Jerry Sandusky’s attorneys asked for a new trial Thursday as part of a series of post-sentence motions filed Thursday in Centre County Court.
A new attorney, Norris Gelman of Philadelphia, was also added to Sandusky’s defense team Thursday. Gelman could not be reached as of press time Thursday.
One of Sandusky’s other attorneys, Joe Amendola, wrote in an email that Gelman specializes in appellate practice, and that he was added as an attorney to help with Sandusky’s appeals process.
Regarding the motion for a new trial, Sandusky’s attorneys wrote that most of the evidence produced against Sandusky at trial was insufficient to sustain a verdict.
They wrote that the verdict was against the “weight of the evidence” because prosecutors couldn’t prove Sandusky engaged in any of the acts he was convicted of committing, according to the motion.
Sandusky’s attorneys also argued that the court erred when it denied the defense’s motion to dismiss the criminal counts relating to the person referred to as “Victim 8” because the prosecution failed to establish that the offenses happened between Nov. 20 and Nov. 27, 2000, according to the motion.
The defense also argued in the motion that the court erred when it permitted hearsay testimony from Ronald Petrosky, a janitor who worked at the Lasch Football Building. Petrosky said a coworker told him he saw Sandusky performing oral sex on the person referred to as “Victim 8,” as previously reported.
Sandusky was convicted in June on 45 counts of child sex abuse. He was sentenced to serve 30 to 60 years in prison earlier this month.
The defense also argued that the court was prejudiced against Sandusky when it denied the defense’s request for a more specific bill of particulars in March, according to the motion.
The defense further stated that the court also erred when it denied the various motions for continuance, arguing that it violated Sandusky’s due process rights, according to the motion.
The defense argued that because of the large amounts of potential witnesses, documents and other related case information, the case required further investigation to prepare for a proper defense, according to the motion.
Many of the documents the defense received required hours of copying, the defense wrote in the motion, and the fact that many of the copies were confidential made it harder than expected to get them copied.
If the various motions for continuance were granted, the defense would have been able to present psychiatric testimony regarding the “characteristics of alleged victims of pedophiles as well as characteristics of a pedophile as a result of litigation,” according to the motion.
The defense also argued that the court erred when it denied the defense’s motion, which objected to the prosecution commenting on how Sandusky did not testify at trial, according to the motion.
Also filed Thursday was a motion for the reconsideration for a modification of sentence, with the defense arguing the prison sentence was excessive.
The defense said Sandusky should have been ordered to serve all his sentences concurrently instead of some of being served consecutively, according to the motion.
