Jerry Sandusky Arrested Again, Additional Charges

Two additional alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky have testified before a grand jury in Pennsylvania, resulting in new charges being filed today and Jerry Sandusky's arrest. The complaint is here. The new grand jury presentment is here. The press release from the Attorney General's office is here. [More...]

The charges he is now facing:

Sandusky is charged with four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful contact with a minor, all first-degree felonies which are each punishable by up to 20 years in prison and $25,000 fines.

Additionally, he is charged with one count of indecent assault and two counts of endangering the welfare of children, all third-degree felonies which are each punishable by up to seven years in prison and $15,000 fines.

Sandusky is also charged with one count of indecent assault and two counts of corruption of minors, all first-degree misdemeanors each punishable by up to five years in prison and $10,000 fines.

A preliminary hearing will be held Dec. 13. Some of the alleged victims will testify.

Sandusky was arraigned on the new charges this morning. Why re-arrest him when he's on bail? Why not just schedule the re-arraignment? According to TMZ, prosecutors intend to ask he be held without bail. CBS reports prosecutors will request an increase in bail from $100,000 to $500,000, which is the amount they requested at his first arrest. The alleged new offenses occurred years ago. They don't make Sandusky any less likely to appear or any more a present danger to the public. It sounds like the AG is hoping a different judge will result in a different bail decision.

< Blagojevich Sentenced to 168 Months (14 Years) | DEA to Open Office in Sofia, Bulgaria >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Maybe he will stop granting inteviews now (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    If there is a indeed a merciful god, I will be spared from hearing this guy's voice on my radio again.

    Never mind - his very existence disproves a merciful god IMHO.

    For the life of me, I cannot (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    figure out why Sandusky keeps doing interviews. He's not doing himself any favors. With each and every interview he just digs a deeper hole.

    Hey, attorneys, can any of you shed some light on why his lawyer is not putting a stop to the interviews?


    I Swear, Watching a Grown Man Stumble... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    ...through the only question he should have had a resounding 'no' for is troubling on  so many levels, and he did it twice.

    And I would remove merciful in that statement.


    Judge set bond at $250K (none / 0) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 01:57:09 PM EST
    Cash bond (none / 0) (#3)
    by rdandrea on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    if he bonds out he'll have to wear an ankle monitor.

    I guess he won't be going to the TicketCity Bowl, with or without kids.


    I will be short and to the point. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    If a mechanically adept person is needed to build the gibbet or to spring the trap for these heinous criminals, I am available.

    I wonder if you might be willing (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    to wait for the trial or plea.  Or did you develop your theory of justice under the Red Queen?

    I have only been in a courtroom one time (none / 0) (#8)
    by me only on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:29:51 PM EST
    during AP American History.  It was jury selection.  Too long to remember how it proceeded, but someone asked a person if they understood "innocent until proven guilty."  Person said, yes.  Then was asked to explain what it meant.

    That means that "if the police said he did it, then he isn't (or ain't) innocent."  Probably happens a lot, but it was eye opening as a 16 year old.


    I've been in on jury selection (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    three times now, having been called to jury duty twice for the county, once for the state.  The quality of answers from a number of those of us participating in the voir dire process was rather discouraging, to say the least.  And the ones who really seemed sharp were often excluded for knowing too much about the case.  I never got chosen myself, although it would have been interesting to have been a jury member.  OTOH, maybe it's just as well, at least in criminal cases, and at least from the prosecution's standpoint, since I don't tend to believe everything that the state tries to present as some kind of "Gospel truth."  At least, not without some really, really stellar proof, I don't.  And I'm also a firm believer in the right of jury nullification, which is anathema to prosecutors.  (Although, they didn't ask about this, and I didn't volunteer it.)  

    I've (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 08:01:53 PM EST
    only been called once and I wasn't chosen. Of course the two cases that I was polled by the defendant's attorney I'm sure I disqualified myself by being truthful. The first attorney asked if anyone had been a victim of crime and I said I had. Of course, I was crossed off the list for that one. The second one was apparently a DUI and the guy had been smoking marijuana. The attorney asked if anyone on the panel thought marijuana should be legalized and yours truly raised her hand. Of course, my name probably got the big X on that one too. They may never call me for jury duty again. LOL.

    Yes, well (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 08:46:30 PM EST
    Tell the truth and they may well not choose you.  But you most certainly should not lie during voir dire, either- they can get you for that.  Of course, it does not mean that you have to volunteer an answer to any unasked questions.  Tell the truth, and only the truth- do not volunteer more than what you are asked.  (I'm not a lawyer, and this is not a legal opinion- only my own personal opinion.)

    I Was Once Asked... (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:17:12 PM EST
     ...if I thought 2 cops interrogating a 16 year old at school was unfair, I answered yes and to my surprise, I was picked.

    Later I figured out, they never told us, that the interrogation was tossed out.

    I have been involved in several cases, the one above was a week long trial and another in which the defendant, another kid, went back and forth on a plea, which took several days.

    I like the process and probably one of the few people that genuinely like jury duty.  That being said, both times it was juveniles committing petty crimes, can't say I would want to sit on a jury for something heinous.


    I was at one time (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    questioned about a civil case, an employee suing the city about a worker's compensation claim.  Upon finding out that I had been involved in a close relative's worker's comp claim, the judge called me up to question me further, in the presence of the two attorneys.  After I had outlined my involvement in my relative's case (including taking her to a couple of doctors and helping her fire her first attorney and get another one), I did honestly answer, upon being asked, that I thought that the worker's comp laws were highly skewed in favor of the employer.  The judge thanked me, and excused me from consideration for this jury.  The plaintiff's lawyer then exclaimed, "Wait a minute!  I want her as forewoman of the jury!"  Chuckles all around.   ;-)

    I Was Actually in Case Like That (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    I blew out my knee at a job long ago, and they ended up canning me.  It must have taken three years to resolve, but I had to actually take the stand and it was totally one of those f-ups by their attorney of "Don't ask unless you know the answer..".  

    It was actually quite humorous and at the time, my OJ moment, if you will, and the glove didn't fit.  Of course it was over like $10k, which I actually received the day I graduated college, like a big ole bonus from those scum bags.

    Off topic.  This happened in Milwaukee, and I went up there this summer, first time in like a decade.  I wanted to go back to the place to see if a friend of mine still worked there and just check it out.  Only two of us worked there, our bosses were in Michigan, it was a real industrial place, worthy of checking out.  Well my idiot friend was insisting we go to the Harley museum, anyways we get there and it's the same GD place.

    The plant I worked at was torn down and there stood the Harley Museum.  But they kept these two massive sand containers, like 80 ft tall.  It was a trip, the whole industrial wasteland now a yuppie paradise trying to look industrial, complete with a lame Harley museum.

    The whole city was like that, the grit and filth I loved of a blue collar city, now, all shiny and yuppified.  My last refuge of a home, gone daddy, gone.  I kid now, but it really depressed me, it wasn't the city I left.

    Anyways, I could not agree more about WC benefiting employers far more.  And even though I got paid, it cost me a pretty penny to do it, and had I not been in college, and actually needed the funds to live or pay my medical bills, the system would have failed me bigtime.


    +1 (none / 0) (#16)
    by rdandrea on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    What ? (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    Donald, this seems like a change of direction.  I didn't have time to peruse your posts, but seems like I remember you getting pretty worked up over people making this or that claim in regards to this story, but today they have rights to free speech ?  Not actually true here, but just seems like an odd thing to write considering the backlash you dealt out.

    I don't care, either way, just odd.

    To comment on the post.
    There comes a point where affording someone the benefit of the doubt gets harder and harder.  This isn't he said/she said, this is a whole lot of people testifying he did it.  Add in the second interview in which his lawyer literally had to bail him out, and it's getting very hard to afford this man the presumption of innocence.

    But that is a far cry from suggesting violence against the man.  Plus my personal opinions are just that.  And since I will have no part in his trial what I think and or write has no bearing on anything.  I will say this, it's clear that the best interests of the kids were not priority.  I can not believe the degree of complacency in adults that he was afforded.

    In some case we wonder how this could have happened, and it usually boils down to the perpetrator intimidating the victims.  But this case there were so many adults who could have intervened and didn't.  It makes me so sad and shamed there are well respected adults with such low moral fiber.  Hate using the moral word, but it's the only one that seems to work in this case.


    Personally< I am waiting for an internet (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by observed on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    device which will prevent people from publishing comments on law blogs if they don't show the slightest appreciation for Constitutional rights.

    Try looking at it this way: (none / 0) (#9)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:49:12 PM EST
    Our system gives Sandusky his day in court -- but it also gives these victims their day in court for vindication of some sort.  I hope that it is not awful for them, as their peers are being to one.  

    But then, we read that he is being brave and, with every interview of Sandusky that he sees, the young man is even more determined to do what he can to spare more boys (if what is alleged is true, etc.).  For at least some of them, the trial could bring significant closure and some relief.

    So the system can work, in its own interesting ways, if we let it do so -- and just remember to add "if this is so," "alleged," and the like.


    I think this guy may crack (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lil on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 07:19:01 PM EST
    I wonder if he's had a suicide assessment.

    He probably needs to be (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:05:34 AM EST
    I don't think he was prior to this, perhaps they will with the new charges being filed.