“It cannot be argued that this is a ‘run of the mill’ sexual abuse case,” wrote Jerry Sandusky’s lawyer in a new filing.
On Tuesday, Alexander Lindsay, of Butler, filed his discovery requests in the retired Penn State defensive coordinator’s petition for post-conviction relief in his child sex abuse case. Sandusky was convicted of 45 abuse counts in 2012, arising from boys who were part of his charity, The Second Mile.
Lindsay is asking McKean County Senior Judge John Cleland, specially presiding in Centre County, to permit discovery in the PCRA, a specific kind of appeal under Pennsylvania law. Discovery, the process of sharing information between parties in a legal proceeding, is only allowed in a PCRA under “extraordinary circumstances.”
He argued for discovery in Sandusky’s case on a number of grounds, citing points ranging from allegations of lies on the prosecution’s part during the trial to the grand jury leaks and surrounding turmoil in the Attorney General’s Office.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to the Centre Daily Times
Requests include depositions of the victims the Sandusky case presented, the investigators and officers who conducted interviews, and agreements between the victims and their attorneys. They also want to pursue information about the leaks by issuing subpoenas to state prosecutors Frank Fina and Jonelle Eshbach, psychologist Michael Gillum and others, including reporter Sara Ganim.
“It needs to be emphasized that at this stage of the proceedings, Sandusky is not seeking this court to order dismissal of all of the criminal charges. We are merely asking that we be permitted to inquire into those allegations made in the Moulton report,” Lindsay wrote.
The Moulton report is Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s commissioned investigation of the handling of the Sandusky case under former AG and former governor Tom Corbett.
In the state’s reply to Sandusky’s amended PCRA petition, it cited that the defense camp made statements that the leaks of information about the grand jury were deliberate but had nothing to back that up.
“The obvious question arises, how in the world would Sandusky be able to produce the supporting evidence without having the opportunity to question, under oath, the players involved in the leaking of information,” Lindsay wrote.
The document also puts forth an appeal for efficiency, saying that giving the requested discovery would save the court time in an evidentiary hearing.