert testify about a psychiatric condition that could explain his letters and other alleged grooming of victims.
Cleland’s order said Sandusky must also make himself available for prosecutors so they can prepare rebuttal testimony.
The defense says people with the disorder wouldn’t necessarily be grooming boys to molest them, but instead to “satisfy the needs of a psyche” with the disorder.
Stay with 6 News, WJACTV.com and WJACTV.com Mobile for continuing coverage.
