Jerry Sandusky's Alleged Victims Lose Court Bid to Stay Anonymous

[garbon]

http://gma.yahoo.com/jerry-sanduskys-alleged-victims-lose-court-bid-stay-133907570--abc-news-topstories.html

The identities of eight alleged victims of child abuse at the hands of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky will be made public during the trial that begins this month, a judge ruled today.

Four of the alleged victims had petitioned Judge John Cleland to keep their identities anonymous by allowing them to use pseudonyms. All of the victims have been previously been denoted only by number, such as "Victim 1" and "Victim 2," during the investigation and pre-trial hearings.

When the trial begins on June 11, the court will not take any official action to protect their identities as the alleged victims testify against Sandusky, 58, who is charged with 52 counts of child molestation.

"While I will make every effort to be sensitive to the nature of the alleged victims' testimony, once the trial begins the veil must be lifted," Cleland wrote in an order released today.

The victims are expected to testify about the incidents in which Sandusky allegedly molested them, including on Penn State's campus, in the football locker room showers, in the campus hotel Toftrees, in Arizona at the 1998 Outback Bowl Game, and 1999 Alamo Bowl game.

Four of the victims, all of whom are men who are now legal adults, have petitioned for the right to protect their identities due to the nature of the allegations. Sandusky and his attorneys did not object to their request, Clelan wrote, but the judge felt that the alleged victims had a duty to testify publicly.

"As citizens we have certain responsibilities to protect the safety and security of the community as a whole, no matter how personally unpleasant fulfilling that duty may be," the judge wrote.

If the four victims choose not to testify in light of Cleland's ruling, the prosecution will be left with four other victims as well as witnesses to prove the charges of molestation and child rape against Sandusky.

The prosecution's star witness, former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary, is set to testify about a 2001 incident in which McQueary saw Sandusky allegedly raping a young boy in the Penn State football locker room showers.

However, the prosecution originally said that the incident occurred in March 2002, but recently changed the date of the molestation to February 2001. McQueary's original statement to police in 2010 showed that he was not sure which year the incident occurred.

The prosecution has not been able to identify the child who McQueary claims he saw in the shower. Similarly, an alleged incident of molestation that occurred in the football building in 2000 was witnessed by a janitor named James Calhoun who now suffers from dementia and will not be able to testify. That child was also never identified.

The scandal resulted in the dismissal of the university's president as well as its iconic football coach Joe Paterno, who has since died.

The attorneys for the defense and the prosecution are banned from commenting on the case under a gag order issued by Cleland.

I don't know what that means.

[Barrister]

To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.

Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban.  So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.

[CountDeMoney]

To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.

Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban.  So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.

If they were still under age at the time of testimony, I'm sure Maryland v Craig would've kicked in, but I don't know what Pennsylvania's case law is on testifying as an adult re: 6th Amendment rights.

[Barrister]

To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.

Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban.  So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.

If they were still under age at the time of testimony, I'm sure Maryland v Craig would've kicked in, but I don't know what Pennsylvania's case law is on testifying as an adult re: 6th Amendment rights.

I'm shaking my head at my own post.

It has nothing to do with the age of the complainants.  Any victim of a sexual assault will almost certainly be made subject to a publication ban.  Re: the sixth amendment the accused is under no restrictions - it is the media who can not report anything that would identify the victim.

[Darth Wagtaros]

The judge is a football fan and wants the alleged victims to be dealt with by angry fans.

[CountDeMoney]

To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.

Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban.  So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.

If they were still under age at the time of testimony, I'm sure Maryland v Craig would've kicked in, but I don't know what Pennsylvania's case law is on testifying as an adult re: 6th Amendment rights.

I'm shaking my head at my own post.

It has nothing to do with the age of the complainants.  Any victim of a sexual assault will almost certainly be made subject to a publication ban.  Re: the sixth amendment the accused is under no restrictions - it is the media who can not report anything that would identify the victim.

Well, in all honesty, you are from a foreign country.

[Barrister]

To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.

Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban.  So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.

If they were still under age at the time of testimony, I'm sure Maryland v Craig would've kicked in, but I don't know what Pennsylvania's case law is on testifying as an adult re: 6th Amendment rights.

I'm shaking my head at my own post.

It has nothing to do with the age of the complainants.  Any victim of a sexual assault will almost certainly be made subject to a publication ban.  Re: the sixth amendment the accused is under no restrictions - it is the media who can not report anything that would identify the victim.

Well, in all honesty, you are from a foreign country.

No shit.

[CountDeMoney]

Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.

[Barrister]

Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.

I am.  Thank you.   

[Valmy]

Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.

She still has a long way to go to catch Pepy II

[Ed Anger]

Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.

The flotilla down the Thames: hilarious

[CountDeMoney]

Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.

The flotilla down the Thames: hilarious

Compared to Vicky's Jubiliee, yeah.  Now that would've been a sight to see.

Would've loved to have seen the Nimitz in there this weekend, though.  Take the fucking Bridge down with the superstructure, lulz oops, sorry, guvnuh

[Ed Anger]

Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.

The flotilla down the Thames: hilarious

Compared to Vicky's Jubiliee, yeah.  Now that would've been a sight to see.

Would've loved to have seen the Nimitz in there this weekend, though.  Take the fucking Bridge down with the superstructure, lulz oops, sorry, guvnuh

we're in ur base shooting ur d00dz.

[dps]

http://gma.yahoo.com/jerry-sanduskys-alleged-victims-lose-court-bid-stay-133907570--abc-news-topstories.html

The identities of eight alleged victims of child abuse at the hands of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky will be made public during the trial that begins this month, a judge ruled today.

Four of the alleged victims had petitioned Judge John Cleland to keep their identities anonymous by allowing them to use pseudonyms. All of the victims have been previously been denoted only by number, such as "Victim 1" and "Victim 2," during the investigation and pre-trial hearings.

When the trial begins on June 11, the court will not take any official action to protect their identities as the alleged victims testify against Sandusky, 58, who is charged with 52 counts of child molestation.

"While I will make every effort to be sensitive to the nature of the alleged victims' testimony, once the trial begins the veil must be lifted," Cleland wrote in an order released today.

The victims are expected to testify about the incidents in which Sandusky allegedly molested them, including on Penn State's campus, in the football locker room showers, in the campus hotel Toftrees, in Arizona at the 1998 Outback Bowl Game, and 1999 Alamo Bowl game.

Four of the victims, all of whom are men who are now legal adults, have petitioned for the right to protect their identities due to the nature of the allegations. Sandusky and his attorneys did not object to their request, Clelan wrote, but the judge felt that the alleged victims had a duty to testify publicly.

"As citizens we have certain responsibilities to protect the safety and security of the community as a whole, no matter how personally unpleasant fulfilling that duty may be," the judge wrote.

If the four victims choose not to testify in light of Cleland's ruling, the prosecution will be left with four other victims as well as witnesses to prove the charges of molestation and child rape against Sandusky.

The prosecution's star witness, former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary, is set to testify about a 2001 incident in which McQueary saw Sandusky allegedly raping a young boy in the Penn State football locker room showers.

However, the prosecution originally said that the incident occurred in March 2002, but recently changed the date of the molestation to February 2001. McQueary's original statement to police in 2010 showed that he was not sure which year the incident occurred.

The prosecution has not been able to identify the child who McQueary claims he saw in the shower. Similarly, an alleged incident of molestation that occurred in the football building in 2000 was witnessed by a janitor named James Calhoun who now suffers from dementia and will not be able to testify. That child was also never identified.

The scandal resulted in the dismissal of the university's president as well as its iconic football coach Joe Paterno, who has since died.

The attorneys for the defense and the prosecution are banned from commenting on the case under a gag order issued by Cleland.

I don't know what that means.

I certainly don't see the logic.  The defendant has a right to "confront" the witnesses against him, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here.  If Sandusky and his attorney don't object to the identity of the accusers being kept secret, I don't see where they have a "duty" to have their identities revealed.

[garbon]

Yeah that's the part that I don't get.