Jerry Sandusky Resentencing, Walk to patrol vehicle

Jerry Sandusky is escorted to a patrol vehicle after being resentenced at the Centre County Courthouse on Friday, Nov. 22, 2019.

On Saturday, Jerry Sandusky's attorney Edward Rymsza filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Sandusky to attempt to get a retrial, according to court documents.

Sandusky, former Penn State defensive coordinator, was found guilty for 45 counts of child sexual abuse brought against him in 2012.

According to court documents, Sandusky continues to plead not guilty.

After his initial sentencing of 30 to 60 years in 2012 from Judge John Cleland, he pleaded not guilty again in 2019 but received the same sentence by Judge Maureen Skerda, according to Daily Collegian archives.

The court documents filed on Saturday by Rymsza alleged Sandusky’s trial lawyers Joseph Amendola and Karl Rominger were "ineffective" throughout Sandusky's trial.

Additionally, the court documents claim Sandusky's trial counsel provided "ineffective assistance" when Sandusky was interviewed on national television, also violating his due process right to a fair trial.

Rymsza claimed the trial counsel used testimony from a psychologist that was "wholly unreasonable" because Sandusky allegedly didn't present signs of mental health defense.

According to court document, Sandusky's trial counsel was "ineffective" again after contradicting a statement regarding Sandusky's testimony.

The documents also alleged the prosecutor conducted an improper closing argument, the jury was unfair due to the publicity of the case and the denial of a trial continuance violated Sandusky’s due process rights.

According to the documents, Sandusky’s 6th Amendment right was allegedly violated when the courts proceeded to trial, and he had “ethically conflicted and ineffective counsel.”

The documents also allege the trial counsel was ineffective because they didn’t file an interlocutory appeal after his motion to withdraw was denied.

Sandusky was also allegedly denied his due process right when the trial counsel “argued outside or Mr. Sandusky’s presence” when they intended to withdraw and allegedly not notifying him, court documents said.

Additionally, the court documents said the prosecutor made "several inflammatory arguments designed to appeal to the jurors' emotions," and the prosecutor made "personal attacks" against Sandusky implying he was a "molester," "pedophile," "predatory pedophile," "a criminal," a "child molester" and "the perfect serial pedophile."

The documents allege Sandusky is “entitled to relief from his conviction and sentence because of the prejudicial effects of the cumulative errors in this case denied him of fair trial.”



If you're interested in submitting a Letter to the Editor, click here.