Share “Sandusky lawyer outlines basis for defense...”

Sandusky lawyer outlines basis for defense appeals

Published on NewsOK Modified: March 11, 2013 at 4:08 pm •  Published: March 11, 2013

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's "major claims" as he appeals a child sexual abuse conviction include the many years that went by before accusers notified authorities, according to a pair of defense filings Monday.

Attorney Norris Gelman listed the failure to report — specifically, the judge's refusal to instruct jurors on the issue — as a critical element of Sandusky's effort to overturn the 45-count conviction.

Gelman also argued that the defense lawyers lacked sufficient time to prepare for the three-week trial last summer.

He revisited arguments previously rejected by the judge who presided over the trial, John Cleland. The new filings set the stage for formal appeals before Superior Court.

Sandusky was convicted of molesting 10 boys over a period of several years in a case that brought down Hall of Fame coach Joe Paterno and led to sanctions against Penn State's storied football program. Sandusky, 69, is serving 30 to 60 years at a state prison. He acknowledges showering with boys insists he didn't molest any of them.

Penn State's costs from the massive fallout from the scandal topped $41 million as of the end of December, the university posted Monday on a website. The latest disclosure offered more itemization for certain costs, including the $8.1 million bill for the internal investigation led by former FBI director Louis Freeh.

Gelman, in the court filings, listed the reporting delays by the eight young men who testified against Sandusky. He said only one of them reported allegations of abuse promptly, while the others waited between four and 14 years.

"Reversible error was committed when the trial court refused the defense request to give jury instructions on the failure of the alleged victims to make a prompt complaint to authorities based on its view of 'the research' which led the court to believe that in the area of child sexual abuse such an instruction was not 'an accurate indicia of honesty and may be misleading,'" Gelman wrote.

The state attorney general's office, which prosecuted Sandusky, offered no immediate comment on the Sandusky filings, one made to the trial judge and the other to Superior Court.

Attorney Jeff Anderson, who represents two people with claims related to Sandusky, said the prompt complaint issue was unlikely to result in a new trial.

Continue reading this story on the...