Sandusky: The Enablers

[Big RR]

Jim--exactly what charges do you think could have been proffered against Paterno? It seems he failed to act to prevent further abuse, but I fail to see how this was criminal. Indeed, he did what was required under his employer's policy, reported it to the appropriate authorities and they did nothing. Now this was hardly exemplary, and some kids were probably abused that may not have been had he taken it further, but I can't see he was under any obligation to do so (or that his failure to do so makes him a criminal). He's a jerk and a coward, but so are many, many others.

If I know someone is abusing his son or daughter and do nothing I (absent being a physician or psychologist) have done nothing criminal; my failure to act is horrible, but it's not criminal. I'm not defending Joe, but it would be a pretty sad word if we could be criminally prosecuted because we failed to protect someone we had no legal duty to protect.

[BoSoxGal]

I'm not familiar with the PA statute on failure to report, but ours in Montana has a broader scope than just physicians and psychologists, Big RR.

[Lord Jim]

Big RR, Curley and Schultz are currently awaiting trial for charges that they failed to report allegations against Sandusky to authorities and later lied about it to a grand jury. Spanier hasn't been charged yet, but there is an on going grand jury investigation, and more charges may very well be forth coming; including more perjury charges and obstruction of justice.

Anything these guys are now or later charged with would apply just as much if not more so to Paterno, who it turns out was the leading force in the cover-up:

Spanier, Curley and Schultz were prepared to alert the state Department of Public Welfare to the 2001 allegation, but Curley backed off the plan after speaking with Paterno, according to emails Freeh said his investigators uncovered in March.

Freeh called the emails "the most critical evidence" in the case.

Curley emailed Spanier and Schultz on Feb. 27, 2001, two weeks after McQueary went to Paterno, and told them he had changed his mind about an agreed-upon plan to alert the authorities.

"After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday," Curley said, he instead wanted to tell Sandusky "we feel there is a problem" and would offer him "professional help." (Including possibly conspiracy and obstruction of justice; Freeh said yesterday those c

If Sandusky was cooperative, Curley said, according to the report, "we would work with him" to inform Sandusky's charity for troubled youth, the Second Mile. If Sandusky did not cooperate, Curley said, "We don't have a choice and will inform" the state Department of Public Welfare and the Second Mile.

According to the report, Spanier replied, "This approach is acceptable to me," and acknowledged the university's potential liability if the abuse did not stop: "The only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."

An email dated May 13, 1998, with the subject line "Jerry," confirmed Paterno's awareness of the earlier on-campus incident, the report said. In it, the report said, Curley asked Schultz about the police investigation: "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

http://citizensvoice.com/news/freeh-s-s ... -1.1342879

[Big RR]

Jim--my understanding of Curley and Schultz is that their stonewalling amounted to aiding Sandusky in the commission of the crimes; however, even though they have been charged (although I don't think they have yet to be indicted) the prosecutor would have to show not only that they didn't report the abuse, but that they did so in the understanding that this would lead to further crimes (or that they wanted further abuse to occur). This has yet to be seen; and these were the individuals at PSU who should have reported it. Paterno reported it to them, as per the university policy, and I doubt this same reasoning would apply.

[Big RR]

I'm not familiar with the PA statute on failure to report, but ours in Montana has a broader scope than just physicians and psychologists, Big RR.

BSG--how much broader? Absent some sort of relationship with the victim which would lead to a duty to protect, how many others have an obligation to report and face criminal liability if they fail to?

[BoSoxGal]

From RAINN:

Who must report? Any of the following persons when acting as a result of information they receive in their professional or official capacity:
• A physician, resident, intern, or member of a hospital’s staff
engaged in the admission, examination, care, or treatment of
persons;
• A nurse, osteopath, chiropractor, podiatrist, medical
examiner, coroner, dentist, optometrist, or any other health or
mental health professional;
• Religious healers;
• School teachers, other school officials, and employees who
work during regular school hours;
• A social worker, operator or employee of any registered or
licensed day-care or substitute care facility, staff of a resource and referral grant program organized under Montana state law or of a child and adult food care program, or an operator or employee of a child-care facility;
• A foster care, residential, or institutional worker;
• A peace officer or other law enforcement official;
• A member of the clergy;
• A guardian ad litem or a court-appointed advocate who is
authorized to investigate a report of alleged abuse or neglect;
and
• An employee of an entity that contracts with the department
of public health and human services to provide direct services to children.

These are all mandated reporters in Montana, and subject to prosecution under our fail to report misdemeanor statute. Or, depending on facts, they could be subject to felony criminal endangerment charges - though admittedly, that route is one not oft taken here.

[Gob]

Big RR, Curley and Schultz are currently awaiting trial for charges that they failed to report allegations against Sandusky

How did BigRR get involved in it?

[Lord Jim]

Big RR, Curley and Schultz are currently awaiting trial for charges that they failed to report allegations against Sandusky

How did BigRR get involved in it?

You'll have to ask him why he's hanging around with:



and

[Gob]

ROTFLMCO!!!

[Lord Jim]

Legal experts say Paterno could have faced charges

By MARK SCOLFORO and MARYCLAIRE DALE (Associated Press) | The Associated Press – 2 hours 17 minutes ago

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- If he were alive today, Joe Paterno - the coach who stood for so long for character and integrity both on and off the football field - could be looking at charges such as child endangerment, perjury and conspiracy.

Legal experts said emails and other evidence in the Penn State investigative report released Thursday suggest that Paterno may have misled a grand jury when asked when he first heard about Jerry Sandusky's misconduct, and show that Paterno and other university officials put boys in danger with their failure to report sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky more than a decade ago.

Duquesne University law professor Wes Oliver said the report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh reads like a prosecution case for a child endangerment charge against Paterno, then-President Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and now-retired vice president Gary Schultz. Oliver noted that a former top official in the Philadelphia Archdiocese was convicted of that charge in June for allowing a suspected pedophile priest to be around children.

''If you look at what happened here, it's very clear that they were aware that they had a pedophile on their campus,'' Oliver said.

Will Spade, a former Philadelphia prosecutor who worked on a grand jury investigation of priests about a decade ago, agreed: ''Spanier, Paterno, Schultz and Curley are arguably responsible for endangering all of those kids that were abused later.''

So far, the only two figures arrested in the alleged cover-up are Curley and Schultz. They were charged last fall with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse and are awaiting trial. They have denied any wrongdoing.

Spanier, who was ousted as Penn State president over the scandal, has not been charged, but a grand jury continues to investigate. Paterno died in January of lung cancer at 85.

Paterno family spokesman Dan McGinn declined to comment on the criminal legal issues on Friday.

At the very least, the Freeh report provides powerful ammunition to Sandusky victims looking to sue the university or Paterno's estate.

The report said that Paterno and the other university officials hushed up child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky in 2001 for fear of bad publicity. Asked on Thursday whether the actions of the four men amounted to a crime such as conspiracy or obstruction, Freeh said that would be for a grand jury to decide. But the former FBI chief and federal judge said the evidence shows ''an active agreement to conceal.''

Freeh described Paterno as ''an integral part'' of that agreement. According to his report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up a plan that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare in 2001. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind ''after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe.''

The report also called into question the truthfulness of Paterno's grand jury testimony last year, when he was asked whether he knew of any abuse allegations against Sandusky before the 2001 episode in which Sandusky was spotted assaulting a boy in the locker room showers.

''I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no,'' Paterno testified in a grand jury appearance that lasted only a few minutes. He added that a rumor ''may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor.''

But emails published in the Freeh report suggest Paterno closely followed a 1998 police investigation of Sandusky that ended without charges. In an email captioned ''Jerry,'' Curley asked Schultz: ''Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.''

Paterno, ''were he alive, he would probably be scrutinized right now, as we speak, by a grand jury,'' said Jeff Anderson, a lawyer who represents a young man suing Sandusky, Penn State and Sandusky's charity over claims of sexual abuse. ''When he did give testimony, now revealed to have been dubious at best and false on its face, that is illegal perjury because it was given under oath. So he is exposed.''

Perjury, though, is rarely charged and is famously difficult to prove at trial. A jury has to find corroborating evidence of the falsehood, and the lie has to be intentional, not a simple misstatement. In Paterno's case, prosecutors would have had to prove that Paterno had not simply forgotten about the 1998 investigation, according to University of Pennsylvania law professor Chris Sanchirico.

When the scandal broke wide open last November, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly said Paterno was not an investigative target. On Friday, Kelly spokesman Nils Frederiksen refused to discuss the investigation, citing the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.

Spanier's lawyers had no comment Friday but have denied he knowingly covered up Sandusky's crimes.

On the civil side, Paterno's role in the scandal could expose his estate to liability, said Altoona lawyer Richard Serbin, who has pursued lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Church and other institutions in Pennsylvania for the past 25 years. Paterno was considerably wealthy; he and his wife donated millions to the university, and in April the school paid millions in retirement benefits to his family and estate.

''When a responsible party passes away, that does not mean to say their wrongful conduct is excused by death,'' said Serbin, who does not represent any of Sandusky's victims. ''Their estate becomes the representative of that person, and assets of their estate ... remain exposed to any verdict or judgment.''

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/legal-expe ... ncaaf.html

[Lord Jim]

SUBCHAPTER B
PROVISIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
REPORTING SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE

Sec.
6311. Persons required to report suspected child abuse.
Chapter Heading. The heading of Subchapter B was amended
December 16, 1994, P.L.1292, No.151, effective July 1, 1995.
§ 6311. Persons required to report suspected child abuse.
(a) General rule.--A person who, in the course of
employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into
contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made
in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting
procedure) when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on
the basis of medical, professional or other training and
experience, that a child under the care, supervision, guidance
or training of that person or of an agency, institution,
organization or other entity with which that person is
affiliated is a victim of child abuse, including child abuse by
an individual who is not a perpetrator. Except with respect to
confidential communications made to a member of the clergy which
are protected under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5943 (relating to confidential
communications to clergymen), and except with respect to
confidential communications made to an attorney which are
protected by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5916 (relating to confidential
communications to attorney) or 5928 (relating to confidential
communications to attorney), the privileged communication
between any professional person required to report and the
patient or client of that person shall not apply to situations
involving child abuse and shall not constitute grounds for
failure to report as required by this chapter.
(b) Enumeration of persons required to report.--Persons
required to report under subsection (a) include, but are not
limited to, any licensed physician, osteopath, medical examiner,
coroner, funeral director, dentist, optometrist, chiropractor,
podiatrist, intern, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse,
hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care
or treatment of persons, Christian Science practitioner, member
of the clergy, school administrator, school teacher, school
nurse, social services worker, day-care center worker or any
other child-care or foster-care worker, mental health
professional, peace officer or law enforcement official.
(c) Staff members of institutions, etc.--Whenever a person
is required to report under subsection (b) in the capacity as a
member of the staff of a medical or other public or private
institution, school, facility or agency, that person shall
immediately notify the person in charge of the institution,
school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person
in charge. Upon notification, the person in charge or the
designated agent, if any, shall assume the responsibility and
have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made
in accordance with section 6313. This chapter does not require
more than one report from any such institution, school, facility
or agency.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/dome ... 1.000.html

My guess would be that since Penn State is a public educational institution, and the attacks in question took place on the property of that institution, and the people in question were all public employees of that institution, the reporting requirements relating to school officials could be used to apply in these cases.

I'm sure their lawyers will argue that the statute was intended to apply to public primary and secondary schools, and to the officials at those institutions who had responsibility for children attending those schools, and not to officials at public colleges regarding children not attending the college. Since they're awaiting trial, so far those arguments obviously haven't prevailed. (Though if they're convicted, I'm sure that will be an appellate issue)

And of course the perjury charges would be prosecutable in any event.

[Big RR]

Jim--while I agree that Paterno's estate may have to pay a judgment for his civil liability (and I think the same for Schultz, Curly, and PSU), I just can't see any criminal liability. Clearly these persons had no statutory duty to report the abuse as they were not responsible for the children in question, even under a broad statute of responsibility such as the one described in BSG's post, and I think any claim that they concealed evidence of the crime and became a participant in it would require proof that they were complicit in the desire of seeing the molestations continue. I have not read anything that even remotely suggests this; it appears that these people were merely jerks who cared more about the reputation of PSU and its athletic department than the kids. Now it may be that some PSU officials (those concerned with public safety and/or part of the PSU police force) may have had a statutory duty to report the alleged crime, but I can't see that Paterno did. Sure, an overzealous, publicity-hungry prosecutor could have bullied a grand jury into indicting him to get into the news (that's happened on many other occasions), but I think it's pretty dangerous to say the failure to report suspicion of a crime (except where one has a specific duty to report it by virtue of being part of a narrow class of people) gives rise to personal criminal liability, and i would not want to give the state that power. Sure, some governments have made failure to inform on one's neighbors' activities a crime, but I wouldn't want to live in such a state.

jim--re the statue you posted, do you really think your interpretation should prevail? I don't. The law places the responsibility on these public employees precisely because they are responsible for the care of the children at their institution, it was not enacted to place liability in cases like this. As for their "awaiting trials", it may well be that those arguments were not presented yet. I'll wait and see.

[Lord Jim]

Clearly these persons had no statutory duty to report the abuse

Well Big RR, you're entitled to your view, (and from the research I've been doing you're certainly not alone) but given the fact that a District Attorney brought the charges, a grand jury handed down indictments, (and may hand down more) and no judge or appellate court has to date struck down the charges, clearly there is more than one view on this.

To be perfectly honest, in looking at the reporting requirements, if this was the rationale, (and maybe it wasn't, though looking at the statute, I have a hard time imagining what other basis there would be....I have looked and looked for the exact wording of the indictment against these guys and can't find it) I'll admit that from a purely objective standpoint, it does look like a bit of a stretch to me.....it's hard to imagine that this kind of situation is what the folks who drafted this portion of the law had in mind when they wrote it, given the language employed.

However, also being perfectly honest, given the facts of this case, if these guys do wind up getting convicted and doing time on this basis, there are a lot of things that would bother me more...

[Big RR]

Jim--there are many things that would bother me more as well, but that doesn't make this any better IMHO.

[RayThom]

Paterno's "legacy" is even further in the Patoilet. There is apparently no conciliatory, discreet, nor face saving, way out for Joe, his family, or the yet to be indicted fellow co-conspirators. What a mess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sport ... wanted=all

[Lord Jim]

There is apparently no conciliatory, discreet, nor face saving, way out for Joe, his family,

No Ray, there isn't. The central role Paterno played in in covering up and enabling Sandusky's paedophile attacks for more than a decade makes anything like that impossible. (Frankly I think his family really hurt themselves by immediately releasing a statement when the report came out that just re-iterated the lies Paterno had told about the limited nature of his role. They would have been much better off if they had read the report first, and then said something that wasn't completely cotradicted by the evidence.)

It is a horrible shame and extraordinary irony. Paterno engaged in this cover-up for the purpose of trying to protect his reputation and the others engaged in to try and protect Penn State from the damages of a scandal. Instead, his reputation is now completely and forever destroyed, and the damage done to Penn State will take many years to repair. (Among other things, they're going to take a huge double financial body blow both in terms of alumni fundraising and huge civil damage settlements. Many folks, including students, who had absolutely nothing to do with this are going to suffer from it, but that's just the way it is.)

What Penn State needs to do now is certainly not try to find some way to "rehabilitate" Paterno. That is quite impossible, and even attempting it would only damage the institution further. No what, they need to do now is engage in a rigorous and thorough program of "De-Paternoization". They need to completely denounce him and put as much distance between him and the university he was almost synonymous with for four decades as they can, as quickly as they can. (I thought The Board Of Trustees made a decent start at their press conference; if there's any other dirty laundry related to him that's been swept under the rug over the decades of his dominance there, it needs to be brought forward. Complete transparency needs to be the order of the day)

The best thing for Penn State now is an absolute clean sweep. If I were calling the shots, I would begin by not waiting for the NCAA and announce now that the football program was being suspended for a year, and that the entire coaching staff was being replaced.

Does this increase the financial cost and punish a lot of innocent people? It sure does. But dramatic steps are needed to restore public confidence, and that involves removing all vestiges of Paterno's influence. A clean break is needed. Halfway measures will only prolong the time it will take Penn State to recover from this.

[RayThom]

And from all places, The Christian Post.

Not that Bob Costas is the arbiter of all things sports but I feel he speaks for all the thinking minds in collegiate sports, sports media, and the NCAA.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/shoul ... lty-78266/

[BoSoxGal]

Holy shit, for once I agree with George Will; get football out of universities altogether! (Or at very least, get all the money & corruption out of college football - good luck with that!)

[RayThom]

So long, Joe, it was so good to know you. At least, and until, you so magnificently earned Msgr. Lind, child rape, enabler, status.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/c ... -1.3852911

Next up... NCAA to pull the switch on a "death penalty" for the Penn State football program.

[rubato]

A decent sense of remorse and acceptance of responsibility requires that they do as Bob Costas says and suspend their football program for (at least) a year.

I have long said that much of division 1 sports should be shut down as inherently corrupting; certainly basketball and football.

yrs,
rubato