Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal (Indictment Post #144, "Pimping" Allegations Post #442)

[casmith07]

I think you two are talking about two different people.

I think you're right.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Are you talking about someone who is mentally incapable communicating details? Otherwise I don't understand the use of the word CAN'T unless it's due to concerns over self-incrimination.

Incapable of communicating details.

 

[Stautner]

Incapable of communicating details.

Okay, I'm with you now.

 

[Stautner]

I think you're right.

Maybe so, but the same principle applies regardless of who it is. I don't believe if a criminal willingly brings the evidence of a crime to the police that frees him from being prosecuted for the crime. I know some aspects of our legal system are screwy, but I don't buy that one.

What I suspect you are talking about is whether bringing that evidence to the police compels the criminal (or alledged criminal) to testify against himself, and I agree that it does not. Accordingly, the 5th amendment protects the accused from having to testify against themselves at trial, but it doesn't provide a blanket protection against considering the actions of the accused prior to that.

 

[peplaw06]

If you guys are talking about Sandusky's interview with Costas, that should be able to be played all day at trial. He's not being detained or interrogated by Costas. That was a voluntary statement. The 5th Amendment would only protect him if something was said by him while he was being detained and interrogated by the government/law enforcement and he made a statement without making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his 5th A. right. Wouldn't apply here.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

OJ got off because of the Rodney King riots. The city really couldn't afford to go thru those again and the jury knew it. Everybody forgets that. The Rodney King riots were devastating to the city of LA. People can talk about the jury being stupid for letting OJ be free, but I think being on that jury would be an incredibly difficult moral dilemma. Do you bring one guy to

A jury didn't acquit OJ Simpson because of the Rodney King riots. Yes LA would've riotted if he were found guilty (and I do think he was guilty), but it had far more to do with the glove found at the scene not fitting him and the detective being caught on tape saying the N word like 20 times. OJ's lawyers were able to use that to create reasonable doubt.

However, since Sandusky isn't on trial for murder, the burden of proof is far less.

 

[bbgun]

Sandusky's kinda lucky that several years have passed. Otherwise, his lawyer would have had to cross-examine little kids on the stand. Not a good optic.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Sandusky's kinda lucky that several years have passed. Otherwise, his lawyer would have had to cross-examine little kids on the stand. Not a good optic.

Are you thinking that he hasn't abused any little ones recently?

Why would he have stopped? He had the perfect setup. His charity provided kids for him to molest and Penn St. provided a place for him to molest them, and both kept quiet and were covering it up for him. Pedophiles don't stop unless they are stopped.

I just don't know that we know about the recent ones yet.

 

[bbgun]

Are you thinking that he hasn't abused any little ones recently?

Why would he have stopped? He had the perfect setup. His charity provided kids for him to molest and Penn St. provided a place for him to molest them, and both kept quiet and were covering it up for him. Pedophiles don't stop unless they are stopped.

I just don't know that we know about the recent ones yet.

He may have, assuming he's stupid or just can't help himself. All I'm saying is that it's easier for a lawyer to call a young adult a liar compared to a little kid.

 

[casmith07]

If you guys are talking about Sandusky's interview with Costas, that should be able to be played all day at trial. He's not being detained or interrogated by Costas. That was a voluntary statement. The 5th Amendment would only protect him if something was said by him while he was being detained and interrogated by the government/law enforcement and he made a statement without making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his 5th A. right. Wouldn't apply here.

Or, if the government compels production of evidence of a crime, which is what I'm writing about.

But yes, the Sandusky interview with Costas would and should be played at trial.

It's definitely a head-scratcher. I can't believe he did the interview. The only thing I could think is that Amendola will attempt to use the interview to show that by not attempting to conceal anything, Sandusky lacks the mens rea for the crime and is therefore setting up an NGI defense...but that's thinner than air.

 

[WV Cowboy]

All I'm saying is that it's easier for a lawyer to call a young adult a liar compared to a little kid.

You are right about that.

Plus, I'm no lawyer, but isn't it stupid to place yourself at the scene of the crime when he said he was in the shower with the boy?

(great sig pic)

 

[joseephuss]

Or, if the government compels production of evidence of a crime, which is what I'm writing about.

But yes, the Sandusky interview with Costas would and should be played at trial.

It's definitely a head-scratcher. I can't believe he did the interview. The only thing I could think is that Amendola will attempt to use the interview to show that by not attempting to conceal anything, Sandusky lacks the mens rea for the crime and is therefore setting up an NGI defense...but that's thinner than air.

Is there a "my attorney is not competent enough to defend me" defense?

 

[TheDude]

Sandusky's kinda lucky that several years have passed. Otherwise, his lawyer would have had to cross-examine little kids on the stand. Not a good optic.

There will be others...I have yet to hear of a repast stopping cold.

 

[casmith07]

Is there a "my attorney is not competent enough to defend me" defense?

Not as a defense but there have been cases challenging for ineffective assistance of counsel.

But, as defense counsel, you only advise your client. If Sandusky swore up and down he wanted to do the interview you can only tell him its not a good idea...can't force him not to talk.

 

[Stautner]

Or, if the government compels production of evidence of a crime, which is what I'm writing about.

But yes, the Sandusky interview with Costas would and should be played at trial.

It's definitely a head-scratcher. I can't believe he did the interview. The only thing I could think is that Amendola will attempt to use the interview to show that by not attempting to conceal anything, Sandusky lacks the mens rea for the crime and is therefore setting up an NGI defense...but that's thinner than air.

This was my point, so I'm confused why you were disagreeing with it. If anyone (Sandusky or anyone else - doesn't matter who we are talking about) makes public statements in public forums the 5th amendment is not a protection for them regarding what they said in those forums.

 

[TNCowboy]

Sandusky's kinda lucky that several years have passed. Otherwise, his lawyer would have had to cross-examine little kids on the stand. Not a good optic.

Would they put minors on the stand? Wouldn't they do the cross-examination somewhere other than an open courtroom?

 

[Concord]

Not sure about "outstanding," but he likes little kids as much as his client.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sandusky_lawyer_impregnated_teenage_7jKwQMCeBlm9RSdr9zeutK

Birds of a Feather

 

[bbgun]

Would they put minors on the stand? Wouldn't they do the cross-examination somewhere other than an open courtroom?

Minors testify all the time (i.e. show me on this doll where the bad man touched you). Just depends on whether the prosecutor wants to put them through that kind of trauma.

 

[casmith07]

Would they put minors on the stand? Wouldn't they do the cross-examination somewhere other than an open courtroom?

They would absolutely put minors on the stand.

And no, they'd cross-examine right there in the courtroom. Subject to objections of course, but yeah, they'd do it all right there.

 

[Stautner]

Would they put minors on the stand? Wouldn't they do the cross-examination somewhere other than an open courtroom?

What you may be thinking of is things like custody hearings where the judge might take the minor to a separate room so he can hear what he has to say in a non-threatening environment. Making a criminal accusation is another matter, and the defense has the right to try and refute the testimony the way he would with any other witness.