Posted on 06/14/2012 8:14:19 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows
They can't even cross-examine one of the prime witnesses, a former Penn State janitor who now has dementia but alleged a particular graphic 2000 assault in a locker room shower. Judge Cleland allowed hearsay evidence to be admitted, a brutal hurdle for an already challenged defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.yahoo.com ...
Would love to hear FReeper thoughts on the matter.
The alternative: No credible witness = no crime?
Will Whoopie Goldberg come to Sandusky’s defense and say that “it wasn’t really rape-rape?”
Is his evidence really needed? I’d think all the other evidence should be enough to nail him.
is that slippery slope abrasive or feeling good on your “fat” ass?
If I was a real lawyer...I would have left out Fat ass...Heaesay~
Good questions, and I don’t know the answers. It does stand out like the proverbial sore thumb.
Hope they lock this monster away for the rest of his sorry life.
Hopefully cellmate Bubba will say “It’s my turn now....and always.”
An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a “startling event”. It is an exception to the hearsay rule.
Because the janitor has dementia he is legally unavailable to testify. His statement to the other janitor were admitted under the “Excited Utterance” exception to hearsay.
While hearsay is generally not admissible because it is deemed inherently unreliable, their are many exceptions where hearsay can legally be admitted and this is one of them. The “excited” nature of the “utterance” is response to a startling even is deemed to make the otherwise hearsay statement more reliable. See Federal Rule of Evidence 803:
Whether he is guilty? Are you serious? I hope the dudes in prison dispose of this garbage the hard way.
Whether he is guilty? Are you serious? I hope the dudes in prison dispose of this garbage the hard way.
Here the “startling event” of seeing a well respected football coach performing oral sex on an 11 year old cuase to janitor to say something like: Holy crap I just saw Sandusky raping a kid”. That is textbook “excited utterance” and thus the judge was right to let it in. No appellate judge in PA is going to want to reverse this case on that decision. Especially since Appellate Judge in PA are ELECTED positions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.