Sandusky is in the second day of a three-day evidentiary hearing for his Post-conviction Collatoral Relief Act petition in front of McKean County Senior Judge John Cleland, specially presiding over the appeal as he did over the retired Penn State defensive coordinator’s 2012 trial.
Advertisement
Lawyers for a man who settled an abuse claim with Penn State have said he’s Victim 2, who former assistant coach Mike McQueary testified he saw being abused by Sandusky in a team shower in 2001.
Testimony from Fina and his fellow Sandusky trial prosecutors Jonelle Eshbach and Joseph McGettigan came on the third day of hearings in Sandusky’s bid to overturn his child-sexual abuse conviction.
The Attorney General’s Office contends those claims are a last-chance ploy from a 72-year-old man otherwise likely to die in prison, and challenged Mr. Lindsay’s assertion Monday that prosecutors were afraid to call Victim 2 at trial.
In closing arguments at the trial, lead prosecutor Joe McGettigan stated that some of Sandusky’s victims were “known only to God”.
The hearing was to continue on Tuesday with testimony from the three Sandusky prosecutors, including Frank Fina.
His lawyer, Al Lindsay, has argued that the former Penn State assistant football coach deserves a new trial because a series of 2011 articles that appeared in the Patriot-News newspaper detailed key aspects of investigation before Sandusky was charged – and are evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
Victim 2 has never testified, and according to Lindsay, can not now be found. Lindsay argues prosecutors avoided his claims because of his inconsistent stories.
He is now serving a 30- to 60-year sentence after he was convicted of sexually abusing 10 boys.
“He drew the completely wrong locker room, which led me to believe he was never in that locker room”, Sassano said.
Lindsay asked other witnesses, including Corporal Scott Rossman of the Pennsylvania State Police and Anthony Sassano, an agent for the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office, if they knew how Ganim obtained the information.
Original investigators were also questioned on Monday about whether secret grand jury information could have been leaked to a reporter. Those investigators said they didn’t know one way or the other. “We all arrived at the same conclusion”. Shubin said he was insistent that he be present for all his clients interviews with prosecutors because abuse victims have difficulty establishing trust.
Advertisement
Today’s testimony focused on two major issues from the prosecution’s standpoint, the credibility of victim number two and whether or not there was a grand jury leak. He said the state Supreme Court has ruled that if there is a justifiable claim of a grand jury leak, a special prosecutor must be appointed.
