Jerry Sandusky’s attorneys filed a statement Monday indicating the claims that will be raised in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on the former Penn State defensive coordinator’s appeal for a new trial, according to court documents.
The statement filed by defense attorney Norris Gelman in Centre County Court includes claims that were previously rejected by Judge John Cleland, the judge who presided over Sandusky’s trial.
Among the seven claims listed, Gelman will argue once again that the court violated due process by not giving the defense team enough time to prepare for trial given the vast amount of material turned over by the prosecution, according to the court document.
In January, another one of Sandusky’s attorneys, Joe Amendola, testified that even if given more time to prepare, he would not have done anything differently during Sandusky’s trial.
Another major claim that will be argued in the appeal regards a statement prosecutor Joe McGettigan made during the closing arguments of trial, which implied Sandusky’s silence during his trail was a clear sign of his guilt.
Gelman will also argue that the court erred when it refused defense requests to give the jury instructions during the trial and when it “required the jury to weigh the testimony of the defendant’s character witnesses against all of the other evidence in the case,” according to the court document.
Gelman said he has no further comment regarding the statement other than what is written in the court document.
Sandusky’s attorneys first argued for a new trial in January, but all of the post-sentence motions were denied by Cleland. The attorneys then filed a notice of appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in February.
Sandusky was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison in October after being convicted on 45 of 48 counts of child sexual abuse.