April 5th, 2012
04:07 AM ET

Sandusky due in court as lawyers seek to dismiss charges

Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky will be in a Pennsylvania courtroom Thursday as his lawyers argue that child sex abuse charges against him be dismissed.

Sandusky, 68, a longtime defensive coordinator for the Nittany Lions, faces more 52 counts involving sexual acts with 10 boys, dating back to 1994. Prosecutors allege he met some of the victims through a charity he created for underprivileged children.

Sandusky has pleaded not guilty, and remains under house arrest until his trial begins June 5.

Ahead of Thursday's hearing, Sandusky's lawyers filed a 95-page motion on March 22 that addresses several issues:

- The defense argues the allegations against Sandusky are so vague and non-specific that he cannot prepare and present a defense, which violates his right to due process.

- They say that in regard to some of the victims, prosecutors cannot establish sufficient proof; in some, the statute of limitations has run out.

- The defense also claims prosecutors have not turned over all the evidence. Once it is, the defense says it can lead to a revised motion to dismiss.

- They also say they need more time to prepare for the trial.

FULL STORY
Post by:
Filed under: Crime • U.S.
soundoff (73 Responses)
  1. Facebook Alternative

    Screw him! Throw the book at him!

    April 5, 2012 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
  2. Philip

    @Lee. I've mentioned gays rayping boys today, and the last time I mentioned it was several weeks ago...hardly an obsession. What's with your obsession with me? Why would you be so interested in what's on my mind? Focus on the story, not on me. ty

    April 5, 2012 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
  3. Philip

    According to the Supreme Court, it is a violation of a gay mans civil liberties to nake known his se xual orientation during a trial. And so gay men convicted by State courts of committing statutory raype have had convictions overturned by the SC based on cases not even involving children. However, the sC doesn't write laws. Our Department of Justice cleared the way just recently whereby prosecuting attorneys are allowed to point out that the perp is gay motivated by ust for tight boy anus. I believe Sandusky was indeed motivated by lust. You?

    April 5, 2012 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |
    • banasy ©

      I believe that one's penchance to shock by using terms such as "tight boy anus" is designed to shock...and it is disrespectful to the victims of this (or anycase) that perhaps may be reading this.
      One can have a point without going so far over the edge that one gets a website banned in a classroom...

      April 5, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • leeintulsa

      @philip: i think it was power, control, and opportunity.

      and even if what i read was innaccurate – and i don't think it was, life in prison is life in prison.

      you just want someone to call him gay in court? wonder how they would prove such a thing.. any ideas?

      it's like arguing whether or not a murderer loved his mother. it's a distraction from the point.

      April 5, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
  4. chrissy

    Just one question for you philip, are charges being brought up on Mrs. Sandusky? And if not, why not? If she had an affair with one of his victims, and she has admitted it so we know she did, why isnt she being charged?

    April 5, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Philip

    @chriisy. It was the young man Mrs. Sandusky had an affair with that blew this case out of the dark and wide-out into the open. He secretly recorded Mrs. sandusky speaking freely of her husbands numerous affairs with young men and boys. Now, this recording isn't admissable as evidence, but it got enough eyebrows raised to get the ball rolling. Mrs. sandusky is not bound by our laws to testify against her husband. We need laws whereby the wives and church people who know of these things can be compelled to testify.

    April 5, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Philip

    No, Lee. It isn't just a distraction. There are in fact men who are motivated with lust for younger women just as there are men motivated by lust for younger men. We call men whom raype girls (never boys) statutory raypeists. What do you call men whom raype boys exclusive of girls, Lee?

    April 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • leeintulsa

      the feds and i call it statutory. it's about age, not gender.

      April 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Philip

    What motivated Jerry Sandusky? What was his motive? It's hard to convict someone of anything unless you can prove motive.

    April 5, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy ©

      It sorta doesn't matter what one thinks if their opinion doesn't match one's.

      April 5, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
  8. chrissy

    Thats what i thought, in my mind that makes her an accessory dont you think? And charges should be brought against her as well.

    April 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
  9. banasy ©

    Shooting down everyone's opinion whom one doesn't agree with is a power play, leeintulsa.

    April 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
  10. chrissy

    And philip we know what you call them, but in the eyes of the law, and most of society as well as the dictionary, they are pedophiles!

    April 5, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Philip

    @chrissy. A mans wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. We would have to have the CIA waterboard Mrs. Sandusky in private to get at any vital info she has. I say we turn the CIa looose on American citizens who prey on children just as we approve of them waterboarding suspected terrorists overseas.

    April 5, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
  12. banasy ©

    @chrissy:
    That's because that is EXACTLY what they are.
    Well said.

    April 5, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
  13. chrissy

    And its the AGE of the victims not the GENDER that makes this a crime!

    April 5, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
  14. chrissy

    And its the AGE of the victims not the GENDER that makes this a crime! The fact that they were not consenting ADULTS!

    April 5, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy ©

      @chrissy:
      Well, you know there are some who want to outlaw h o m o s e x u a l i t y, too.
      I'm *sure* Philip isn't one...is he?
      Shades of Uganda, anyone?
      That would make the haters happy.

      April 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Philip

    Again, we don't convict statutory raypists for pedophilia or child molestation, chrissy.. We convict them of statutory raype. I say Jerry Sandusky's motive was lust, and he rayped those boys just like some straight men raype girls..

    April 5, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4