According to the November 15th kansascity.com article, “Legal experts stunned by Sandusky's interview with Bob Costas”, by Dennis J. Cogan, a prominent defense lawyer who represented former State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo on corruption and fraud charges in a lengthy battle, was quoted as saying: “This is the new reality of criminal cases. There are certain people who have always done this – go on a public relations blitz. Who's to say that's wrong?”
However, Edward D. Ohlbaum, professor at Temple University Law School and former public defender was quoted as saying: “I understand the desire to do damage control; people are already comparing this guy to a monster. But to expose him to that level of questioning when you have absolutely no control over it? Stunning. Absolutely stunning.”
First and foremost, regardless of what Sandusky hoped to gain by speaking out, the taped phone interview is admissible in court, and undoubtedly, at some point, will end up there.
Per Ohlbaum: “What a jury or fact-finder will see is the video – not only what he said, but how he said it. They will not only hear what he said, but what he did not say. You can't edit out the voice, the tone, and the pauses, which on some levels could have been devastating.” He also was quoted as saying: “You and I and 35 kazillion other people sat there in jaw-dropping, stunning (silence) and said, ‘What is he doing?'”
Perhaps most damning, or not, depending on who you talk to, is Sandusky's denial of the charge that he sodomized a 10-year-old boy in a shower. Instead, Sandusky says he was ‘horsing around', and also that he had hugged them and showered with them. And – here it comes – per the article, “When asked whether he was sexually attracted to young boys, Sandusky repeated the question, paused, and then said he was not.”
Yikes.
In this case, Sandusky's actions appear to be just as foolish as someone representing himself; damage control could have been done by his defense lawyer or a friend, or, frankly, anyone else.
Jeffrey M. Lindy, an attorney who's acted as both a prosecutor and a defender in child sex abuse cases, was quoted as saying: “What he did was idiotic, and if he did it on the advice of counsel, it is per se ineffective assistance of counsel. It makes no sense at all. You don't try this case in the court of public opinion. You try this case in a courtroom.”
It would be most interesting to know what type of counsel Sandusky's attorneys offered him on this subject, and if Sandusky simply chose to ignore it. In any case, it appears the actions of Sandusky have only served to discredit him further, if that was actually possible. The interview, coupled with the media blitz, poses the question; will it be possible to find an impartial jury?
At the end of the day, Sandusky's interview belongs in perhaps the same category of bizarre as the disjointed rants of Charlie Sheen earlier this year.
