Frank Parlato
On the evening of December 12, 2011, four lawyers and two judges assembled inside a small conference room at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College, Pennsylvania.
No court reporter. No transcript.
When the meeting adjourned, Jerry Sandusky’s right to a preliminary hearing was waived. Sandusky was not present.
His preliminary hearing had been scheduled for the next morning, December 13, 2011.
The Preliminary Hearing
A preliminary hearing is a defendant’s first opportunity to confront his accusers. Defense counsel can question witnesses about their stories, their histories, their exposure to civil attorneys, and the methods investigators used to obtain their statements. A preliminary hearing is designed as a check on state power.
It exists to slow things down.
For Sandusky, it might have exposed that the accusers’ stories had changed over time, that therapists employing memory recovery techniques had helped shape their accounts, and civil attorneys promising millions in settlements had put the accusers and their memory recovery therapists together.
The testimony obtained at a preliminary hearing would have provided the foundation for a Frye hearing giving Sandusky the opportunity to challenge the scientific reliability of recovered memory testimony and whether such methodology is “generally” accepted in the science community. Such a hearing might have excluded most of the accusers.
Instead, the preliminary hearing was waived — not in court but at a hotel: the Hilton Garden Inn.
Present that night were:
Judge John K. Cleland — who would preside over the trial
Joseph McGettigan — lead prosecutor
Frank Fina — senior prosecutor
Jonelle Eshbach — prosecutor
Joseph Amendola — Sandusky’s lead defense attorney
The District Magistrate Judge Robert E. Scott
Absent:
Sandusky — the defendant.
Also abent was Karl Rominger, Sandusky’s co-counsel and an advocate for preliminary hearings. Rominger had written on the subject, arguing that defendants should never waive this critical right.
Neither was invited. Neither was told about the hotel meeting.
The Threat
Prosecutor McGettigan delivered the message: If Sandusky didn’t waive his preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth would seek bail of $5 million. Sandusky couldn’t pay it. He would go to jail before the trial.
This was conducted in front of the judge who would rule on any bail motion. Judge Cleland said nothing. He didn’t tell the prosecutors he would reject an excessive bail request.
Cleland’s own notes from the meeting reveal what mattered to him: “We’ve got to get this thing to trial.”
Not: “We’ve got to ensure a fair process.” Not: “We’ve got to protect the defendant’s rights.” Instead: “We’ve got to get this thing to trial.”
Amendola agreed. In exchange for surrendering the preliminary hearing, the prosecution would refrain from seeking an increase in bail. The preliminary hearing was waived.
Rominger learned of the waiver the next morning. He was furious. Amendola never told him about the hotel meeting.
Rominger only learned about the Hilton Garden Inn years later, when post-conviction attorneys uncovered it.
The one lawyer who would have said no wasn’t just excluded; he was kept in the dark.
The Rush
Without a preliminary hearing, the defense never got early sworn testimony from the accusers. They never locked in the inconsistencies. They never laid the foundation for a Frye hearing that might have excluded testimony obtained through repressed-memory therapy.
Testimony was never fixed. Contradictions never preserved. Scientific challenges to memory-contaminated evidence were never heard.
The hotel meeting produced a trial schedule. Sandusky was arrested November 5, 2011. His trial began June 11, 2012.
Seven months to prepare for one of the biggest criminal trials in state history.
One of the most complex cases in Pennsylvania history: ten accusers, decades of alleged conduct, national media saturation, and accusations that had evolved under the influence of therapists, investigators, and civil attorneys. It was rushed to trial faster than a routine burglary.
Why?
The NCAA had threatened to cancel Penn State’s football program. Sandusky had to be convicted by summer.
Ten days before trial, prosecutors dumped 12,000 pages of discovery on the defense. Twelve thousand pages, with only ten days to review them. Amendola requested a continuance. Judge Cleland denied it.
Amendola asked to withdraw, telling Judge Cleland he could not effectively represent his client. The Rules of Professional Conduct require an attorney who cannot provide effective representation to decline the case.
Cleland denied the motion.
Amendola should have refused and accepted contempt. But he went forward. And the verdict followed.
The Recusal That Came Late
Four years later, Sandusky’s post-conviction attorneys discovered the secret hotel meeting. They moved to recuse Judge Cleland. He recused. But the damage was done.
The $100 million in settlements had been paid.
Hotels vs Courtrooms?
Is Pennsylvania v. Sandusky the only case where a preliminary hearing was waived and an impossibly rapid trial schedule was set at a secret, unrecorded meeting between the judge, prosecutors, and defense counsel at a local hotel?
Was this an exception, or has it happened before and after?
Is this how Pennsylvania justice works?
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
You keep playing the same tune over and over, Frank, but only your Penn alum funders are dancing.
Less Sundusky! More new sex cult!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Consider this…
All of the victims had been to therapy and all had gone through “repressed memory therapy”.
Jerry Sandusky is the grandson of polish immigrants with Hypo-gonadism.
Regardless, John Ziegler
Big deal who cares
The lawyers and the rapists involved in this case created a cottage industry using debunked repressed memory therapy as a way to explain changing stories and rationalize why victims never claimed abuse prior to the Sandusky indictment. For their conduct they were rewarded with tens of millions in contingency fees.
How It Works
Neuro-linguistic programming
https://youtu.be/8Cto3ddVDtc?si=JVC-MpDrz7EOZ4sT
Eye C U 2
Joe got a raw deal. we-are-penn-state.html
Feb 27, 1991 · Brenda Condon was a bartender who disappeared from Carl’s Bad Tavern in 1991. She has never been found and her case is unsolved. See her … Carl is her Boss
40279733-473464119800891-5598969686902439936-n.jpg
My condolences to Greg’s family. I pray that he told someone about Brenda before his untimely passing. RIP
Carl Westerling
July 26, 2016 | Bellefonte, PA
This is real an extraordinary claim about NXIVM attracting billionaires and tales of fate
unnamed-3.jpg
“Bruce Heims” instructing Jack Raykovitz not to report the charity. The relevant administrative figures cited in legal and investigative reports (such as the Freeh Report) were Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier.
The Elephant in the RoomWhat differentiates the Penn State case from the Duke case is the “elephant in the room.” In other words, an obvious truth that is being ignored. That elephant is the role of The Second Mile Executive Director, Dr. Jack Raykovitz in not protecting the children of Second Mile from Jerry Sandusky
From the beginning, anyone who has followed this case knows the PSU AD Timothy Curley reported the Sandusky shower incident to Dr. Raykovitz, who was/is a mandated reporter under the law and should have immediately reported the incident to either CYS or DPW. Raykovitz admitted discussing the incident with TSM board member, Bruce Heim, who considered it a non-incident. As such, it was not shared with other TSM board members nor reported to authorities.
Inexplicably, AG Linda Kelly did not charge Raykovitz or Heim with failure to report or with child endangerment. Also, in his opening statement at the Sandusky trial, prosecutor McGettigan stated that no one at Second Mile knew or had heard anything about Sandusky’s abuse.
The Penn State BOT, who quickly threw its officials under the bus, made no mention that TSM should have reported it upon being informed by Curley. The lawyers on the BOT could have easily justified that PSU officials complied with the law by reporting to TSM and defended the University. Instead, they rolled over.
And the media has been stunningly silent on the matter, even though they often referred to TSM as a “victim farm” of Sandusky.
The Impending Investigation of the Sandusky CaseRecently elected AG Kathleen Kane stated the investigation of the Sandusky case would be among her top priorities once she takes office. She will hire an assistant attorney general to lead the investigation and she vows to leave no stone unturned. This will take time to get going, but we anxiously await that investigation.
So flap-jack Raykovitz did not win?
If a person is harmed in three separate cases, they are entitled to the rights of a victim in each of those cases.
Based on an analysis of victimology and criminal justice, a person can absolutely be a victim of crimes in multiple, separate cases. This phenomenon, known as revictimization or poly-victimization, occurs when an individual suffers harm from a crime, and then subsequently becomes a victim again.
In summary: A person who is a victim in three cases should be treated as a victim in all three, regardless of whether they have also committed crimes in other, unrelated situations. The justice system, according to legal reformers and advocates, should recognize this complexity and offer support for the harm suffered in all instances of victimization.
Who wins here
On November 16, 2011 Judge Scott was assigned to the Jerry Sandusky case (formally Commonwealth v. Gerald Sandusky), relating to the Pennsylvania State University scandal. The Sandusky case would have been heard in Centre County. but due to the large amount of media attention the case has garnered the Centre County Court of Common Pleas requested it be transferred.[3] The case was to be heard by Judge Scott as he, “has no known connections with the Pennsylvania State University, The Second Mile charity, nor any officers or representatives of any of those entities,” the administrative office of PennsylvaniaCourts has stated.[1][2][3][3] However, Judge John Cleland ended up presiding over the trial.
I have no words anymore about the corruption in this case that can be published on here. It is disheartening what these supposedly ethical, law-abiding, men did to an innocent man. They knowingly tossed the tenets of the law aside for self exposure and notoriety. I pray karma will play its part on ALL (including trustees) who played a part in this witch hunt. I hope they get what they so well deserve!