Lawyer says Sandusky hired him for new appeal in Penn State sex case
HARRISBURG — Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky has hired a different lawyer to pursue a new appeal of his conviction on 45 counts of child sex abuse, the attorney said on Monday.
Al Lindsay, who leads the Pittsburgh area firm of Lindsay Law Firm, said he plans to file the appeal in the same court in Bellefonte where Sandusky, now 70, was sentenced in 2012 to 30 to 60 years in prison.
Lindsay would not go into detail about the grounds for a new appeal, although legal experts said that under the Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act, a claim of ineffective legal counsel is one of the few roads open to Sandusky. Nor would he say how he was retained.
“It's a long story,” Lindsay said. “I got a call.”
The deadline for filing the appeal is a year from April 2, the date on which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shut down the former coach's original round of appeals. His lawyer at the time, Norris Gelman, had argued that the state's case rested on the credibility of the victims and because some of the complaints dated back as long as 16 years, that should have warranted an instruction to the jury on the failure to make a prompt report of sexual abuse.
Lindsay said he would likely file the appeal this fall, which happens to be the time frame for the State Employees Retirement System board to rule on a hearing examiner's recommendation that Sandusky's state pension of nearly $60,000 a year be restored. The examiner said last week that he should receive the taxpayer-funded retirement money because state rules for forfeiting pensions because of sex crimes took effect in 2004, and Sandusky was not a Penn State employee at that time, having retired in 1999.
Sandusky was found guilty of sexually abusing 10 boys during 15 years, using his position in the prestigious football program to gain access to youths.
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.
- All Pennsylvanians to pay more, GOP gleans from report on Wolf’s tax plan
- Former undercover agent files suit against Kane
- Millions needed to replace at-risk natural gas pipes in Pennsylvania
- Pennsylvania police officer charged with criminal homicide in killing similar to South Carolina one
- Video of fatal Hummelstown police shooting not released