Jerry Sandusky got everything he asked for in Friday’s hearing.
Despite state prosecutors’ request to tighten Sandusky’s house arrest so that he would not be able to go outdoors to sit on his deck, a judge loosened Sandusky’s restrictions by ruling that he is allowed to see some of his grandchildren and non-family members.
- Documents:
The judge also ruled that Sandusky can have a jury from the State College area for his trial. The state Attorney General’s office requested a jury from outside Centre County.
The judge ruled that Sandusky can see and/or e-mail with his grandchildren with their parents’ supervision, except for the three grandchildren involved in a custody issue. An ex-wife of one of Sandusky's sons "strenuously objects to her three minor children having any contact whatsoever with the defendant,” according to court documents before the recent decision.
Sandusky can also make a list of 12 people, in addition to his family members, he wants to visit him. A court official will have the power to disapprove of any or all, and the official may limit who may visit Sandusky at any one time.
Sandusky can also leave his house to help his defense team with the case, as long as he requests it 36 hours in advance.
As for the “back deck” issue, the judge ruled that “the Commonwealth has failed to present any evidence whatsoever that the defendant presents a clearly defined threat to any student at the adjoining elementary school simply by being on his deck.”
In a statement Monday afternoon, Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola said this:
Jerry, Dottie, and their entire family are very relieved by and pleased with the Court's decision earlier today modifying Jerry's bail conditions to permit him to see and otherwise communicate with most of his grandchildren with the lone exception that his communication with three of his grandchildren will be left to the discretion of the judge presiding over the custody litigation involving the parents of those children. Jerry pursued visitation with his grand kids because they missed him and wanted to see him and communicate with him. Jerry is also happy he can now have visitation with long time friends with the prior approval of the Probation Department and will be able to continue to use the deck to his home to exercise, care for and supervise his dog, Bo, when Bo is in the yard. We are also pleased with the Court's ruling on the Commonwealth's Motion for Change of Venire. We have always believed a fair and impartial jury can be chosen from the citizens of Centre County. We are also very satisfied with the Court's rulings on our Motion to Compel Discovery and Application for Bill of Particulars. We believe the Court's rulings today were fair and consistent with the legal principles cited in the Court's opinions. While we are happy with the outcome of Friday's hearings, we realize, nevertheless, a number of difficult legal battles lie ahead of us. We will continue to work very hard in preparing Jerry's defense with the ultimate goal of obtaining Jerry's acquittal following his trial.
Amendola also released a response to Jill Thomas, the ex-wife of Sandusky's son who objected to Sandusky having contact with his three grandchildren:
Jill Thomas, Matt Sandusky's former wife and mother of his three children, has been involved in an unfortunate, nasty custody battle with Matt for many months. After Jerry was initially arrested on various charges last Nov. 5th, Jill went to authorities and alleged Jerry had abused her five year old son. We believe she made the Attorney General's Office aware of her allegations at that time. Jill's allegations, along with another unrelated allegation of abuse, were investigated by Centre County Children and Youth Services and presumably the AG's Office late last year and early this year. These two new separate allegations of abuse were reported by the media late last year. Jerry unequivocally denied these new allegations. Last month, in the midst of the firestorm created by Jerry's arrests last November and December and despite the probable likely inclination by authorities to wrongly conclude Jerry abused other minors and after a thorough investigation into these two new allegations of abuse, Centre County CYS advised Jerry and me last month it had determined these allegations of abuse were unfounded. The Court, in its decision today, left the issue of Jerry's visitation and communication with Jill's children up to the discretion of the judge presiding over the bitter custody battle that apparently continues to rage between Jill and Matt. Unfortunately, Jerry appears to have been dragged into this battle. The judge presiding over the custody action appointed a legal guardian in the custody action to represent Jill's children's best interests in the custody matter. The children's guardian submitted a letter to Judge Cleland last Friday indicating Jill's children wanted to see Jerry. Whether Jill's children get to see Jerry will be decided by the judge presiding over the custody battle. We have the utmost faith that judge will make his decision based upon the best interests of Jerry's grandchildren.
Also Monday, a Penn State administrator asked a judge to throw out charges that he lied to the grand jury investigating Sandusky and that he failed to properly report suspected child abuse.
Tim Curley filed motions in Dauphin County Court that argued the death of football coach Joe Paterno last month left prosecutors without a required second witness to support the perjury charge.
He said that allegations he didn't report suspected abuse in 2002 were filed under a revision of the law that was passed five years later and that the statute of limitations has expired. The attorney general's office said it, too, was under review.
The 57-year-old Curley is on leave as athletic director as he awaits trial. Former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz, who faces the same charges as Curley, has not filed similar motions. Both have denied the allegations.
