The Sandusky Defense
Is it possible that Sandusky's lawyer is plotting an appeal based on incompetent counsel?
The Sandusky Defense
(A brief discussion twixt Baer & Baer's editor, a.k.a. BE)
JB: Ya know, boss, I'm starting to wonder about Jerry Sandusky's legal defense.
BE: You mean the guy who gave new meaning to the term "Jerry's Kids," which for decades was only associated with the annual telethon by comedian Jerry Lewis for kids with muscular dystrophy.
JB: That's the one. For a former defensive coordinator, his defense doesn't strike me as all that well coordinated. And it's because of his lawyer.
BE: State College-based Joe Amendola.
JB: That's the one. He's either the worst attorney in the world or he's already planning Sandusky's appeal, based on incompetent counsel.
BE: I hear ye, hear ye.
JB: I mean, think about it. First, we learn the guy defending the guy on sex charges involving young people impregnated a 16-year old who was working in his law office and had a child with her.
BE: Yeah, but then he later married her and had a second child with her.
JB: Now estranged and separated. A model of family values.
BE: But really nothing to do with his defense work in this case.
JB: How about allowing Sandusky to do that national TV interview with Bob Costas on the NBC show "Rock Center" in which Sandusky said he showered with young boys but didn't act inappropriately and then hesitated when Costas asked if he was sexually attracted to boys?
BE: That hesitation was not a shining moment.
JB: Forget shining. Legally it was about as dimwitted as you can get. And now there's more.
BE: You mean Amendola telling the Harrisburg Patriot-News that if many more alleged victims come forward he'd consider entering a plea.
JB: Exactly. On one hand, he and his client insist Sandusky is innocent of all charges. If you're innocent of all charges why in the world would you plead to crimes that could get you life in prison -- where such crimes are not generally a ticket to inmate abstinence, if you catch my drift.
BE: Yeah, but now Amendola's saying he was only answering a hypothetical question and that the idea of any plea is "completely unfounded."
JB: Then why even mention it? Why continue to talk at all? Why dominate the news around this story by opening yer yap? If he doesn't say anything, there's nothing to write about. Why would he talk to media at all?
BE: Uh. to make a case for incompetent counsel?
JB: BINGO! And GRRR!