Frank Parlato
WARREN COUNTY, Pa. — On Feb. 27, 2026, Senior Judge Maureen Skerda denied Jerry Sandusky’s Post-Conviction Relief Act petition in an eleven-page order. The ruling dismissed the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Sandusky is 82.. He has been in prison since 2012.
She Cited the Rule She Violated
Rule 907 requires notice before a court dismisses a PCRA petition without a hearing. The notice gives the petitioner twenty days to respond. Skerda did not issue Rule 907 notice.
She cited the rule. Then she ignored the requirements of the rule.
A senior judge assigned specifically to preside over a high-profile PCRA petition does not accidentally skip the notice provision of the rule she quotes in her own opinion. She made a choice to deny the defense its statutory right to respond before dismissal.
The defense had materials ready. Jasmine Rittmeyer had signed an affidavit. She is Ryan Rittmeyer’s estranged wife. She was in the room the night he said there had been no abuse, hours before he first spoke to police. She says she watched his story change after meetings with prosecutors. He collected $5.5 million for his testimony.
The defense had additional testimony and documents prepared to file. Under Rule 907, it would have gone into the record.
Skerda made sure it did not get filed.
When a mandatory procedural rule is skipped, the remedy is clear. The case will land back on Judge Skerda’s desk. She will issue the Rule 907 notice that should have come this time, nine to 12 months from now.
Then the defense will file its response. She will deny relief again. The defense will appeal again. Another nine to twelve months will be lost.
A required procedural safeguard becomes a detour. A detour becomes a year. Possibly two.
Call it an error. Call it misjudgment. Call it hoping to run out the clock with his hoped-for death so that the embarrassing truth that Sandusky is innocent can all go away.
It is for the sake of the Pennsylvania judiciary’s honor and reputation that Skerda makes her illegal and unethical decisions.
Sandusky is innocent. Prosecutors manufactured testimony, judges enabled it, and the Pennsylvania courts convicted a man on evidence they refused to examine. Skerda is not administering justice. She is protecting every institution that would be exposed if the truth came out.
Read more: https://artvoice.com/2026/01/20/the-sandusky-trial-a-study-in-how-american-justice-fails/
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
A witness receives $20 million yet is limited to $1,500 a week while a committee connected to the prosecution collects fees and maintains veto power over his finances. That is not a typical settlement arrangement. If the emails and bank records support what is written here, this deserves a serious independent investigation.
So disappointing and so very wrong !! How are they getting away with this ?