The Office of Attorney General doesn’t think Jerry Sandusky has a case when it comes to his latest request for a new trial.
On May 19, Sandusky filed the new argument in his Post Conviction Relief Act petition, seeking to overturn his conviction on 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse charges in 2012.
Sandusky’s attorneys argued at that time that the the statewide investigating grand jury that heard his case and recommended charges against him was not within its jurisdiction to do so.
The OAG disagrees.
“The OAG has the power to investigate any criminal offense that it is authorized to prosecute under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act,” wrote Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Peterson.
She called the idea that the legislature would have precluded the OAG from using a grand jury to investigate crimes it was authorized to prosecute “absurd.”
The Sandusky attorneys argued that the grand jury was only able to investigate multi-county crimes or public corruption.
The OAG was brought into the case due to a conflict of interest. At the time, the Centre County district attorney was Michael Madeira, whose wife was the birth sister of one of Sandusky’s adopted children.
Sandusky’s attorneys are advancing several arguments in the PCRA, including that Sandusky’s trial attorneys were incompetent.
The current attorneys, Al Lindsay and Andrew Salemme have requested an evidentiary hearing and want to compel testimony from a number of sources, including state Attorney General Kathleen Kane, the former judge who presided over the grand jury, a number of witnesses, attorneys, counselors and a journalist.