Share This Page

Judge: No new trial for Jerry Sandusky

| Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013, 1:05 p.m.
Former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, right, is escorted by Centre County Sheriff Denny Nau, left, as he leaves the Centre County Courthouse after attending a post-sentence motion hearing in Bellefonte, Pa., Thursday, Jan. 10, 2013. AP file photo

The legal battles over the Jerry Sandusky scandal continued to unfold on Wednesday as the former Penn State assistant coach lost his bid for a new trial and the state Senate passed a bill designed to keep in Pennsylvania $60 million in NCAA fines stemming from the scandal.

Judge John M. Cleland, who presided over Sandusky's trial, issued an order rejecting Sandusky's arguments that his lawyers were not given adequate time to prepare for the trial, which ended in his conviction on 45 counts of child sexual abuse.

Sandusky, 68, is serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence for sexually abusing 10 boys on or near the Penn State campus. He continues to maintain his innocence even as his former employer struggles with sweeping sanctions the NCAA imposed on its football program as a result of its the handling of Sandusky.

On Wednesday, the state Senate passed a bill designed to require that $60 million in fines the NCAA imposed on the university be kept in Pennsylvania and distributed to child abuse prevention efforts in the state rather than distributed across the nation. The House must now consider it.

Related Content
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.