''Sandusky'' Cover-up Charges: Schultz Wants a Separate Trial from Curley

Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities. Sign up now!

updated Sep 04, 2014

By Author - LawCrossing

09/18/12

Schultz Wants a Separate Trial from Curley
On Monday, one of the two Pennsylvania State University administrators charged with failing to report suspected child abuse and for perjury in the Sandusky scandal, filed a motion to have separate trials for the pair. The rationale for wanting a separate trial is interesting and may be of use to some.

To begin with, the motion filed in Dauphin County Court by former Pennsylvania State University Gary Schultz claims that Schultz would be deprived of a fair trial if he faces a jury while paired with suspended athletic director Tim Curley. The reason is that the motion claims, if Schultz decides not to testify, the grand jury testimony by Curley should not be used against Schultz, just because they are codefendants.

The motion has been made in light of the fact that in the Sandusky trial, both Curley and Schultz had “several times implicated” each other in their grand jury testimony. And, according to the motion made on behalf of Schultz, “should, Mr. Curley choose not to testify, as is his constitutional right, Mr. Schultz would be deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to confront Mr. Curley, a witness squarely against him in this instance.”

Both Schultz and Curley are accused of failing to report to proper authorities a 2001 incident in which graduate assistant Mike McQueary told them that he had witnessed Sandusky molesting a boy in a football locker room shower, and the duo are also accused of lying about the matter to a grand jury. While Curley told the grand jury that McQueary had reported inappropriate body contact between Sandusky and his child victim, McQueary had failed to describe the ‘inappropriate' body contact as being sexual. However, Schultz held that there was justification to regard the reported body contact as sexual.
United States

E-mails discovered in the matter showed that both Curley ad Schultz, along with former university president Graham B. Spanier had considered McQueary's allegations as serious enough to consider reporting the matter to external authorities. However, they didn't and decided to handle the matter internally.

The motion filed by Schultz claims Curley is in fact a witness in the case against Schultz, and having both tried as codefendants in the same trial can raise legal complications and deprive Schultz of his right to a fair trial. The motion claims that Schultz's “right to confront a witness against him under the Sixth Amendment is violated by introducing a nontestifying codefendant's confession which implicates the defendant as a participant in the crime.”

Jerry Sandusky, the man whose actions Curley and Schultz are accused of helping to cover up, has been convicted in June on 45 counts of child sex abuse. Scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 9, Sandusky faces a maximum 442 years in prison.
Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out. Sign up now!

( 2 votes, average: 3.2 out of 5)

What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.

Related