Replies

Well, there are incompetent lawyers out there. The worst I remember was the Denver guy who had his wannabee terrorist client talk to the FBI here for days, which interview served to support his indictment.

I think almost any seasoned lawyer would say the risk of an unwise statement far outweighs whatever "taint" you might get in the jury pool. Bad move for him.

But I will say this. The interview removed any doubts I had about the guy's guilt. Creepy.

I'm not a criminal law attorney, but I can't believe he did that interview. Just from the excerpt posted and quotes, I have three nasty cross examination questions off the top of my head if he testifies. That doesn't even account for the fact that this tape can be used as evidence.

For the non-attorneys here, we have Miranda warnings. Anyone that watches the show Cops knows them. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Not "for you." "Against you."

Reporters, like Police are expert interviewers. You're not going to successfully BS them 99% of the time. You will likely say something dumb. Sandusky is a public speaker. He knows press conferences. He's good, but this isn't a coaching field. This is criminal law and procedure mixed with evidence, and he's out of his league.

Ever notice most attorneys accused of criminal activities keep their mouth shut. Even we don't win battles in interview rooms. Most of us are smart enough to know it.