Frank Parlato
Part 1 of a Series: What the Commonwealth Won’t Talk About
On December 18, 2025, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office filed its response to Jerry Sandusky’s Post-Conviction Relief Act petition.
It was 73 pages.
It repeated trial testimony. It cited procedural deadlines. It argued that recanting witnesses should not be believed.
The Commonwealth’s entire position came down to three sentences.
The petition was late.
Recantations could not be trusted.
The evidence at trial was overwhelming.
Boilerplate.
The Commonwealth did not address the 2011 Leiter Recording. In it, lead investigator Joseph Leiter describes using “repetition and repetition… for months” until witnesses agreed with a story.
That recording constitutes witness contamination.
The Commonwealth cites Leiter’s trial testimony denying he ever suggested anything to witnesses. It does not mention the recording that contradicts him.
THE JURY INSTRUCTION
At trial, the judge spoke to the jury.
He told them that “The issue is not whether or not the witness’s testimony was corrupted by any questions.”
That ruling effectively barred the defense from arguing witness contamination—the core of its case.
The Commonwealth never mentions the instruction.
THE SECRET MEETING
There was a meeting on December 12, 2011, at the Hilton Garden Inn.
Judge John Cleland met with Prosecutor Frank Fina and Defense Attorney Joseph Amendola. It was off the record. Co-counsel Karl Rominger was not told. Neither was the public. Neither was the defendant, Jerry Sandusky.
The meeting waived Sandusky’s right to a preliminary hearing, where the theory of repressed memory as a science (or junk science) would have been challenged. That meeting to waive Sandusky’s rights should have been held in court with the defendant, a court reporter, and the public present.
It was held off the record and remained secret for four years after the trial. When it was exposed, Cleland recused himself.
In its 73-page response, the Commonwealth does not explain the meeting.
THE AG STATEMENT
At the press conference, cameras on. The acting Attorney General Linda Kelly said it was “incredibly difficult for some to unearth BURIED memories.”
The phrasing invoked recovered-memory theory—a theory that most courts have found unreliable.
The Commonwealth does not address the statement.
THE BARDEN REPORT — DISMISSED WITHOUT ENGAGEMENT
In an earlier PCRA proceeding, the defense submitted an expert report by R. Christopher Barden, a lawyer and memory scientist.
He holds a Ph.D. in clinical-child psychology from the University of Minnesota, summa cum laude. He earned a J.D. from Harvard Law School, cum laude. He has published in Developmental Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, and the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. He has testified in Frye and Daubert hearings in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Nebraska, California, Texas, and Utah. He has trained FBI investigators and federal judges on memory science.
His report said four things.
No competent memory expert testified at trial.
No Frye hearing was held to test the reliability of recovered-memory testimony.
The Leiter recording showed “the most historically improper, abusive, systemic government witness memory manipulation scheme” he had seen in thirty years.
Judge Cleland’s jury instruction was “the most science-uninformed, improper, corrupt statement” he had encountered in three decades of reviewing cases.
The Commonwealth called Dr. Barden’s analysis “scatter-shot hypotheses” that “do not advance any argument that was not previously explored.”
There was no hearing. The science was not examined. Whether courts ultimately agree with Dr. Barden’s conclusions, those opinions deserved a hearing—not a one-paragraph dismissal. Dismissing evidence is not the same as refuting it.
THE TRUST DOCUMENTS
In April 2015, the Sabastian Paden Trust Agreement put Prosecutor Frank Fina and the wife of Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan on the Trust Protective Committee. They had veto power over a key witness’s $12 million settlement.
The Commonwealth does not explain why prosecutors became paid gatekeepers of a witness’s money.
THE RECANTATION PROBLEM
Ryan Rittmeyer was one of eight witnesses whose testimony secured Sandusky’s conviction.
In June 2025, he submitted an affidavit. He said he was “approached by state investigators who encouraged [him] to believe that Mr. Sandusky had molested [him] — despite my lack of clear or certain memory of any such conduct.”
He said his testimony “evolved as a result of emotional strain, repeated exposure to leading questions, investigative pressure and psychological manipulation.”
He was coached before trial. He “felt he could not leave” during six-hour interviews. He was asked to “reframe his account” and “would not be released until his answers were consistent with the case narrative.”
That’s a blueprint that Leiter confirmed in the recording.
The Commonwealth answers with timing and credibility. Rittmeyer waited thirteen years. Recantations are “inherently unreliable.”
They do not address the six-hour sessions, the leading questions, or the pressure to shape his story to fit a narrative.
Prosecutors do not deny what he says happened, produce investigators to contradict him, or explain how “repetition and repetition for months”—Leiter’s own words—differs from what Rittmeyer describes.
The facts are not challenged. They are ignored.
PROCEDURAL SHIELD
The Commonwealth spent its first twenty pages on timeliness, arguing that the judgment became final on July 1, 2014. The 2025 PCRA petition is too late.
But the PCRA allows an exception: newly discovered facts that could not have been found earlier.
The trust documents were created in April 2015. The Rittmeyer recantation came in 2025. The Quidetto declaration, alleging that prosecutors manipulated her son, Sebastian Paden, and encouraged him to commit perjury, was signed in October 2024.
None of these facts existed when the judgment became final. You cannot discover what does not exist.
The Commonwealth argues that these witnesses could have been contacted earlier.
Great logic. A defendant could always have contacted a witness earlier. If accepted, this reasoning renders the concept of newly discovered evidence meaningless.
Next: Part 2 — The Leiter Recording
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!