Jerry Sandusky Still Has A Legal Advantage Over His Accusers Because Pennsylvania Law Is Stupid

[Are_grits_groceries]

Prosecutors have identified all but two of the 10 men Jerry Sandusky is accused of sexually assaulting as children. All eight of those known victims finished testifying Thursday, so those of us following the trial are hereby spared from any more nauseating details of the former Penn State defensive coordinator's alleged abuse.

Yet as credible as those victims were, and as overwhelming as their testimony was, there is still room for Sandusky's defense team to maneuver legally, and that's because Pennsylvania's criminal statutes are still uniquely, stupidly stuck in the past.
<snip>

1. Trial judges are required to instruct jurors to factor in how long it took for victims to report their allegations of sex abuse to authorities, even though that time difference is known to have no relevance to the truth of their claims.
2. Expert testimony in sex assault cases is not permitted.

<snip>
Likewise, neither chamber of the legislature made any effort to do anything about the backward-ass language that's been codified into the state's jury instructions, which read as follows:

"Failure to Make Prompt Complaint in Certain Sexual Offenses: ‘The evidence of [name of victim]'s [failure to complain] [delay in making a complaint] does not necessarily make [his] [her] testimony unreliable, but may remove from it the assurance of reliability accompanying the prompt complaint or outcry that the victim of a crime such as this would ordinarily be expected to make.'"

Sandusky's attorney, Lawyerin' Joe Amendola, has made it clear he intends to pound away at the victims' credibility. And because of the legislature's inaction, he's got the law on his side.
<snip>

What? Me worry?
Read more about the legislative shenanigans that kept this horrible law from being changed:
http://deadspin.com/5918753/utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

And I'll bet this was a calculated move to help Sandusky, PSU, and Paterno.
If Sandusky skates because of this, the entire lot of them should be put in stocks on wheels and trundled around the known universe.

[KurtNYC]

1. So that is in the jury instructions

but common sense is asked for to. If they are instructed to factor in how long it took to come forward then they must also factor in the fact that these are raped children who are confronting the most $uccessful college football program in the known universe.

The jury cried -- they are going to convict one way or another.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. They will not allow someone

to explain that waiting to report crimes of this nature and the problems victims have as the norm in abuse situations. What the jury factors in may be circumscribed by these instructions. Their own beliefs about how someone should act may also not help. Some perspective on how victims act could help in that regard.

I don't see how the can't convict, but any trial by jury is a crapshoot.

[jberryhill]

3. It's not that big a deal

On direct, you ask the witness, "Why didn't you report it right away?" and the jury can certainly take the answer to that question into consideration.

[1monster]

4. I think it is more than obvious to any but the dullest person, that these children were

even less empowered than most children are. He victimized children who were already precariously balance on a razor's edge. Children already KNOW that no one is going to listen to their word against an adult's word.