Skip to content

Defense rests in Sandusky trial; closing arguments set for Thursday

Former Penn State assistant football coach Sandusky arrives at the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte Reuters

Three days was all it took for the defense to present its case in the Jerry Sandusky trial, one day less than the shorter-than-anticipated presentation by the prosecution. In all, the Sandusky trial should conclude about a week ahead of the original schedule. 

Relatively speaking, the defense made considerable strides in the past two days after getting thoroughly punished by the prosecution in Week 1. Though Sandusky’s lawyer Joe Amendola has had essentially no retort to the allegations by alleged victims, attempts to poke holes in the credibility of witnesses and testimonies finally gained traction yesterday and today.

As a result, Sandusky himself did not testify, despite the hint from Amendola last week that perhaps he would. Frankly, it was the only decision, as a testimony by Sandusky surely would have nullified everything the defense had done over the past 36 hours.

Amendola wasn’t desperate enough to risk sending his client to the stand. The defense closed strongly today — or, about as strongly as they possibly could outside of, say, an alibi — with a testimony from Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a family friend and colleague of John McQueary, Mike McQueary‘s father.

The testimony from Dranov corroborates a Patriot-News report last December that states Dranov was present at the conversation between McQueary and his father after the then-graduate assistant allegedly saw Sandusky and a young boy (alleged Victim 2) in the showers of an on-campus facility in 2001.

McQueary is a central figure in the Sandusky scandal, yet his account of the alleged incident has changed since his testimony for the grand jury indictment, so it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the defense called Dranov to the stand on the final day. Additionally, the defense presented a letter that shows McQueary went to a charity event hosted by Sandusky after 2001.

The cornerstone of that original grand jury indictment against Sandusky was the allegation involving alleged Victim 2, yet he did not testify during Sandusky’s trial and McQueary’s credibility is sketchy.  It’s as close as the defense has come to completely refuting an alleged incident of abuse.

The amount of overall evidence against Sandusky, who faces 51 counts related to child-sex abuse, is tough to overlook, but all the defense needed to do was place some amount of doubt in the minds of the jurors.

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
Permalink 7 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
7 Responses to “Defense rests in Sandusky trial; closing arguments set for Thursday”
  1. dkhhuey says: Jun 20, 2012 1:21 PM

    Well this is going to be a very interesting next few days. I gotta believe this man gets what he deserves but there is no guarantee that a hung jury scenario won’t play out.

  2. pictureamerica says: Jun 20, 2012 1:28 PM

    Hello. As I see it, evil exists. So many people believe evil does not exist. Bad people exist. Not only is their coduct bad, they are bad people. Some say those whose account of events here are bad people. Some say those here who hire attys. with respect to civil matters are bad people. Some say uppity young boys here who are not courteous to adults are bad people. Here is what I say if not censored by this news entity: I say assistant football coaches at Penn State University who stick their private parts into the mouths of children, and who put the private parts of children into their mouths, and who force their private parts inside the bodies of children are bad people. Are there witness rules in Court? Can a witness tell the whole truth and describe conduct in words about what was done to him? Can a prosecutor under court rules ask a suspect: “did you ever put your private parts into the mouth or inside the body of victim (the young boy’s name). Now, keep in mind Mr. Suspect you are under oath.” This sort of language is like a rainbow when compared to the hurricane of evil conduct over decades by this assistant football coach. JOHN LONGENECKER

  3. trojan33sc says: Jun 20, 2012 1:29 PM

    Just flush this SOB down the drain and good riddance !!!! That way we don’t have to read more PFT postings on this piece of sh*_# !!!

  4. onceuponatimeinsports says: Jun 20, 2012 2:13 PM

    Hopefully the prosecution will play the entire NBC audio tape of his interview with Costas in rebuttal.

    That ought to about do it…

  5. cw3214 says: Jun 20, 2012 7:18 PM

    He was accused of this at Penn State, his home, and a high school. If this man gets off because of McQuery it’s a crying shame

  6. ironhawk says: Jun 20, 2012 8:51 PM

    The evidence is irrelevant. The jury is stacked with Penn State fans. They will find him innocent to make the scandal go away.

  7. hushbrother says: Jun 21, 2012 12:00 PM

    It would take a hell of a lot more than that to convince me he’s not guilty.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!