America's Criminal Defense Group - Our Legal Blog

In most cases it is very bad to give an interview or to talk to the police or any other authority without your criminal attorney being present. The advice by most defense attorneys would be not to talk at all to anybody.

Now as to the Sandusky interview I do not have enough specific facts to know where his defense attorney is going with this, so I will not comment on it at this time. I would only say that I hope the criminal defense attroney has an overall defense plan that this interview will further, or it was a terrible idea.

Let me show you through some examples why talking is a bad idea:

Example 1. Person A, the victim, alleges that they confronted person B in the lunch room at work at 12:30 about a prior date rape by B. Person A says that B admitted the rape during their meeting. When B is confronted by the police, B “talks” and admits having met in the lunch room but denies admitting to the rape of A.

Example 2, Person A, the victim, alleges they confronted person B in the lunch room at 12:30 about a prior date rape by B. Person A alleges that B admitted to the rape. When inteviewed by the police, B declines to “talk” on the advice of his attorney.

During the subsequent investigation by B’s criminal attorney, it is discovered that person C was eating in the lunch room from 12:00 to 1:00 and stated that no meeting occured there between A and B.

In Example 1, the fact of C’s testimony would have some weight but the admission of the meeting by B would probably outweigh the mistake as to place. The prosecution would probably be able to overcome this oversight and convict B of the crime.

In Example 2, the outcome would most likely be different. Person C’s testimony is that the meeting did not take place as alledged. B has not admitted the conversation took place and cannot be compelled to testify because of his 5th amendment rights. In this scenario, the prosecutor has a far more difficult task. The prosecutor most prove first that the conversation did happen and then prove the substance of the conversation.

In Example 2, the main battle is between C and A, and C is an independent witness. Why would C lie or maybe A is mistaken as to place and time or maybe A is just lying. The majority of the pressure is on A and the prosecution. In Example 1, the fight is between A and B with the issue being who is lying, as the existence of the meeting has been admitted by B. The pressure here is on B and his criminal defense attorney. Balancing the testimony, who would be more apt to be lying, the victim or the perpetrator. I think you can see how this might end.

So in review, would you like your case to balance on which of the following clash of testimonies: Example 1- A (victim) versus B (perpetrator), or Example 2 – C (independent witness) versus A (victim). In both scenarios the fundamental facts are the same, the only diffence being that B “talked” in Example 1 and did not “talk” in Example 2.

In which case would you like to go to trial in determining if you would go to prison and be labeled a registered sex offender. I leave it to you to decide.

Anthony Partipilo is the Managing Director/Attorney for America’s Criminal Defense Group. Call 866-479-0130 to schedule a free legal consultation with Mr. Partipilo.

The case of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State shows all of us a lot about the nature and the fall out from a child molestation accusation. To begin with you have the trauma and grief to the victims and their families. You also have the battle between the defense attorneys and the prosecution attorneys concerning Mr. Sandusky’s guilt and possible punishment. However, here you have much more than the above items.

In this case, the atheletic director and a school vice president are also charged with crimes for failing to notify and or pursue the alleged offender. Also, the school president and the head football coach lost their jobs as a result of the scandal. Also, I am sure that the university will suffer unknown damage as a result of all of this.

I don’t know enough to comment on all of these issues, except on the case of Joe Paterno, and only then from what I have read in the press reports. With this being said here is what I think.

It seems from the press reports that Joe Pa, once notified by an assistant coach of an alledged sexual act on a minor by Mr. Sandusky, reported it to the atheletic director as well as the vice president who I believe was in charge of the campus police. I have read that Mr. Paterno lost his job because he did not do more. To me this seems like adjudicating responsibility after you determine the severity of the act in question. We are now informed that Mr. Sandusky did many bad acts according to his 40 count indictment. From such a summary it is easy to assess blame for not stopping something at some earlier time. However, I think the better way to look at the matter is as the facts were presented at the time. Based upon this kind of analysis was the person’s behavior appropriate.

The answer that “he could have done more” is always available at the conclusion of a problem, but far from satisfactory to explain what would be appropriate behavior at the earlier time.

I think by this kind of analysis, Mr. Paterno did satisfactorily do what he was suppose to do. First, he notified his direct superior the atheletic director. Second, he notified the vice president for the university in charge of the campus police. I am advised that in Pennsylvania these police have the same standing as other police agenies is the state. So you tell your boss and you tell the boss of the police and you lose your job. It hardly seems fair that such a long standing positive career should have been ended on these facts alone.

I ask all of you out there, to look at yourself and ponder this question. If you heard about such an act (Mr. Paterno did not witness it himself) and you told your boss who controlled the personnel and the place where the activity alledgedly occurred and then you told the chief of police (University VP who was in charge of the police), would you thereafter have pursued any further courses of action. The probable answer would be that you would have expected the proper authorities to take over the investigation from there.

It just seems to me that with the clear view of hindsite, we as a society are very harsh on people who make decisions without the benefit of the same. I think Joe Pa deserved a better ending.