4 alleged victims seek anonymity in Sandusky case
BELLEFONTE -- Jerry Sandusky attended a closed-door meeting with the judge in his child sexual abuse case Tuesday, and four of his accusers made formal requests for anonymity, a day before what could be the final hearing before the start of trial.
The topic of the previously unannounced meeting -- which included Sandusky's lawyer and prosecutors -- wasn't clear, and participants declined to comment afterward.
Judge John Cleland has not ruled on a pending defense request to have charges dismissed. Jury selection from a pool of State College-area residents is expected to begin June 5.
Sandusky, 68, a retired assistant football coach at Penn State, faces 52 criminal counts. Prosecutors say he sexually abused 10 boys over 15 years, allegations he has repeatedly denied.
His lawyer, Joe Amendola, has said Sandusky did not intend to be at the pretrial hearing today.
Also yesterday, four of the accusers filed court motions asking Cleland to prevent their names from being made public.
Lawyers for so-called Victims 3, 5 and 7 made a broad request to prevent all the accusers' identities from being disclosed publicly, saying it would cause their clients additional fear, anxiety and mental anguish and potentially expose them to physical harm.
Attorneys Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici, who represent Victims 3 and 7, wrote in their motion that while their clients' testimony is "of critical importance and the legitimate subject of media and public interest, personal information identifying Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse victims is not." Lawyers for Victim 5 joined their motion.
Lawyers for Victim 4 asked that a pseudonym be used for him during the upcoming trial.
"It is an unfortunate reality that some victims in high-profile cases view the disclosure of their identity as the equivalent of being branded with a scarlet letter," wrote Ben Andreozzi and Jeff Fritz, lawyers for Victim 4, adding that accusers would rather be remembered for their positive contributions to society.
"Although Victim 4 remains 100 percent committed to testifying against the defendant in this case, at what expense will it come to his short-term and long-term well-being?" they wrote.
Shubin and Andronici wrote that Sandusky's lawyer wasn't opposed to their motion, but they had not heard back from state prosecutors. Messages left after business hours for a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, and for Sandusky's lawyers, were not immediately returned.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clues to Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking on new ObamaCare case
- LaBar: Timing perfect for Sting’s debut at WWE’s Survivor Series
- NFL parity makes playoff chase a multi-team muddle
- Canteen features Woodruff tribute
- Iraqi family, torn apart for opposing Saddam, reunites in Pittsburgh
- Two-alarm fire reported in Swissvale
- Stretch of Route 56 to close
- CT scans can find smokers’ lung cancer early
- Horse racing industry banks on Wolf
- Burrell’s curriculum evolves creatively
- Finding balance between toughness, excessiveness key for Penguins’ Downie