Former PSU President Graham Spanier's conviction overturned evades jail sentence

A federal magistrate judge has overturned the 2017 child endangerment conviction of former Penn State President Graham Spanier, according to Pennlive.com.

The ruling from U.S. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick was issued on the eve of the date that Spanier was scheduled to report to Centre County Correctional Facility near Bellefonte to begin serving a two-month prison term.

That is not going to happen now.

Mehalchick found prosecutors in the case, as well as trial court judge John Boccabella, incorrectly applied an expanded version of the state’s child endangerment statute from 2007 to the circumstances of Spanier’s case, which dated to a sexual abuse allegation that reached the then-president’s desk in 2001.

“in sum,” the judge wrote, “the conviction in this matter was based on a criminal statute that did not go into effect until six years after the conduct in question, and is therefore in violation of Spanier’s federal constitutional rights.”

With the conviction and sentence vacated, Spanier will not have to report to prison.

By any definition this is a tremendous win for the longtime Penn State president who was forced by trustees to give up his office under pressure in November 2011 after the arrest of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky on charges of serial child sexual abuse.

Mehalchick’s ruling reversed earlier decisions at the county court and Pennsylvania Superior Court levels, and earlier this year the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had opted not to hear Spanier’s appeal.

To read more CLICK HERE

AG ask court to reargue Penn State administrators' successful appeal

Two weeks after the state Superior Court tossed numerous charges against three ex-Penn State administrators facing prosecution over their handling of sex-abuse allegations, the Office of Attorney General filed a request to have the case reargued before an en banc panel of the frontline appeals court, reported The Legal Intelligencer.

Questions had lingered about whether the office would seek reargument given that the Superior Court's three-judge panel was unanimous and the opinion blasted some of the prosecutor's conduct. But according to some attorneys, the loss of the conspiracy and contempt charges was a significant blow to the prosecution, and, while the three still face child-endangerment-related charges, those might be more difficult cases to make.

Matthew Mangino, defense attorney and former Lawrence County district attorney, said that, while the Lynn decision indicates that child endangerment statutes could be applied to supervisors even if the conduct occurred before the 2007 change, the Lynn case might be distinguishable from the cases against the former Penn State administrators.

"Lynn was responsible for looking into sex offenders in the clergy. That really wasn't the role of" Spanier, Curley or Schultz, Mangino said. "But it still looks like the statute could apply."

Even if the statutes can be applied to the ex-administrators, Mangino said prosecutors still have an uphill battle in proving exactly what the defendants knew and when they knew it.

"This Lynn decision doesn't make the prosecution of these three defendants a slam dunk," Mangino said.

Attorneys said it is difficult to know whether the Office of Attorney General's decision to appeal was based solely on the belief that the Superior Court made an error, or whether the appeal was based on the mentality of fighting every loss in an effort to preserve the strongest charges.

Cohen said the institutional judgment of many prosecutors is to "move forward and do what you can to prosecute every case that you bring," but he said the appeal will likely be "fruitless" and the office should stop and "take a look at where they are at this point."

However, according to Mangino, the office's decision to appeal the Superior Court's decision should only hinge on its belief that the three-judge panel erred in its ruling, and should not be based on the potential viability of any of the remaining claims.

"Just because there's a recent decision from the appellate court that bolsters the charges you have remaining, even if you think those charges are viable, that's not going to have much of an impact," Mangino said.

To read more CLICK HERE

Guest Opinion: 'Porngate' is one hot mess

Matthew T. Mangino

Guest Opinion, Delaware County Daily Times

January 3, 2016

           Not long ago, I called an assistant prosecutor in a small, rural county in Missouri about an old warrant issued for one of my clients. Before I could get my question out he wanted to talk about ‘Porngate.’  He told me every morning he gets on the Internet to read the latest twists and turns in the Kathleen Kane saga.  He has had a lot to read about since our conversation.

            Pennsylvania is a mess and things are not getting better.  Another Supreme Court justice has been swept into the fray.  Justice Michael Eakin was suspended by the Judicial Conduct Board for his exchange of pornographic and insensitive emails.

            That is the same board that had its chief counsel recuse himself from the Eakin case because he failed to reveal that he was chums with the justice; and the same board the Supreme Court blunderingly tried to pack with an ally of Eakin prior to the suspension hearing.

            However, that is a side show to the main event.  Attorney General Kathleen Kane is under two sets of indictment.  Her law license has been suspended and her release of pornographic emails exchanged among government officials has resulted in the resignation of one Supreme Court justice, the suspension of another, the resignation of the Secretary of Environmental Resources and a member the Board of Probation and Parole.

            Kane, without a license to practice law, appointed the former attorney general of Maryland Doug Gansler as a special prosecutor to weed out pornography in all state government offices.  Her authority to do so--even with a law license--is in question and Gansler’s firm charging about $880 an hour has made even the few Kane supporters out there a little queasy.

            Then it’s revealed that Kane’s twin sister--who works in the AG’s office--has sent and received inappropriate emails.  There will be no disciple for Kane’s sister.  Although other members of the AG’s staff were disciplined for similar conduct--you can’t make this stuff up.

            This whole thing started when Kathleen Kane campaigned on an issue that resonated with Pennsylvania voters--did the AG’s office drag its feet on the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky investigation to shield the former AG--Tom Corbett--during his campaign for governor.       Kane’s investigation of the investigation revealed no wrong doing, but it sure did make some people mad.

            The man who headed up the Sandusky investigation, Frank Fina, quietly went about trying to discredit Kane.  He found a willing partner, his new boss the district attorney of Philadelphia Seth Williams.  Fina and Williams publicly challenged Kane’s decision to drop a corruption prosecution.  The Philly DA refiled the charges.

            Then there was the knife wielding senior judge Barry Feudale who presided over the statewide grand jury that investigated Sandusky. His impartiality was challenged by Kane.  Feudale went to media and he included none other than Mr. Fina on his emails.  The chief justice revoked Feudale’s senior status.

            Amid growing public concern over Fina’s involvement in Porngate, Williams transferred Fina from criminal trials to civil a much less glamorous position.  The calls for Fina’s termination continue.

            Amid all this, the Pennsylvania legislature is pursuing Kane’s removal. This is a body that has had at least 20 members convicted of crimes in the last 15 years.  A hearing in the Senate has been scheduled for January 12, 2016.

            Oh, and don’t forget that the Governor and legislature have not agreed on a budget for going on six-months. As the GOP members of the House grumble about unseating the speaker of the house, school districts across the state need to borrow money to keep our children in class.     Instead of addressing the growing financial crisis in this state, the legislature will seek to unseat the lamest of lame-duck officials in Pennsylvania history.

            House Minority Leader Frank Dermody (D-Allegheny) was one of the prosecutors in the impeachment of Justice Rolf Larsen, the last impeachment in Pennsylvania.  “People thought it was very serious business,” he said. Kane is not subject to impeachment, but rather an obscure constitutional provision known as direct removal.

             According to The PLS Reporter, Dermody reflected on his impeachment work, “it is important to ensure that the process does not come down to political bickering and that, due to the nature of impeachment as a political trial, it is a process used only when absolutely necessary.”

(Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino)

Visit the Daily Times CLICK HERE

The Crime Report: Pennsylvania’s Wild Justice: The Perils of a Rising Star

Matthew T. Mangino

GUEST COLUMN

The Crime Report

February 17, 2015

The English philosopher Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), once wrote “Revenge is a kind of wild justice.” In the modern era of Pennsylvania politics. Justice has indeed been wild.

In the last decade, the state has seen a Supreme Court justice convicted; her sister, a state senator, imprisoned; and two House Speakers and minority leaders in the House and Senate jailed. A host of legislators have left in disgrace. Last month, State Treasure Rob McCord resigned with the intent to plead guilty to federal criminal charges, and in the 1990s a Republican Attorney General went to prison.

Now, in that spirit of “wild justice, the knives are out for Kathleen Kane, the first female (and first Democrat) elected in 34 years as state Attorney General. Prominent members of Kane’s own Democratic party are aligning themselves to take her job. Those hopefuls are not talking about a 2016 primary challenge: they are wooing Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf for a possible appointment.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams told the New York Times, “I have a great job in Philadelphia…(But) if the governor called me, I’d have to think about it.”

Kane, once the rising star of Pennsylvania politics, is in a steep dive. Her tenure could soon end with a resignation, conviction or impeachment.

Editors Note: for the latest report on the Kane case, See “Who Has the Authority to Investigate?” in Pennsylvania’s Morning Call?

Kane, a one-time assistant district attorney in Lackawanna County, ran an interesting campaign for attorney general. She was funded significantly by her husband, a successful businessman, from whom she has since filed for divorce.

The cornerstone of her campaign was the pledge to review the investigation of Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football assistant who was convicted of sexually assaulting young boys on campus. The original investigation tarnished the mystique of Penn State football and brought down football legend Joe Paterno.

Now, Kane wants Pennsylvanians to believe that the Penn State investigation is the reason why a group of “angry men” is trying to bring her down. 

The second investigation of Penn State led to nothing. But the special investigator hired by Kane to look into the matter uncovered the pervasive distribution of pornographic emails within the AG’s office—justice gone wild. The emails led to the firing of a cabinet member and the resignation of a Supreme Court justice and a member of the Board of Probation and Parole.

Kane also became embroiled in a public feud with Frank Fina, a senior assistant attorney general, who resigned when Kane was elected. Fina had oversight responsibilities for the Sandusky investigation. Fina subsequently took a job with Williams in the Philadelphia DA’s office.

When Kane discontinued an investigation of Philadelphia political corruption overseen in the AG’s Office by Fina, Williams decided to pick-up the investigation. The acerbic public discourse between Williams and Kane was embarrassing; however, to Williams’ credit, the revived investigation has resulted in several guilty pleas.

Then, in May, Montgomery County Judge William Carpenter appointed special prosecutor Thomas Carluccio to oversee a grand jury investigating whether Kane leaked secret grand jury information to a Philadelphia newspaper in an effort to embarrass a former prosecutor from her office. Kane was presumably seeking some revenge against Fina.

The grand jury voted in December to recommend that the district attorney charge Kane with 12 counts, including obstruction, perjury and false swearing. Ironically, the investigation into leaking grand jury information was leaked to the media.
Can justice get any more wild in Pennsylvania?
Sure, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stepped in and stopped any action until the court hears arguments regarding Kane’s challenge to the appointment of the special prosecutor.
Kane has argued that there is no statute in the state that would allow a judge’s “unilateral selection and appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the Office of Attorney General.”
“At one point, the appointment of a special independent prosecutor was lawful in Pennsylvania, under the Independent Counsel Authorization Act,” Kane said in a court filing, reported by The Legal Intelligencer. “That act, however, expired in 2003, and no statute has been enacted to replace it.”
Attorneys for Kane also point to Smith v. Gallagher, a 1962 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that judges have no authority to select and appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an investigating grand jury.
Kane’s wild legal troubles continue to mount. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, plans to introduce a revised impeachment resolution in the new legislative session that considers the current potential criminal charges facing Kane.
His initial impeachment resolution focused on several of Kane’s actions, including her decision not to defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage law, and her decision to discontinue the Philadelphia political corruption investigation.
Kane does not appear to be a wilting wild flower. She vowed not to resign and told the New York Times, “The people I care about the most, the people of Pennsylvania, support me.”
“Everywhere I go,” she added. “People recognize me, and every person says the same thing: ‘We see this for what it is worth. It’s sickening. Hang in there.’ ”
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.
Visit The Crime Report

AG investigation of investigation approved by judge

A judge reviewing state Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s investigation of Gov. Tom Corbett's investigation of Jerry Sandusky's child sexual abuse case has approved the report and the document could be released soon, reported the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Kane’s inquiry into why it took Corbett three years to investigate and charge Sandusky needed the judge’s approval because the report contains grand jury testimony, which had expectations of secrecy, according to the Centre Daily Times.
In a meeting  PennLive’s editorial board, which was live-streamed on the Internet, Kane said the report is “nearing completion,” and investigators are dealing with “legalities” they must abide by before the report can be released.
After the report is approved by the judge, those who were interviewed will get a chance to review portions of it. Kane declined to comment about who will get a chance to review the document.  However, it is expected that Gov. Corbett and former assistant attorney general Frank Fina will get to review the report.
Corbett was interviewed last week by the special prosecutor in the case.
Fulfilling an election vow, Kane appointed former federal prosecutor H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr. to probe Corbett’s investigation, which she questioned during her own campaign for attorney general. The issue became a focal point and Kane won in a landslide.
Moulton has since been investigating how previous attorneys general Tom Corbett — who is now governor — and Corbett’s appointed successor, Linda Kelly, handled allegations against Sandusky between 2009 and 2011.
The investigation into Sandusky’s abuse started when a teen, Aaron Fisher, told Clinton County authorities in January 2009 that the former Penn State coach had touched him inappropriately. The case was referred to Centre County’s then-district attorney, Michael Madeira, who referred it to the Attorney General’s Office.
Sandusky was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison and is serving his time in solitary confinement. He maintains his innocence, but has exhausted his appeals to higher courts.
“From the very beginning, I said this report was most important to me and I believe to all of Pennsylvania because it dealt with child sexual abuse,” Kane told PennLive. “To me, making sure our children are protected is the most important thing. If we can do things in a better way, by all means we should look into doing things a better way.”
Kane wouldn’t go into specifics about the report, but she called it factual, fair and complete.
“What is expected from this report is the facts,” she said. “Where we can make a determination we’ll make it, where we can’t, we’ll tell you that as well. At some points it may be left up to the reader to determine what their feeling is, but I can tell you , it’s a very fair and accurate report."
To read more Click Here

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/06/03/4207666/judge-approves-kanes-sandusky.html?sp=/99/264/&ihp=1#storylink=cpy

The Cautionary Instruction: Son of Sam Law Prevents criminals from profiting on crime

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
February 21, 2014
Is Jerry Sandusky writing a book? The disgraced former Penn State coach and convicted sex offender stands to make a profit from the titillating explanations of his despicable conduct. Not so fast, thanks to a Pennsylvania statute referred to as the Son of Sam law there is little chance that Sandusky or his family will benefit by the publication of a book.
The law, which exists federally and in 41 other states, is named for David Berkowitz, the “Son of Sam” serial killer who was convicted for a string of murders in New York City in the mid-1970s. Generally, Son of Sam laws prevent criminals and their relatives from profiting off their crimes in any way. If there is any profit, the law directs that money to the victim’s family.
Pennsylvania’s Son of Sam law provides, “If a person has been convicted of a crime, every person who knowingly contracts for, pays or agrees to pay any profit from a crime to that person shall give written notice to the [Crime Victims Compensation] board of the payment or obligation to pay as soon as practicable after discovering that the payment or intended payment is a profit from a crime. The board, upon receipt of notice of a contract, an agreement to pay or payment of profits from a crime, shall notify all known eligible persons at their last known address of the existence of the profits.”

New York was the first state to enact a Son of Sam law in 1977. However, the law faced a challenge in 1987 in a case involving the Nicholas Pileggi book Wiseguy: A Life in a Mafia Family, on which the film Goodfellas was based. Pileggi wrote the book with the paid help of former mobster Henry Hill.
Publisher Simon and Shuster challenged the law. In Simon & Shuster v. Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law for violating the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression, ruling it would have encompassed works including Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
New York revised its law in 1992, and the state Senate has passed legislation seven times since 2006 to try to expand the law, most recently, to reach people held not responsible because of mental disease.
A Long Island, NY mother who drowned her three children in a bathtub is now seeking some of the children’s estate. Since the woman was never convicted — instead found not guilty by reason of mental disease — some legal experts say she could make a plausible case to receive some of the $350,000 estate.

---

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George, P.C. He is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and just completed a six year term on the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. His weekly column on crime and punishment is syndicated by GateHouse New Service. You can read his musings on the criminal justice system at www.mattmangino.com and follow Matt on Twitter @MatthewTMangino. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 is due out this summer.


Visit Ipso Facto

Superior Court's Lynn Decision Complicates PSU Prosecutions

Matthew T. Mangino
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly
January 7, 2014



A decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on Dec. 26 could have an impact on the prosecution of three former Penn State University officials facing charges stemming from failing to properly deal with reports of child sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky.


The decision in Commonwealth v. Lynn, 2171 EDA 2012, reversed the conviction of Monsignor William Lynn, a former official of the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia implicated in the sex-abuse scandal plaguing the church in Philadelphia.


According to a 2011 report prepared for Penn State by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, university officials were aware of sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky for at least 14 years and still gave him access to the school's campus.


Former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former Vice President Gary Schultz and former athletic director Timothy Curley are accused of concealing information about suspected child abuse involving Sandusky, including on-campus incidents from 1998 and 2001 that were reported and discussed in great detail by the three men, according to a press release from the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office.


The timeline suggested in the release may be crucial to Spanier, Schultz and Curley's defense in the aftermath of the Superior Court decision in Lynn.


Schultz and Curley are each charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of children and two counts of criminal conspiracy, third-degree felonies. Schultz and Curley are also charged with one count each of obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function and one count of criminal conspiracy, both second-degree misdemeanors. The Freeh Report found that Schultz expressed concern that allegations against Sandusky would open a "Pandora's box."


Spanier is charged with one count of perjury, two counts of endangering the welfare of children and two counts of criminal conspiracy, all third-degree felonies. Additionally, Spanier is charged with one count of obstructing the administration of law and one count of criminal conspiracy, both second-degree misdemeanors, along with one count of failure to report suspected child abuse, a summary offense.


Lynn's conviction, for which he had been serving three to six years in prison, was based on his supervision of a priest, Edward Avery. Prosecutors argued that Lynn, who was the secretary for clergy in Philadelphia between 1992 and 2004, knew Avery was a sex offender but continued to assign him and other priests, also known to be abusers, to new parishes, according to media reports.


Lynn's attorney Thomas Bergstrom argued that the endangering the welfare of children (EWOC) statute, 18 P.S. 4304, applied "only to parents and caregivers, not supervisors." Therefore, the statute did not apply to Lynn in his supervisory capacity.


The thrust of Lynn's appeal continued to focus on whether or not his conduct fell under the application of the EWOC.


The current EWOC statute reads as follows: "A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support."


However, prior to Jan. 29, 2007, the EWOC statute, 18 P.S. 4304(a)(1), read: "A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support."


Lynn's attorney argued before the Superior Court that the pre-2007 version of EWOC as defined was too narrow to support Lynn's conviction. The statute confines its coverage to parents, guardians and other people "supervising the welfare of a child." He also argued that the newly worded statute did not apply because of the timing of the conduct.


"Given the pre-2007 timeframe of [Lynn's] conduct, the amended statute is not applicable in this case," Superior Court President Judge John T. Bender wrote.


For Spanier, Schultz and Curley, the most serious charges they face are the EWOC and conspiracy charges, all of which are felonies. Spanier is also charged with perjury, a felony. Attempting to prove the three men were accomplices of Sandusky may also be a nonstarter for the prosecution.


In Lynn, the Superior Court also addressed whether Lynn was an accomplice in the crime. There was no evidence that Lynn knew the victim of sexual abuse or that he conspired with Avery's plans to abuse the boy, the Superior Court concluded.


"In sum, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that [Lynn] acted with the 'intent of promoting or facilitating' a EWOC offense" committed by Avery, Bender wrote. Prosecutors would face the same hurdles in the Penn State prosecutions.


The Attorney General's Office has suggested that Penn State officials put the reputation of the university ahead of the welfare of the young people abused by Sandusky, in the same way that the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office argued that Lynn put the reputation of the Catholic Church or the archdiocese ahead of the victims of abuse.


The Superior Court addressed that very issue in the Lynn opinion. "The question of whether appellant's priorities were more with the reputation of the church, or, instead, with the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of archdiocese priests is not at issue in this case."


The relevant question was whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate Lynn intended to promote or facilitate a subordinate priest's endangerment of a child while under the care of that priest.


"Having determined that the evidence was not sufficient to support [Lynn's] conviction for EWOC either as a principal or as an accomplice, we are compelled to reverse appellant's judgment of sentence," Bender said.


The Superior Court's decision appears to match a key argument put forward by attorneys representing the defendants in the Penn State case. "The court was very clear and very adamant that the statute didn't apply to [Lynn] and he was wrongfully, wrongfully convicted," Bergstrom told The Philadelphia Inquirer.


According to Bergstrom, Lynn never should have been prosecuted for allegedly putting children in harm's way. Bergstrom told the Inquirer: "The Superior Court followed years of their own precedent and found, as we've argued, that the statute didn't apply to him, at all. It's a crime he cannot commit and didn't commit."


Pittsburgh attorney Caroline Roberto represents Curley. She told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "The charges are an example of prosecutorial overreach, and we will continue to vigorously fight the charges."


Sandusky retired in 1999, therefore the pre-2007 EWOC statute should apply. When the law was changed, Curley, Schultz and Spanier were no longer Sandusky's supervisors. The law in effect when Sandusky was in the employ of Penn State would not result in Sandusky's supervisors being held criminally responsible.


We may not have heard the final word on this matter. Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said he will more than likely appeal the Superior Court's decision. The attorney general will undoubtedly be watching Lynn very closely.


Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George. His book, "The Executioner's Toll, 2010," is due out this summer. Reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

Former Penn State President Goes After Louis Freeh

Penn State's former president Graham Spanier has initiated a libel and defamation suit against Louis Freeh, the former FBI director who a year ago produced a report for the school that was highly critical of Spanier's role in the child sex abuse scandal involving longtime assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, reported the Associated Press.

Paperwork filed in Centre County, where the school is located, disclosed little about the nature of his claims but checked off a box on a court system form that described the case as "slander/libel/defamation."

The filing was made one day before the one-year anniversary of Freeh's report, which concluded that Spanier, late coach Joe Paterno and other high-ranking Penn State administrators failed to protect children against Sandusky. Under Pennsylvania law, those who believe they have been libeled or defamed have a year to initiate a civil lawsuit.

Calls and emails seeking comment from Freeh and from Spanier lawyer Elizabeth Ainslie were not returned. Along with Freeh, the paperwork also names as a defendant the law firm where Freeh works.

The Freeh report said Spanier told Freeh's investigators that he never heard anyone say Sandusky was sexually abusing children. But Freeh wrote it was more reasonable to conclude that Spanier, Paterno, athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz "repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the university's board of trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large."

a district judge in the Harrisburg suburbs announced the preliminary hearing would be held for Spanier on July 29 in the county courthouse. The hearing will determine if there are grounds to forward the case to county court for trial.

To read more: http://www.yorkdispatch.com/ci_23644018/ex-penn-state-president-files-suit-against-freeh

Kane appoints investigator to review Sandusky case

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has appointed H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr., a former Philadelphia federal prosecutor to review the handling of the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse case. reported the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Kane ran on a pledge to look into why the Attorney General's Office took nearly three years to criminally charge Sandusky, a former assistant Pennsylvania State University football coach.

Moulton led the inquiry into the botched 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Texas.  Moulton has an impressive resume. He is currently an associate law professor at Widener University. He served for eight years as first assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

From 2009 to 2011, Moulton served as chief counsel to then-U.S. Sen. Ted Kaufman (D. Del.) and as a deputy to the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. In that role he supervised investigations into fraud and other criminal activity related to the federal bailout program, reported the Inquirer.

In 1993, as a project director for the Treasury Department, Moulton wrote a widely praised report on the raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco that left 75 people, including 25 children, dead. Moulton earned his law degree from Columbia University and clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist.

"Mr. Moulton is a highly respected former federal prosecutor who will assist us in providing a comprehensive and independent examination of the facts surrounding the handling of the Sandusky investigation," Kane said in a statement.

Kane said there was no timetable. "Once the facts have been uncovered, my office will make these findings available to the public," Kane told the Inquirer. Moulton will be paid $72 an hour, her office said.

To read more:  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20130205_Pennsylvania_s_attorney_general_names_an_aide_to_review_the_Jerry_Sandusky_child_sex-abuse_case.html

Pennsylvania Task Force Promotes Advocacy Centers

A task force formed in response to the Penn State child sex abuse scandal recommend that all children in Pennsylvania have better access to centers that specialize in investigating child abuse, reported the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Task Force on Child Protection recommended that a children's advocacy center be located within a two-hour drive of every child in the state, David Heckler, the Bucks County district attorney and chairman of the task force, told the Post-Gazette.

"If there had been a children's advocacy center in Centre County in 1998 to 2000," Mr. Heckler said, "I'm telling you they would have heard about Jerry Sandusky then, and a decade of suffering by his victims would have been prevented."

There are currently 21 Children's Advocacy Centers in the state. However, they receive no state money. The nearest advocacy center to State College is in Harrisburg, a little more than an hour's drive.

The task force recommended sweeping changes, including new crimes, revised criminal codes and new policies, reported the Post-Gazette.

Pennsylvania law requires multidisciplinary teams, but teams in some counties do not meet regularly or have not developed protocols. Mr. Heckler said the task force recommends "putting teeth into the law."

While multidisciplinary teams are the foundation of effective child-abuse investigations, children's advocacy centers are an extra layer of protection.

They are places, often hospitals, designed to help children feel safe. They employ doctors, nurses and mental health practitioners who examine and treat children. The child is interviewed once, by a forensic examiner skilled at eliciting crucial information.

"Children's advocacy centers ensure justice," Mr. Heckler told the Post-Gazette.

About half of the state's 67 counties either do not have an advocacy center or have no arrangements with one in a nearby county. More are needed, said Abbie Newman, president of the state association of Children's Advocacy Centers and Multidisciplinary Teams.

"Children need to be brought to a place where they can be comfortable, as opposed to a police station," she said.

To read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/child-protection-group-calls-for-more-advocacy-centers-663446/#ixzz2DUDOMDa0

Former Penn State president to be charged today

Graham B. Spanier, the Pennsylvania State University president ousted last year for his handling of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, is expected to face criminal charges today in connection with the case, sources close to the investigation told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Attorney General Linda Kelly is expected to announce perjury and obstruction of justice charges against the ex-administrator at a noon news conference in Harrisburg, the sources said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case.

To read more:  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121101_Sources__Spanier_to_be_charged_with_perjury__obstruction.html

Sandusky Transfered, Placed in Solitary Confinement

Jerry Sandusky was transferred to the State Correctional Institution at Greene (Waynesburg, PA) his permanent "home" while he serves the remainder of his 30 to 60 year sentence, reported the ABC News affiliate in Harrisburg, PA.  Greene is about 30 miles south of Pittsburgh.

Sandusky will serve his sentence in administrative custody, a form of solitary confinement. He will be housed in a single cell and only leave to exercise and receive medical attention.

Sandusky's visits will be non-contact and he will also be under additional supervision and escorted whenever he leaves his cell. He will be offered one hour of individual exercise per day, five days a week and showers three times a week.

To read more: http://www.abc27.com/story/19967065/sandusky-transfered-to

Penn State sex scandal far from over

According to the Harrisburg Patriot-News the Penn State sex abuse scandal is far from over with the sentencing of Jerry Sandusky to 30-60 years in state prison.   Still to come:   •In January, Athletic Director-on-leave Tim Curley and retired Senior Vice President for Business and Finance Gary Schultz are scheduled to stand trial in Dauphin County court on charges that they lied to the statewide grand jury investigating Sandusky. 

•Mike McQueary, the former assistant football coach who has testified that he saw Sandusky in a shower sexually assaulting a boy in 2001, is suing Penn State for $4 million, saying he was essentially fired for truthfully testifying about how he told his superiors about the incident. He claims that instead of protecting him as a whistleblower, the university used him as a scapegoat. 

•Victim 1, who was a Clinton County high school student when Sandusky abused him, also has sued Penn State. He has a book scheduled for release this month. Other victims are expected to sue the university. Penn State has said it wants to settle with the victims. 

•State House Democrats are trying to force a vote on a resolution to urge the U.S. attorney general’s office to investigate the handling of the Sandusky investigation. 

•If elected, Democratic state attorney general candidate Kathleen Kane is promising a review of the Sandusky investigation to determine whether politics played a role in why it went on for three years before charges were filed in 2011. Some have questioned whether Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, managed the investigation while serving as attorney general in such a way as to not interfere with his gubernatorial campaign in 2010.

The fallout from the Penn State sex abuse scandal will take years to sort out.

According to the Patriot-News, Curley and Schultz are scheduled to stand trial on single counts of perjury and failure to report child abuse.

If convicted, they could face prison sentences. Attorneys for Curley and Schultz declined comment for this story, but other sources familiar with some aspects of that case said they were not aware of any serious plea negotiations to date.

Meanwhile, state and federal investigators are continuing to explore other aspects of the Sandusky scandal, including whether other top university leaders might have lied during the state investigation or been involved in attempts to conceal evidence.

Asked about that a spokesperson for Attorney General Linda Kelly’s office, said only that “we have an ongoing investigation which we’re not going to discuss.”

To read more: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/10/jerry_sandusky_2.html

The Cautionary Instruction: The media circus

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
August 17, 2012

Drew Peterson is the media trial du jour. Peterson, a former police officer, is on trial in Illinois for the murder of this third wife. His fourth wife also disappeared.

The trial is not being televised but cable television is abuzz. The Chicago Tribune recently bemoaned Peterson’s attorneys for “over” accessibility. Peterson’s attorneys “typically will stop for the assembled camera crews and field questions each day on their way” in, out and during the lunch break.

A reporter complaining about accessibility in the midst of a media circus is like a lion trainer complaining about his lion’s ferocious roar.

The media circus is not new. In 1921, silent film star Fatty Arbuckle went through three high profile trials before he was acquitted of murder. In 1925, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan squared off in Tennessee for the Scopes Monkey Trial. The trial drew intense national publicity as reporters flocked to the small town of Dayton.

The media circus was thrust into the public consciousness in the prescient movie “Dog Day Afternoon.” The 1975 movie depicted two inept bank robbers who get trapped in the bank by the police as a crowd outside, and viewers at home, watched things spin out of control.

O.J. Simpson’s nine month trial in 1995 may have set the media circus standard. The “trial of the century” riveted a national audience with memorable quips like, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
Simpson was acquitted. The attorneys on both sides became media personalities. The reporters covering the trial became celebrities.

Last year, Casey Anthony ratcheted-up the media circus. People waiting in line to get into court each day had as much interest in seeing their favorite TV news stars -- touching them, shaking their hands and taking photos with them -- as they did in the actual trial.

Judge Belvin Perry exiled the TV personalities—Nancy Grace, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren— to the courtroom’s balcony to control distractions. Still the judge admonished the media for “creating a circus like atmosphere around the trial.” http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,20513241,00.html

Pennsylvania just finished a sensational trial with a high profile defendant. The trial of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky generated an enormous amount of attention.

Although the satellite trucks were planted on the PSU lawn and were outside the Centre County Court House, the Simpson-Anthony-Petersonesque media circus was absent, why?

Unlike Florida and California, TV cameras are not permitted in Pennsylvania courtrooms. Judge John Cleland prohibited live emails, texts and tweets from the courtroom during trial. A gag order prohibited lawyers from talking with the media.

Most importantly Sandusky’s trial had no suspense. His guilt was a foregone conclusion. He went to trial, not because he had a defense, but because he had no other options.

The prosecution didn’t offer a plea, the case was too strong. An open plea would probably have resulted in a life sentence due to Sandusky’s age. Sandusky rolled the dice at trial because he had no other option. That is not the stuff of enduring notoriety.

Visit Ipso Facto

PA prosecutors want NCAA to share Penn State fine

Prosecutors in Pennsylvania hope to steer some of the $60 million in fines Penn State must pay the NCAA over the Penn State sex-abuse scandal to children's advocacy centers across the state, reported the Associated Press.

The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association is not seeking a specific amount of money to expand the 21 current advocacy centers that exist across Pennsylvania's 67 counties.

The centers offer a single place for children to tell their stories of abuse to a trained interviewer, while police, therapists and others watch remotely. This prevents children from having to tell their stories repeatedly to various experts. The centers also offer various services or referrals to the victim and family members.

The $60 million fine is part of the NCAA sanctions facing Penn State in the wake of the sex-abuse scandal involving Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach, reported the AP. Sandusky was convicted in June of abusing 10 boys, sometimes on Penn State's campus, from 1994 to 2008.

As Lawrence County District Attorney in 1998 my office expanded and helped fund one of Pennsylvania first Children's Advocacy Centers.  In cooperation with other community stakeholders like Jamison Health System, our office was able to effectively prosecute hundreds of sex offenses with minimal anguish for victims and their families.

Centre County, the home of Penn State University, does not have a center, reported the AP.

To read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7xhwCeMKV_YJFgcXVC2hWERmcyw?docId=c49d1abf94c14d5997122b9b69c6aa4b

Mangino on America Live with Megyn Kelly

Watch my interview on America Live with Megyn Kelly on Fox News on Thursday, July 12, 2012.   The interview explored the Freeh Report on the Penn State sex abuse scandal.

To watch the interview click below:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/america-live/index.html/#/v/1732270912001/report-penn-state-officials-covered-up-child-sex-abuse/?playlist_id=87651

Investigative Report Penn State University Sex Abuse Scandal

Read full report click here:

http://l.yimg.com/dh/ap/default/120712/freeh_report_final_071212.pdf

Pennsylvania seeks to do away with SOL for child sex crimes

For more than six years Pennsylvania legislators had been pushing for a law that would give victims of childhood sexual abuse more time to file civil suits or criminal complaints against their alleged abusers.

Last week with the national spotlight on former Pennsylvania State University assistant coach Jerry Sandusky's child-abuse case the stalled legislation moved forward with other state initiatives to protect children.

House Judiciary Chairman, Ron Marsico consolidated the bills and put it to a vote. It passed unanimously, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

He said he was yielding to pressure from colleagues and would have preferred to wait until a task force he had formed on child-abuse legislation in the wake of the Sandusky scandal issued its final recommendations this fall. "However, a number of legislators have been insisting on our committee to act now, before the task force has completed its job," Marsico told the Inquirer.

The amended bill would do away with the statute of limitations on criminal prosecutions in child-sexual-assault cases. It also would extend the statute of limitations in civil suits until the accuser reaches age 50.

Under current law, victims have until age 50 to bring criminal charges and until age 30 to sue alleged abusers.  The current law took effect on January 28, 2007. That was a significant change within only the last ten years. Prior to 2002, the statute ran for only five years after the victims 18th birthday. In 2002, the statute of limitation was extended to 12 years.

The measure's fate remains in question, however, since it must still be approved by the Rules Committee before it can get to the full House. A spokesman for that committee's chairman, Majority Leader Mike Turzai, told the Inquirer that Turzai would review the bill.

To read more: http://www.abolishsexabuse.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1607:pa-child-sex-abuse-bill-finally-makes-it-out-of-committee&catid=75:pa-child-victims-acts-2011&Itemid=197

Thirty states seek to expand mandatory reporting laws

Penn State sex abuse scandal behind rapid increase in laws

In the wake of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, about 105 bills on the reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect have been introduced in 2012 legislative sessions in 30 states and the District of Columbia. Legislation has since been enacted in 10 of those states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

According to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) Oregon, West Virginia, Virginia, and South Dakota are among states that expanded their list of professions that are mandatory reporters, while Indiana and Iowa are requiring schools to develop new policies and reporting procedures for responding to suspected child abuse.

Indiana, also in response to the Penn State sex abuse scandal, passed legislation that requires the state to work with child sexual abuse experts to develop education materials, response policies, and reporting procedures on child sexual abuse, reported CSM. A new Iowa law requires schools to implement policy for employees in contact with children to report suspected physical or sexual abuse.

Also as a direct result of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, Florida has passed what is now the toughest mandatory reporting legislation in the country: Failure to report suspected child abuse is a felony, and universities would be fined $1 million and stripped of state funding for two years if officials don't report child abuse. According to CSM, the law applies to everyone — from university coaching staff to elementary school teachers to students.

Forty-eight states require at least some professionals to immediately report knowledge or suspicion of child sexual abuse to some authority, according to the NCSL. The list of professionals varies by state and can include teachers, school nurses, doctors, social workers, police, day care workers, coaches and camp counselors, reported the CSM.

Eighteen states have laws that require mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse by all adults. Many of those states have no specific sanctions for those who fail to comply with such laws, while others have penalties but they are not enforced unless a case is particularly heinous or deadly.

To read more:  http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0609/Sandusky-child-sex-abuse-scandal-raises-questions-about-state-laws

The Cautionary Instruction: A tale of two rulings In Sandusky trial

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/Ipso Facto
June 8, 2012

Two rulings this week by the judge presiding over the trial of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky reveal a system amenable to openness but burdened with an antiquated view toward achieving accessibility.

The two rulings appear to be in conflict. Initially, Judge John M. Cleland ruled that the victims must use their names when testifying. The victims had asked the court to use pseudonyms to protect their identity.
Judge Cleland then revoked permission for journalists to tweet and email dispatches from inside the courtroom after the media sought clarification on the judge’s decorum order -- a set of ground rules for trial.

When the judge addressed the pseudonym request he wrote, “Courts are not customarily in the business of withholding information. Secrecy is thought to be inconsistent with the openness required to assure the public that the law is being administered fairly and applied faithfully." 


While Judge Cleland sought to provide openness on the one hand—he clamped down on a novel method of access provided through modern technological advances. Twitter opens Pennsylvania’s courtrooms in much the same way television opened courtrooms in Ohio, Florida and numerous other states.

Judge Cleland recognized this through his decorum order which initially permitted the use of electronic devices for courtroom-based communications. There were limitations. “The devices may not be used to take or transmit photographs in [the courtroom]; or to record or broadcast any verbatim account of the proceedings” in real time from the courtroom.

A number of media outlets, including The Associated Press and ESPN, filed a motion seeking clarification of the judge’s order.

The media’s motion argued that restricting the use of direct quotes was unconstitutional and the use of direct quotes should not be prohibited because doing so would, according to court documents, “risk diminishing the accuracy of reports on the trial.”

As a result the judge said he was "compelled to rescind" the portion of the order granting electronic-based communications because, based on the media’s motion, he finds his interpretation of the law “confusing to reporters, unworkable, and therefore, likely unenforceable.”

Juxtapose the electronic communication ruling with the witness identification ruling. Rejecting the use of pseudonyms for victims Judge Cleland wrote, "Arguably any victim of any crime would prefer not to appear in court, not to be subjected to cross-examination, not to have his or her credibility evaluated by a jury -- not to put his name and reputation at stake." Judge Cleland continued, "But we ask citizens to do that every day in courts across the nation." Yet, citizens interested in the Sandusky case will have to read about those witnesses in the next day’s newspaper.

Judge Cleland, with a couple strokes of a pen, made evidence in a high profile case both more open and less accessible -- at least by today’s modern means of access.

Visit Ipso Facto