The lawyer of former Penn State football defensive coordinator and convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky argued Wednesday there was collusion between the grand jury and the attorney general’s office during Sandusky’s 2011 trial.
During a livestreamed appeal hearing, defense attorney Al Lindsay delivered a 15-minute argument to Pennsylvania Superior Court Judges Megan McCarthy King, Mary Jane Bowes and Judith Ference Olson.
Lindsay said Sandusky was not given a fair trial due to the alleged collusion, as he said was seen by newly-presented evidence, a diary.
Sandusky is currently serving a 30-to-60 year sentence that was held in November 2019 by Judge Maureen Skerda.
Sandusky was first charged in 2012 on 45 counts of child sexual abuse after it was found he sexually assaulted boys through his now-defunct charity, The Second Mile.
Lindsay discussed the diary, which he obtained on Nov. 4 from “a source,” that he claimed holds evidence of the alleged collusion and “pinpointed several leaks.”
He said he received the “raw diary” and nothing else, and its entries showed there was a direct impact on Sandusky’s trial as a result of the alleged collusion.
Bowes said the date Lindsay said he received the diary was before Sandusky was resentenced. She said she was “struggling to understand” why Lindsay didn’t correct the issue months earlier, before Wednesday’s hearing.
In response, Lindsay said because “the commonwealth would have said, ‘So what?’”
Olson questioned if the verdict of a new trial would be different from the original verdict based on the alleged new evidence.
“One of the disturbing aspects of the diary... is how this trial was rushed,” Lindsay said.
Lindsay said the communications between “the Freeh people” and the attorney general’s office showed they talked about the timing of the trial, which he said was collusion.
The Freeh group investigated Penn State’s handling of the case and released its findings in a 2012 report. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh led the group.
Attorney Jennifer Buck, who represents the commonwealth, said Lindsay wrongly argued Sandusky is entitled to a new trial.
She said there were no actual facts that warrant a new hearing for Sandusky.
“The hearing is not meant to be a fishing expedition,” Buck said.
Bowes said the diary and emails mentioned might be explored at greater length.
Buck argued that the source of the new information is “irrelevant to Mr. Sandusky.”
Buck said there is no evidence of “improper collusion” or collaboration that worked toward the “detriment of Mr. Sandusky.”
Regarding Lindsay’s point about the “rush to trial,” Buck said that issue has been previously addressed.
The alleged communication between these groups, Buck said, does not prove there was improper leaking of information or behind-the-scenes meetings.
“It’s purely speculation,” Buck said.
Buck also said the Freeh investigative team did not exist until after Sandusky was convicted, so no collusion was possible.
The Freeh group was created in 2011, and Sandusky was convicted in 2012.
Former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky has another appeal hearing o…