Judge's instructions to Sandusky jury - MUST READ

[druidp]

OK, we really need to discuss this and dissect it to pieces.

Taken from the ESPN article here: espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8080223/penn-state-nittany-lions-judge-john-cleland-throws-3-51-counts-jerry-sandusky

The judge said jurors will each get a list showing each accuser, a worksheet of each alleged crime that will have questions they must answer in order to reach a verdict, along with a verdict slip.

"We make few decisions in life that are free from all doubt," he told them. "You must be convinced to the same degree that you would act in a matter of your own life."

He explained that just the "mere suspicion of guilt" is not enough to arrive at a guilty verdict.

"You may believe he exercised poor judgment, but poor judgment in itself does not warrant criminality," he said. He also said that it is "not necessarily a crime to shower with a boy, lather with soap, engage in back rubbing."

[pixy0stix]

Jun 21, 2012 9:41:36 GMT -5 druidp said:

"You may believe he exercised poor judgment, but poor judgment in itself does not warrant criminality," he said. He also said that it is "not necessarily a crime to shower with a boy, lather with soap, engage in back rubbing."

Wait, whut?

[meshaliuknits]

Jun 21, 2012 9:41:36 GMT -5 druidp said:

He also said that it is "not necessarily a crime to shower with a boy, lather with soap, engage in back rubbing."

^o)

Right. Technically it's the prelude to the crime.

[One Girl In All The World]

Uhhh. I am no lawyer, but is that in any way an appropriate way to instruct jurors? Because it sure as hell doesn't sound like it to me. :/

[thejackpot]

This whole thing is so disgusting.

[IIOY]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a tough, tough standard.

[Deleted]

IMO, he understated proof BARD. It is a higher standard than you apply in ordinary life. I actually think that's reversible.

[Chirp]

The jurors also have instructions to consider the length of time from abuse to the day they came forward when determining "reliability" and "credibility" of the victims.

PA state law. Shit's fucked up in this state.


There's another law that errs on the side of the predator that I can spell out if anyone is interested. The house is trying to overturn it as we speak... no idea if that'll actually go through. Considering the governor, I kinda doubt it.

[bcv513]

Did he basically tell the jurors to acquit??

[meshaliuknits]

Jun 21, 2012 10:00:58 GMT -5 bcv513 said:

Did he basically tell the jurors to acquit??

I have to say, that's kind of what I heard.

[Melissa W.]

Jun 21, 2012 10:02:35 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

Jun 21, 2012 10:00:58 GMT -5 bcv513 said:

Did he basically tell the jurors to acquit??

I have to say, that's kind of what I heard.

That is what I got from that...

[Chirp]

Jun 21, 2012 10:04:47 GMT -5 Melissa W. said:

Jun 21, 2012 10:02:35 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

I have to say, that's kind of what I heard.

That is what I got from that...

I'm hoping the jury has a "don't tell me what to do" mentality. Because jury instructions do not favor the prosecution around here.

[downtoearth]

Jun 21, 2012 9:41:36 GMT -5 druidp said:

"You may believe he exercised poor judgment, but poor judgment in itself does not warrant criminality," he said. He also said that it is "not necessarily a crime to shower with a boy, lather with soap, engage in back rubbing."

Yeah, um, if that is done with sexual criminal intent, then, yes it is a crime. Is it not?

It's like if I ran over a kid on a bicycle...if I did it on purpose, that is a serious criminal offense, if it was an accident or the kid was in the wrong place, it falls to much lower charges, right?

[bqbride]

Much like the Trayvon Martin case, the number of people who are bending over backwards to excuse this man's actions just makes me sick. I will do the ugly cry for Sandusky's victims if that fucker is acquitted.

[eddy]

Yup I am now convinced there is some big cover up that goes deep into the govt, law etc in tjose parts. I am no fancy lawyer or anything but I am shocked at what he said.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2012 12:28:13 GMT -5 @bqbride said:

Much like the Trayvon Martin case, the number of people who are bending over backwards to excuse this man's actions just makes me sick. I will do the ugly cry for Sandusky's victims if that fucker is acquitted.

Ditto.
You know, its one thing if there was 1 or 2 accusers where you go, ok, maybe this didnt happen.
But you don't get 10 accusers from nowhere.

The judge should be ashamed of themselves. If showering with a kid is OK then I'm sure he'd let his own kids shower with Sandusky. Fucker.

[mexicali]

Jun 21, 2012 9:41:36 GMT -5 druidp said:

OK, we really need to discuss this and dissect it to pieces.

Taken from the ESPN article here: espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8080223/penn-state-nittany-lions-judge-john-cleland-throws-3-51-counts-jerry-sandusky

The judge said jurors will each get a list showing each accuser, a worksheet of each alleged crime that will have questions they must answer in order to reach a verdict, along with a verdict slip.

"We make few decisions in life that are free from all doubt," he told them. "You must be convinced to the same degree that you would act in a matter of your own life."

He explained that just the "mere suspicion of guilt" is not enough to arrive at a guilty verdict.

"You may believe he exercised poor judgment, but poor judgment in itself does not warrant criminality," he said. He also said that it is "not necessarily a crime to shower with a boy, lather with soap, engage in back rubbing."]

I just can't get away from this. They were naked, he wasn't rubbing them fully clothes or throwing bubbles on them while he was clothed. He was naked with them, rubbing up on them, and touching them. That is not okay in any form.

It's digusting thinking about what this means.

[EloiseWeenie]

Also, the kids were teenagers. . . they knew how to wash themselves. There is NO reason he should be there soaping them up.

[marie427]

He's going to be a free man. I'm disgusted.

[Deleted]

The language kind of sounds like the standard instructions, but I know nothing about PA law.

[IIOY]

Jun 21, 2012 12:53:31 GMT -5 @mjmksb04 said:

The language kind of sounds like the standard instructions, but I know nothing about PA law.

Whenever I hear jury instructions in a crim law trial, I always find myself thinking, OMG, the judge is telling the jury to find the defendant not guilty! This is unbelievable! No jury will convict with these instructions!

And obviously I'm wrong a lot of the time.

[msmerymac]

"We make few decisions in life that are free from all doubt," he told them. "You must be convinced to the same degree that you would act in a matter of your own life."

This actually makes me think he was enforcing reasonable doubt. You can convict someone if you are 99% sure of their guilt. 10% doubt would be more like reasonable doubt. Or a really compelling circumstantial argument where they really might not be guilty.

The rest, including "poor judgement" is pretty messed up, though.

Is the judge a Nittany Lions fan?

[crazytalk]

Did McQueary testify? Because he didn't see Sandusky merely showering with a boy, or lathering him up. He saw Sandusky anally raping a boy, in the shower. Is that not enough to erase reasonable doubt about where the line of appropriate or inappropriate behavior is?

[buckeyes]

McQueary did testify.

www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_mike_mcqu.html

[emilyj]

Jun 21, 2012 9:41:36 GMT -5 druidp said:

"You may believe he exercised poor judgment, but poor judgment in itself does not warrant criminality," he said. He also said that it is "not necessarily a crime to shower with a boy, lather with soap, engage in back rubbing."

[/blockquote][/quote]

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?

How...what...what....

Is this legal for a judge to say this? I'm not kidding. Is it???

[blindyswife]

This article has quoted more of what the judge said, and I'm disgusted.
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/21/12337129-jury-begins-deliberations-in-trial-of-jerry-sandusky?lite

In his final instructions, Cleland told jurors that they had great leeway in determining whether Sandusky's alleged behavior, while possibly troubling, may not have been criminal.
"It is certainly a crime for a man to have oral sex with a boy," he said, but "other forms of physical contact are more problematic."
For example, he said, "it's not necessarily a crime for a man to take a shower with a boy. It's not necessarily a crime for a man to wash a boy's hair or lather his back or shoulders or to engage in back rubbing."
The bottom line was Sandusky's intent, "not the child's reaction," he told the jurors, who heard eight of the 10 alleged victims testify that they were traumatized by Sandusky's alleged advances.
"Any behavior motivated by sexual behavior was a crime," but if Sandusky "did not act out of sexual desire, then he did not commit a crime, even if he did exercise bad judgment.".
In other words, "you must distinguish a display of innocent affection from lust," Cleland instructed.

So, showering naked with a teenager is innocent affection? Oh, okay, thanks for clearing that up.

[druidp]

Jun 21, 2012 13:46:26 GMT -5 blindyswife said:

This article has quoted more of what the judge said, and I'm disgusted.
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/21/12337129-jury-begins-deliberations-in-trial-of-jerry-sandusky?lite

In his final instructions, Cleland told jurors that they had great leeway in determining whether Sandusky's alleged behavior, while possibly troubling, may not have been criminal.
"It is certainly a crime for a man to have oral sex with a boy," he said, but "other forms of physical contact are more problematic."
For example, he said, "it's not necessarily a crime for a man to take a shower with a boy. It's not necessarily a crime for a man to wash a boy's hair or lather his back or shoulders or to engage in back rubbing."
The bottom line was Sandusky's intent, "not the child's reaction," he told the jurors, who heard eight of the 10 alleged victims testify that they were traumatized by Sandusky's alleged advances.
"Any behavior motivated by sexual behavior was a crime," but if Sandusky "did not act out of sexual desire, then he did not commit a crime, even if he did exercise bad judgment.".
In other words, "you must distinguish a display of innocent affection from lust," Cleland instructed.

So, showering naked with a teenager is innocent affection? Oh, okay, thanks for clearing that up.

So, by proxy, if a man rapes a man/woman without any sexual intent, is that in fact still a crime?

Is he fucking kidding me with this shit?

[summer]

If he goes free, he'll be somewhere in southeast Asia picking up orphan boys off the street within the year. Trust.

[emilyj]

Jun 21, 2012 13:46:26 GMT -5 blindyswife said:

The bottom line was Sandusky's intent, "not the child's reaction," he told the jurors, who heard eight of the 10 alleged victims testify that they were traumatized by Sandusky's alleged advances.

I'm sorry, did we wake up in 1950 this morning?

So if a man rubs his dick on me on the subway, but his 'intent' was just to scratch an itch, then that's ok because his intent isn't sexual and it shouldn't matter how I feel?

O-fucking-kay.

[crazytalk]

Jun 21, 2012 13:46:26 GMT -5 blindyswife said:

"Any behavior motivated by sexual behavior was a crime," but if Sandusky "did not act out of sexual desire, then he did not commit a crime, even if he did exercise bad judgment.".
In other words, "you must distinguish a display of innocent affection from lust," Cleland instructed.

So, showering naked with a teenager is innocent affection? Oh, okay, thanks for clearing that up.

So actual butt-raping of a child, that's ok then? I am so goddamn confused. McQueary testified that he SAW him with his own eyes banging a child in the ass. What more could there be?

oh. OH. I get it. That boy, the one that McQueary saw (and left there to be victimized, but that's another topic), he's not one of the counts in this trial, right? Because we don't even know who that boy is?

What the fuck.