The
Opening Statements for the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse trial began this
morning. You probably remember that the
Penn State University (assistant) football coach is charged with 52 counts
alleging that he abused 10 boys over a span of 15 years.
There
was some pretty graphic testimony from Michael McQueary at the Grand Jury
proceeding in this case, and McQueary is expected to be called for testimony
during this trial. McQueary’s testimony
is pretty damaging for Sandusky, as he has previously testified that after
hearing “rhythmic slapping sounds,” he walked in to the locker room shower area
and found Sandusky sodomizing a young boy.
However, apparently there is a timeline dispute regarding the allegation
– my understanding is that McQueary testified that the locker room incident
happened in 2002, but the prosecution in the case says that the locker room
incident happened about a year earlier. This
timeline discrepancy is something defense attorney and media loving attorney
Joseph Amendola is expected to highlight.
If you
don’t remember Joseph Amendola’s name, you should. Specifically, you should remember to never
listen to his advice regarding pre-trial interviews. For some reason (eh-hem, Cough!...personalgainthroughmediaattention…Cough!)
Amendola allowed Sandusky to go on the Rock Center and for his client to be
cross examined by Bob Costas in front of all of America. For a re-cap of those events, see the
following breakdown from some guy who runs a blog and thinks he knows
everything:
Concerning the more recent events,
and specifically the opening statements today, there are a couple of things I’d
like to share with you. First is “saying
something without saying it” and Second is just a general gripe about jury
trial procedure.
Concerning “saying something without
saying it,” let me first say that there are some rules to which lawyers have to
abide when giving an opening statement.
We can’t argue. Argument is
reserved for closing statements (which is why they are sometimes referred to as
“closing arguments”). Rather, an opening
statement is supposed to be a time where the lawyers give the jury an idea of
what the evidence will be. So instead of
saying “Sandusky is a child molester” we are supposed to say something like “the
evidence will show that Sandusky is a child molester.” See the difference? Good.
One of the things that a prosecutor
is NOT supposed to say is “Put yourself in the shoes of these victims. How would you like it if YOU were the one
this man diddled?” That is argument in
the most pure sense, and is inappropriate argument for a courtroom because it seeks
to personally inflame the jurors. But is
sure is effective if you can get away with it (assuming the jury is leaning toward
the prosecution at the point of the argument – otherwise it may backfire). Let’s see how state attorney general Joseph
McGettigan handled the situation today…
Per MSNBC: “Joseph
McGettigan, the deputy state attorney general who is leading the prosecution,
said in his opening statement that the case is about ‘systematic behavior by a
predator.’
McGettigan told the
jurors that they would be hearing from the alleged victims. All of them are now
adults, but he asked the jurors to ‘bring your insight (and) understanding of
the way children experience things and react to things.’
‘They were boys. They
didn't understand why this happened to them,’ he said.”
Brilliant. Just brilliant. Seriously – McGettigan got the jury to place
themselves in the shoes of the alleged victims without directly asking them to
do so, thereby opening himself up to a very legitimate objection from the
Defense. Instead, he spoke about how the
Jury was to determine credibility of the child witnesses, which is certainly
one of the jobs for the jury. Asking the
jury to “bring their insight and understanding of the way children experience
things and react to things” puts them in the place of children, and asks,
indirectly, for the children to imagine that they are “experiencing” abuse from
the alleged perpetrator.
It is a fantastic way to evoke the
desired mental state in jurors without evoking an objection from the Defense.
On a slightly unrelated note – it is
significant that the prosecution gets to go first in opening statements. They open first, and then the defense gets to
give their opening statement. The
prosecution also get to go last for closing arguments. Defense attorneys often fuss about this,
because it means that the prosecution gets both the first and last word. We expect juries to remember what is said
first and last, to a greater degree than what is sandwiched in the middle. So defense attorneys will complain about
their arguments being dwarfed because the prosecution gets desirable argument
real estate. To which, I say: No
excuses. Play like a champion.
It’ll be interesting to see how this
Sandusky trial plays out. I’ll keep you
posted if any more interesting legal tidbits occur.
Simms & Reed, PLLC. Results.
As fast as the law will allow.
No comments:
Post a Comment