The Penn State Scandal: Sandusky's Bold Move and the Legal Fallout
Lawyers often differ on how to approach cases. I don't like a criminal defendant giving a interview to a hostile media. After Jerry Sandusky's disastrous interview yesterday this is why:
1. Burden of Proof: the biggest advantage a criminal defendant has is that the prosecution has to prove each and every element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest standard in our law. After Sandusky's interview, here's what the prosecution no longer has to prove because Sandusky admitted it. Sandusky told us he showered with young boys on more than one occasion, they were naked, their bodies touched and he was the only adult present in the shower. Now, the only factual difference from the indictment is that Sandusky uses the term "horseplay" and the prosecution uses the term "rape" for what happened in the shower.
2. Never call anyone a liar. Sandusky basically took that position that any eyewitness, including Assistant Coach Mike McQueary, is lying about their allegations of sexual misconduct. The prosecution loves this, as they intend on calling a parade of witnesses who will say Sandusky is guilty. But what is more important (and a question McQueary failed to answer) is why would they lie? What would be all of these witnesses' collective motivation to lie and falsely accuse Sandusky of monstrous crimes and in the process destroy Joe Paterno's legacy?
3. Sandusky now must take the stand. Since Sandusky has now come out and given an alternative theory of innocent "horseplay" for what happened, the jury will expect that he will take the stand to give the same story. If he doens't, Sandusky risks the inference of guilt from the jury.
Bye bye 5th Amendment rights
My name is Christopher Fusco. I am the managing partner of Callahan & Fusco, LLC with offices in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.