Jerry Sandusky Scandal

Curley, Schultz arraigned; attorneys say PSU administrators are innocent of perjury

Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, senior vice president of business and finance for Penn State, have arrived at a district judge court in Harrisburg where they are scheduled to be arraigned on charges of perjury and failure to report abuse.

"The charges, at face value, are disturbing to me," said District Judge William Wenner, who set bail at $75,000 unsecured for each man. They were each also required to surrender their passports.

Their attorneys argued that neither is a flight risk — Curley has lived in Boalsburg for 15 years and has two children at Penn State; Schultz, who has top secret security clearance from the federal government, has lived in Boalsburg for 20 years and has children and grandchildren in the area.

Curley and Shultz are charged with lying to a grand jury about whether they knew that former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky was sexually abusing a boy.

According to the grand jury report, Mike McQueary, a a graduate assistant in 2002 who’s now an assistant coach under Coach Joe Paterno, testified that he saw Sandusky in a shower room in Penn State’s Lasch Football Building having sex with a naked boy, who appeared to be about 10 years old.

According to the report, McQueary reported the incident to Paterno the next day, and Paterno notified Curley. About 10 days later, Curley and Schultz met with McQueary and, following that meeting, decided to inform Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, that Sandusky was no longer permitted to bring Second Mile children into Penn State facilities.

No report of the incident was made to police or to child protective services.

The grand jury found McQueary’s testimony credible, but concluded that Curley lied when he testified before the grand jury that McQueary did not tell him that Sandusky engaged in sex with the boy.

The grand jury similarly concluded that Schultz lied when he said McQueary’s allegations were “not that serious,” and that he and Curley “had no indication that a crime occurred.”

The grand jury presentment did not go into details about exactly what McQueary said he told Schultz and Curley.

Attorney General Linda Kelly, at a 1 p.m. news conference did not provide those details, but said the grand jury found McQueary’s testimony “extremely credible” for several reasons: “They probably took into consideration his age, how he reacted, the fact that he immediately contacted his father to seek advice because he was so shocked by this” and that he contacted Joe Paterno the next day.

The attorneys representing Curley and Schultz, however, said the charges are baseless and their clients are innocent.

“I will tell you, and you should know that this perjury charge is a red flag for all of you today that the charges against Mr. Curley are weak," said Curley's attorney, Caroline Roberto, following his arraignment. "After 18 months investigation, if this is all the AG’s office could bring we are ready to go toe to toe with them in court. We’re reader to fight this case, and we’re ready to win.”

Schultz's attorney accused the Attorney General of setting a "perjury trap."

"You bring someone into a grand jury to investigate something that can’t be prosecuted, something that isn’t a crime, and then you take that persons’ inconsistencies or inaccuracies, or failure to remember what happened nine years ago," said Thomas J. Farrell. "Then you manufacture a charge out of it. That’s what the Attorney General has done to these men." 

Kelly, at her news conference earlier in the afternoon, was asked about the attorney's assertion that the statute requiring reporting incidents of child abuse did not apply to their clients.

“I think that we are confident that that statute will cover the kind of activity that occurred late that night where ... an approximately 10 year old boy was assaulted in a shower at the Lasch building late at night, and that is the kind of activity that statute covers," Kelly said. "And the administrators of the university, who are representatives of the head of the university, that have that information in their possession have an obligation to report that." 

  Comments