Jerry Sandusky Scandal

Judge in Sandusky case orders a hearing on subpoenas

Senior Judge John Cleland will hold a hearing May 9 on filings by two school districts and The Second Mile that subpoenas from Jerry Sandusky's attorney aren't valid.

The Mifflin County and Keystone Central school districts, along with The Second Mile, filed motions asking Cleland to quash the Sandusky subpoenas seeking information including student records, psychological evaluations, grade reports and attendance records.

Mifflin County and Keystone Central argue the information requested in the subpoenas is protected and the defense doesn't have a right to the records.

The May 9 hearing at 1:30 p.m. in the Centre County Courthouse will cover any similar motions filed by other entities, Cleland's order says.

Sandusky's defense attorney, Joe Amendola, issued subpoenas to several school districts, along with ones to the state police commissioner, state Department of Labor and Industry and Penn State police. Prosecutors filed a motion Friday calling the subpoenas a "fishing expedition."

The subpoenas includes ones to local school districts for records of former students who are among the alleged victims in the abuse case against the former Penn State defensive coach.

State College attorney Scott Etter confirmed today that several districts he represents have received similar subpoenas, but he declined to identify which ones they are.

Etter represents the State College, Bellefonte, Penns Valley, Moshannon Valley and Juniata County and the Central Pennsylvania Insitute of Science and Technology.

"I'm in the process of reviewing to see what documents we still have," Etter said.

Etter won't immediately file a motion to quash the subpoenas, as the Mifflin County and Keystone Central school districts did earlier this week.

Instead, Etter said he will wait to see what the judge will do regarding the prosecution's request to stop the defense from issuing the subpoenas. Prosecutors said the subpoenas are being used improperly and the defense hasn't explained their relevance to the case.

  Comments