Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now!
Jerry Sandusky Requests New Trial
The lawyers for Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State assistant football coach convicted of multiple counts of child sex abuse, argued for a motion for a new trial on Thursday, according to CNN.
The conviction and sentencing hearings for Sandusky were presided over by Judge John Cleland, who also heard the arguments on Thursday at Centre County Court in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Judge Cleland did not issue a ruling immediately. The motion for a new trial asks the court to re-examine issues it ruled on in earlier judgments.
Sandusky was sentenced to no less than 30 years and no more than 60 years in prison for abusing 10 boys over a 15-year span. Sandusky was sentenced back in October by Judge Cleland. Sandusky was facing the possibility of 400 years in prison with all of the convictions.
The lawyers for the former football coach argued that there was not enough evidence to convict him and the court did not permit them enough time to prep for the trial after being overrun with documents by the prosecution.
On Thursday, defense attorney Joe Amendola testified that he was not prepared for the trial. He also admitted that after he reviewed the documents following the trial, he did not find anything that would have made him operate in a different manner when it came to defending Sandusky.
The defense team for Sandusky also argued that some of the claims made against him were too broad and should have been dismissed from the case. Sandusky was convicted on 45 out of 48 sexual abuse counts by the jury.
“If you win on one of the appeal issues, everything probably falls,” Amendola said. “All we have to do is convince an appellate court that one of the issues we will raise is worthy of a reversal.”
Amendola has filed a motion to have the sentence against Sandusky reconsidered. Sandusky’s defense attorneys even tried to remove themselves from the case prior to the trial. They told Judge Cleland the day before jury selection that they did not feel prepared and it would be ‘unethical’ if they continued. Their request was denied by the judge.