The Candid Review: A Blog About Appeals

Gerald Arthur Sandusky: Who Can Speak to a Conspiracy?

It has been nearly four years since Gerald Arthur Sandusky was convicted for 45 of the 48 charges of the sexual abuse of young boys he faced. Still, for many Pennsylvanian’s this despicable act of abuse still leaves as bitter a taste in ones mouth as if the news had just broke. The investigation of Jerry Sandusky began in 2008 after a Central Mountain High School boy made allegations of abuse. The betrayal of Sanduskys outrageous behavior not only sent shockwaves through the Pennsylvania State University community, but through the nation as well. His actions towards such a young and vulnerable population while convincing the public that he was a good-natured old man were hardly even believable to many. What was even more distressing was the news that Sandusky may not have acted alone. The charges of a conspiracy broke: it was soon discovered that this man had acted with help, or at least with free-reign that he should not have been granted.

The Co-Conspirators

Gary Schultz, former Penn State vice president, Tim Curley, former Penn State athletic director, and Graham Spanier, former Penn State president, each earned their former status during the grand jury and investigative proceedings involving Sandusky. A report known as The Freeh Report, named so after the investigative group who authored it, and headed by former FBI director Louis Freeh, identified these three individuals by name. The report stated, Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, the Special Investigative Counsel finds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the University  Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley  repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sanduskys child abuse from authorities, the Universitys Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large. The report also states that the men concealed Sanduskys behavior due to their striking lack of empathy for abuse victims and culture of reverence for their football program. In 2013 the men were ordered to stand trial for charges accusing them of a conspiracy to cover up Sanduskys serial pedophilia.

Their Appeal

The trio is now awaiting trial for both perjury and conspiracy charges. They are currently attempting to appeal a judges pre-trial ruling. The ruling in question was handed down during pre-trial hearings and involves a former Penn State attorney. The men claim that when they entered into the investigative stage involving Sanduskys conduct they believed that Cynthia Baldwin was their personal attorney as opposed to acting as Pennsylvania State Universitys attorney. The judge ruled that because of this distinction Baldwin did not violate any attorney-client privilege held by the men when she testified to their statements before the grand jury. During the appeal stage the issue will be whether she identified herself to them as their personal attorneys or as counsel for Penn State. If the defendants are correct in their appeal and Baldwin did not properly identify her own role, her statements before the grand jury would be in violation of the attorney client privilege.

At Brownstone Law, our hearts go out to the victims of this terrible tragedy.