Share This Page

AG argues against court hearing Sandusky appeal

| Thursday, Nov. 14, 2013, 1:21 p.m.

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania prosecutors say there's no reason the state Supreme Court should take up Jerry Sandusky's molestation conviction on appeal.

State court officials on Thursday posted a filing by the Pennsylvania attorney general's office that said the former Penn State assistant football coach hasn't put forward “special and important reasons” the justices should consider the appeal.

Sandusky argues his lawyers were rushed to trial and prosecutors improperly referred to his decision not to testify.

He also says the trial judge should have issued a jury instruction on the delay in reporting by his victims and that the judge erred by telling jurors to weigh evidence of his good character against all other evidence in the case.

Sandusky's lawyer says his earlier filing laid out why the appeal ought to be heard.

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.