BELLEFONTE — Prosecutors have told a judge they will not release certain evidence to Jerry Sandusky's defense attorney.
In a pre-trial discovery matter filed this morning, prosecutors said grand jury matters, ongoing investigations, irrelevant personal information and psychological evaluations of the accusers are not subject to discovery. The items were among those requested by the defense in a motion to compel filed last month.
As part of the discovery process, prosecutors had turned over police reports and other documents with lines or even full pages blacked out.
But Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola, wanted the full versions without the markings. He also sought psychological records on the accusers, photographs taken from The Second Mile, and grand jury subpoenas. He said Monday he's reviewing the prosecution's response.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to the Centre Daily Times
Among the items the prosecution will turn over are Sandusky's employment records with Penn State, a document that references investigators obtaining 52,220 emails, and a state police report that references "linking alleged behavior."
Prosecutors said the photos can be seen by making arrangements through state police. The defense was also told to make an appointment with state police to review the items taken from Sandusky's house in June.
In addition, prosecutors said they don't have any documents from then-District Attorney Ray Gricar from the 1998 investigation into Sandusky showering with a young boy.
Furthermore, prosecutors said they won't provide the defense with their list of witnesses and said anyone whose name appears in the discovery material could be called as a witness at trial.
Another outstanding pre-trial matter that's been back and forth between the sides is the defense's request for a bill of particulars.
Amendola re-requested that information last week, seeking specific information about each of the 52 counts Sandusky faces. Amendola wants to know the exact time, date and place the incidents happened as well as the ages of the accusers at the time.
Prosecutors had responded to his initial request for that information by providing a date range and places of alleged abuse for each accuser.