So Joe Amendola, the same attorney who thought he could force newspapers to rewrite history if he or his clients request it, issues a statement saying Jerry Sandusky is "deeply disappointed" in two newspapers publishing the story about his client.
I'm sure he is disappointed, and it was disappointing to have to publish it. But as I wrote yesterday the story published Thursday presented facts to date in a case that is before a grand jury.
It's a case that readers should know about, and there are a lot of questions concerning two incidents that still need to be answered.
I appreciate http://www.centredaily.com/2011/04/01/2619785/former-coach-vows-fight.html">Amendola offering the statement, but I hope the attorney understands the role of the press in this case better than he did over the summer, when his office altered expungement forms for his clients and got judges and the county DA to sign them, ordering the CDT to take down stories on the clients.
Never miss a local story.
That was a clear First Amendment case that became national news, and county judges acted quickly to take the CDT and the Collegian off the forms. To my knowledge Amendola was never sanctioned, and he should have been. He made a joke out of the system and then didn't own up to it, blaming his office worker for changing about 50 court forms.
To date we still get calls from Amendola clients, thinking their expungement in the legal system means any news of their offense must be wiped out like it never happened.
Amendola seems to think history can be changed for his clients. It can't. What does happen, as will happen in the Sandusky case, is that our coverage will continue until the case has an outcome, and the result will be covered just like the initial "disappointing" story.
That's the way it works, and it's worked like that for a long time in the U.S.