Online Now 371

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 225
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 373
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

Grand Jury Investigation Coming

  • Just announced.

    APNewsBreak: Lawyer to probe Penn St. grand jury

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania judge has named a special prosecutor to examine whether secrecy rules were violated in relation to the grand jury that investigated Jerry Sandusky and three former Penn State administrators currently facing criminal charges.Judge Barry Feudale ordered the appointment of attorney James Reeder on Feb. 8. His four-page order was obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday.Pennsylvania investigative grand juries often work on more than one matter, and it wasnt clear from the document whether the possible secrecy violations were related the Penn State cases or other cases the same jury examined.Feudale has recently been trying to sort out a legal dispute involving whether former Penn State lawyer Cynthia Baldwin should have been present at a grand jury proceeding, and the order referenced a rule that governs such matters.

    bigstory.ap.org
    signature image signature image signature image

    JettaPSU2001

  • So…what does this mean if anything?

    signature image

    I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said.

    psu2013

  • psu2013 said...

    So…what does this mean if anything?

    +1 , wondering the same thing, ha.

    Nittny65

  • psu2013 said...

    So…what does this mean if anything?

    That this whole thing is a giant cluster f@%k and those guys will get off. At least that's what I gather out of it.

    signature image signature image signature image

    JettaPSU2001

  • JettaPSU2001 said...

    That this whole thing is a giant cluster f@%k and those guys will get off. At least that's what I gather out of it.

    That. And that slowly but surely one more P.O.S is going to get what they've got coming (Baldwin).
    The gift I left in the toilet this morning is worth more to this earth than that arrogant ...

    EDIT: Please watch the language.

    This post was edited by Jeff Rice on 2/27/2013 at 2:53 PM

    signature image

    Follow me on Twitter @rayraycotto

    RWC5113 ●

  • This all goes back the Cynthia Baldwin and whether she acted improperly in giving advice to Spanier/Curley/Schultz. It looks like the judge is trying to determine whether he should allow Baldwin's testimony in. If it's not, it's my understanding that the case falls apart but I'm not 100% sure.

    PSUJT0409

  • psu2013 said...

    So…what does this mean if anything?

    Well, not a lawyer but if Baldwin was not supposed to be in there, or was sworn to secrecy and she violated that it can't be good for the prosecution against the three amigos.

    From the article:

    "All persons who are to be present while the grand jury is in session shall be identified in the record, shall be sworn to secrecy as provided in these rules, and shall not disclose any information pertaining to the grand jury except as provided by law."

    Cynthia Baldwin certainly did not keep things secret, unless she was allowed to talk about it under some law.

    I'm also curious how she is getting around attorney client privileges in testifying against them.

    PSU17

  • My thought is I don't want these cases thrown out. Not guilty verdicts in my mind are the only thing we can go back to the NCAA with by asking them to look at the verdicts as compared to the Freeh Report.

    If they get dropped simply because Baldwin was in the wrong place then we may never hear what really happened.

    Maybe that is what people want.

    PSUDOG

  • PSUDOG said...

    My thought is I don't want these cases thrown out. Not guilty verdicts in my mind are the only thing we can go back to the NCAA with by asking them to look at the verdicts as compared to the Freeh Report.

    If they get dropped simply because Baldwin was in the wrong place then we may never hear what really happened.

    Maybe that is what people want.

    I understand your feelings but having the case thrown out would probably strengthen PA's case against the NCAA and help with getting the sanctions eliminated or reduced.

    PSUJT0409

  • PSUDOG said...

    My thought is I don't want these cases thrown out. Not guilty verdicts in my mind are the only thing we can go back to the NCAA with by asking them to look at the verdicts as compared to the Freeh Report.

    If they get dropped simply because Baldwin was in the wrong place then we may never hear what really happened.

    Maybe that is what people want.

    My first choice is that they are proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    If these cases get tossed I will be furious at the state because they never should have brought the charges in the first place if their case wasn't strong enough. No charges, no PSU coverup, no ped state, no NCAA involvement. Sandusky still in jail where he should be.

    This post was edited by PSU17 on 2/27/2013 at 2:14 PM

    PSU17

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    PSU17

  • psu2013 said...

    So…what does this mean if anything?

    That Baldwin acting inappropriately is going to get the charges against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier dropped in due time.

    PSU12

  • So... is this why an official court date has not been set for the trials of Curley, Schultz and Spanier?

    getmyjive11

  • getmyjive11 said...

    So... is this why an official court date has not been set for the trials of Curley, Schultz and Spanier?

    this is why they'll probably never happen.

    PSU12

  • PSU12 said...

    this is why they'll probably never happen.

    It also means that we will probably never get any answers.

    getmyjive11

  • Sadly, I've thought all along that Cynthia Baldwin was not going to come out of this looking very good. As a former justice of the PA Supreme Court and big time law firm partner, she should have known better. I think we may find that she was behind (i.e. recommended) many of the actions the BOT took.

    Going farther back, Wendell Courtney (outside counsel for PSU back in the 1990's) may come in for some closer scrutiny, too.

    I'm afraid the Sandusky case will be taught in law schools as well as in Business Schools and Public Administration programs for how not to handle a crisis.

    Rick81

  • getmyjive11 said...

    It also means that we will probably never get any answers.

    Not necessarily. The charges can be dismissed and everybody can go on tv and spill their guts about what really happened. Maybe write a book or something. Also they might sue PSU and then it would come then.

    PSUJT0409

  • PSUJT0409 said...

    Not necessarily. The charges can be dismissed and everybody can go on tv and spill their guts about what really happened. Maybe write a book or something. Also they might sue PSU and then it would come then.

    agreed, once the case is closed these three can speak at will...as can some others...and i'm more than happy to hear what they have to say because I doubt it will hurt us in any way!

    TheBleedingLion

  • Rick81 said...

    I'm afraid the Sandusky case will be taught in law schools as well as in Business Schools and Public Administration programs for how not to handle a crisis.

    It already is from what I have read. I am sure a whole vain of literature will focus specifically on this incident...

    Lion_in_CBus ●

  • PSUJT0409 said...

    Not necessarily. The charges can be dismissed and everybody can go on tv and spill their guts about what really happened. Maybe write a book or something. Also they might sue PSU and then it would come then.

    I dont know the legal terms and I might be completely off as I really have very little idea of legalese, but can the charges be thrown out with prejudice? Could the courts bring the case back, which might lead these guys to not say much or will that not matter in this instance? For example, if the the case can be brought back on the same basis, then these guys might not speak, but if they cant be, maybe itll be open game for their side of the story.

    This post was edited by tmaluchnik on 2/27/2013 at 4:17 PM

    You find out life's this game of inches, so is football. Because in either game, life or football-the margin for error is so small. -Pacino

    tmaluchnik

  • There's also the issue that the three thought she was representing them but the state thought she was representing the university. In effect, the three amigos had no representation for the grand jury which means their testimony is no good or can't be used against them (or something along those lines).

    BKHPSU

  • Her testimony is clearly a violation of atty-client privilege. Her testimony should not be used against them but I'm wondering whether they could ask that their testimony before the GJ be dismissed b/c they believed they were represented by counsel, & they weren't. Hence, their right to 5th Amendment protection was violated b/c their counsel was not really their counsel but rather an agent of the government who broke privilege to provide testimony against them. Very interesting. Maybe charges will be dismissed.

    jimscranton ●

  • We need to clear something up. You are NOT entitled to an attorney at a grand jury hearing. Your attorney is not even allowed to be in the room whenever you give testimony. What you are allowed to do is when the prosecutor asks you a question, you are allowed to have your attorney stand outside the room, write the question down, go outside, show it to the attorney and they can tell you how to answer. I think the issue in this case has more to do with the attorney-client privilege and that Spanier/Curley/Schultz thought they were being represented by Baldwin and that she gave them advice and then if I'm not mistaken after they were done testifying she was called and told the grand jury some of the things she was told by those men. That information would be privileged because even if she wasn't there on those 3 men's behalf they reasonably thought she was and that's usually enough to have the privilege attach.

    This post was edited by PSUJT0409 on 2/27/2013 at 10:39 PM

    PSUJT0409

  • jimscranton said...

    Her testimony is clearly a violation of atty-client privilege. Her testimony should not be used against them but I'm wondering whether they could ask that their testimony before the GJ be dismissed b/c they believed they were represented by counsel, & they weren't. Hence, their right to 5th Amendment protection was violated b/c their counsel was not really their counsel but rather an agent of the government who broke privilege to provide testimony against them. Very interesting. Maybe charges will be dismissed.

    Her argument has been that she wasn't representing them. She's denied from the start that she ever represented them and her client was always "Penn State". I think that is why the state is planning to use her testimony unless there is a reason not to. I think this probe came about because if she wasn't representing them, what was she doing in the room? Further, why was she sitting with both men while they answered the judge stating that they had counsel with them and identified Baldwin. Baldwin claims she simply didn't hear the question or answer....yeah, okay.

    I don't want to rush to judgement here, but on the surface, is it possible that she was planted in the GJ under the guise of being counsel for Curley and Schultz. Is it possible that she tricked them into telling her everything by letting them think she was their counsel just to turn around and relay everything to the prosecution? Or is it more likely that she was about to get charged and changed her tune, claiming she wasn't representing them so she could turn state's evidence?

    I'd also ask if it might have just been an honest misunderstanding but I think we all know that's the least likely explination.

    spud358

  • spud358 said...

    Her argument has been that she wasn't representing them. She's denied from the start that she ever represented them and her client was always "Penn State". I think that is why the state is planning to use her testimony unless there is a reason not to. I think this probe came about because if she wasn't representing them, what was she doing in the room? Further, why was she sitting with both men while they answered the judge stating that they had counsel with them and identified Baldwin. Baldwin claims she simply didn't hear the question or answer....yeah, okay.

    I don't want to rush to judgement here, but on the surface, is it possible that she was planted in the GJ under the guise of being counsel for Curley and Schultz. Is it possible that she tricked them into telling her everything by letting them think she was their counsel just to turn around and relay everything to the prosecution? Or is it more likely that she was about to get charged and changed her tune, claiming she wasn't representing them so she could turn state's evidence?

    I'd also ask if it might have just been an honest misunderstanding but I think we all know that's the least likely explination.

    I highly highly doubt she was planted as spy, besides being VERY illegal and if discovered would probably cost her her license, I doubt the BOTs even realized that it was such a big deal at the time. More likely she's changing her tune because she realizes she can get into major trouble.

    PSUJT0409

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports