Skip to content
News
Link copied to clipboard

Sandusky lawyer cites media’s chilling effect on witnesses

Witnesses who had purportedly agreed to testify on behalf of former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky now may be afraid to come forward out of fear of the intense media spotlight on the case, Sandusky's attorney said Friday.

Witnesses who had purportedly agreed to testify on behalf of former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky now may be afraid to come forward out of fear of the intense media spotlight on the case, Sandusky's attorney said Friday.

Their ranks, lawyer Joseph Amendola said, include a man who believes he is the unidentified victim in an alleged 2002 incident in which a graduate assistant reportedly saw Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy.

"This guy voluntarily came in to see me and was eager to testify that no sexual activity had occurred," Amendola said. "Now, he's running scared."

State prosecutors allege that Sandusky, 67, molested at least eight boys he met through the Second Mile, the charity he founded for at-risk youth.

Penn State athletic director Tim Curley, who has been placed on leave, and former university vice president Gary Schultz are charged with failing to report alleged knowledge of at least one of those instances and then lying about it years later before a grand jury. All three men have denied the charges.

With the defendants set to make their second court appearances next month, rough outlines of their defense strategies have emerged.

This week, attorneys for Curley and Schultz asked prosecutor Jonelle Eschbach for access to grand jury transcripts and other correspondence involving the 2002 incident.

According to the grand jury's presentment, Mike McQueary, now an assistant football coach, testified that he told Curley, Schultz, and then-head coach Joe Paterno that as a graduate assistant, he had walked in on Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the showers of the football locker room.

Both Curley and Schultz told the grand jury that at the time, McQueary was not so specific in his description, according to its report.

In their letter Tuesday, the two men's lawyers maintained that corroboration of McQueary's testimony was necessary for the case to move forward.

"The presentment states no such corroboration," wrote Thomas J. Farrell, who is representing Schultz, and Caroline Roberto, attorney for Curley. "Please provide any in advance of the hearing or specify there is none, thereby saving the court and us considerable time and inconvenience."

Prosecutors typically are not required to make such disclosures this early in the process.

Farrell and Roberto also sought access to any information about continued contact between McQueary and Sandusky, and e-mails McQueary sent after Sandusky's arrest insisting that he had reported the 2002 incident to police. The assistant coach sent the correspondence to a friend amid increasing criticism of his perceived failure to stop the abuse.

State College borough police and Penn State police have said they have no records of any reports from McQueary that year.

"Apparently, Mr. McQueary golfed and socialized with Mr. Sandusky after March 1, 2002, conduct that is inconsistent with Mr. McQueary's testimony," Farrell and Roberto wrote. "Most people do not socialize with individuals they believe to be child rapists."

The state Attorney General's Office did not respond to requests for comment on their letter.

Amendola pointed to the intense scrutiny McQueary has faced as an example of what he said is giving potential witnesses pause.

From the assistant coach, now on administrative leave, to the arraignment judge, who has been criticized for not recusing herself because of ties to the Second Mile, nearly everyone connected to the case has faced hounding, Amendola said.

"Everyone who said they'd support him and come out publicly and tell everyone what a great guy Jerry was, they've all been exposed by the media frenzy," he said. "They're all afraid. Even his own kids are reluctant now."

Although prosecutors say they have not yet determined who the child in the 2002 case was, Amendola said Friday that he had met several times with a man willing to testify that he was the boy and that he and Sandusky were only playing around.

But since then, the lawyer said, the man has expressed concern about coming forward.

"He's worried: 'What will they dig up about me and my family? Do I want to go through what everyone else so far has gone through?' " Amendola said.

On Friday, Amendola also asserted his client's innocence in two new child-abuse investigations that have emerged in recent days - including at least one case involving a family member.

The claims - made to Centre County Children and Youth Services - involve incidents that allegedly occurred before Sandusky's arrest.

Amendola said he fears that even though these claims - made to Centre County Children and Youth Services - have not been fully investigated, they may play a role in Sandusky's preliminary hearing on Dec. 13.

"I think the Attorney General's Office feels that if they come up with something new, they can say Jerry is an ongoing threat to the community," he said. "If that's the case, I think there's a chance that bail is going to be set in a significant amount."

Schultz and Curley are set to return to court Dec. 6.