Sandusky lawyers granted hearing into claims they lacked time to prepare for child abuse trial
BELLEFONTE — The judge who presided over former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's child sexual abuse case said on Tuesday that defense lawyers can have an evidentiary hearing to explore their claim that they lacked sufficient time to prepare for trial.
Judge John Cleland's one-sentence order set the proceeding for the Centre County Courthouse on Jan. 10, the location and time of a scheduled argument on Sandusky's post-sentencing motions.
When Sandusky's lawyers requested the hearing last week, they said it would probably take less than two hours.
At issue is Cleland's refusal to delay the trial “based on the defendant's inability to integrate the vast amount of material turned over by the prosecution to the defense when trial was imminent.” Defense lawyers argued that violated Sandusky's rights by preventing them from being able to use those materials in his defense.
Sandusky's attorneys repeatedly raised the issue before and during trial, saying they were swamped by the material produced by the Attorney General's Office during a three-year investigation.
Cleland, brought in by the state Supreme Court from another county after all of the local judges recused themselves, moved the case from arrest to trial in seven months.
In June, jurors convicted Sandusky of 45 counts involving 10 victims, including violent sexual attacks inside Penn State athletics facilities.
Cleland sentenced Sandusky to 30 to 60 years in state prison. Sandusky, who spent decades at the university under coach Joe Paterno, maintains his innocence and is pursuing appeals.
A call seeking comment from prosecutors was not immediately returned.
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 â 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.