Wait! Whut?! Judge's instructions to Sandusky jury (unbelieveable)

[Are_grits_groceries]

RT @Marywilson 
Judge to jury: if #Sandusky "did not act out of sexual desire then he committed no crime, even if he exercised poor judgment"

@SPORTSbyBROOKS @marywilson 
What?! Is this some loophole? Jury must now conclude intent of alleged actions?? I'm gonna be sick...

@SPORTSbyBROOKS @dan_bernstein 
Sandusky judge "The appearance smoke is completely non-indicative of fire."

Is this some required instruction?
Sandusky may walk with all this shite.

[xchrom]

1. that makes no sense. nt

[southernyankeebelle]

2. Nothing a jury does anymore surprises me. Look at the first OJ trial. Look at the Anthony killing

her daughter. Look what is going on with the Trayvon Martin case. Nothing will surprise me.

[obamanut2012]

16. The jury was correct in the Anthony case

An over-reaching prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself and tried it as a capital crime, which it wasn't. A smaller ego would have gotten Anthony at least 15-30 years. The jury did teh correct legal thing and went by the law and not emotions. Unlike the Simpson trial.

And, this is the JUDGE, not the jury.

[Baitball Blogger]

36. Are you talking about Jeff Ashton?

I believe he's a Dem and he's about to be Orange county's next state attorney.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Anybody?

[Hugabear]

47. You're both right

Ashton is a Democrat, although I think its still too early to tell if he's going to win that election.

But he did overreach by making it a capital murder case.

[csziggy]

89. The jury had the option of finding Anthony guilty of a number of lesser charges

And IGNORED the jury instructions which told them about that option in detail. Overcharging was not the reason the jury barely took the time to hold a vote and let a child killer out completely free. They were just lazy, IMO.

INTRODUCTION TO HOMICIDE

In this case, Casey Marie Anthony is accused of Murder in the First Degree, Aggravated

Child Abuse, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, and four counts of Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer.

Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree,

Manslaughter and Third Degree Felony Murder, all of which are unlawful.

A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.

If you find Caylee Marie Anthony was killed by Casey Marie Anthony, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the First Degree or was Murder in the Second Degree or Manslaughter or Third Degree Felony Murder whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force.

MORE: http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

[obamanut2012]

93. The jury did the correct thing

[coalition_unwilling]

22. Um, re the first OJ trial: Mark Fuhrman, the LAPD cop who

supposedly discovered the incriminating glove AND A KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS, was revealed during the trial to have committed perjury. (He pled no contest to the charges after the trial had concluded). So blaming the jury for the OJ verdict is too simple by far. I think the LA County DA's office bears a lot of blame. And credit must go to Johnnie Cochran and the defense team for doing their jobs superbly, even if it meant that a guilty man went free. Their job is to defend their client.

Do I think OJ killed his ex-wife and Ron Brown? Yes and I thought so before the verdict was reached in the criminal trial (and before the revelations about shoe prints had emerged in the subsequent wrongful death civil suit), because of what I understand of the arc of domestic and spousal abuse cases and because of what I know about DNA evidence. That said, had I been seated on that jury, confronted with Fuhrman's perfidy, Garcetti's and the DA's Office's ineptitude and Cochran's brilliance, I might well have voted 'not guilty' too.

[hifiguy]

26. Speaking as a lawyer, the OJ case was never

the slam-dunk the media portrayed it as. After testimony regarding the timeline inconsistencies, the Fuhrman incident, the almost complete lack of blood in the Bronco and Henry Lee's utter demolition of the prosecution's forensics I correctly predicted that OJ would be found not guilty. He had supremely capable counsel and there were more then enough holes in the case for Cochran and company to drive a truck through. Which is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt.

[TheWraith]

81. Thank you for saying that.

Far too many people "remember" the OJ case as being the conviction in the media using "facts" which never really existed. The actual provable facts were brought into the court room, and that left the prosecution severely wanting.

[southernyankeebelle]

27. Listen I am not here to retry the trial. I just saying nothing surprises me any more that people

get off. I think OJ,Anthony and Zimmerman are guilty. But that and a cup of coffee isn't going to change anything.

[PCIntern]

30. I agree 100%. Well said. n/t

[WinkyDink]

83. Don't be daft.

[Aerows]

3. Rape is rape

We are talking about 11 year olds here. I don't give a damn what his intent was. If they let this sick asshole off the hook for this, there might as well not even be a justice system anymore.

[AngryAmish]

6. What about a 11 year old girl and a gynecologist?

If a person touches an 11 year old girl in his basement, then that looks pretty criminal. But if a gyn does it (for purposes of an exam) then it is not criminal. Intent is an element of the crime.

Also, the person covering this is not a lawyer or at least not a trail lawyer.

[Aerows]

8. OMG

You go to the gynecologist for a REASON. There is no reason for a grown man to give a young boy a blowjob.

None. Intent is pretty damn obvious in this case.

[AngryAmish]

13. Maybe I explained this wrong

These are jury instructions, instructing the jury on the law of sexual assault in PA.

My example is a gyn does not commit a crime when doing the necessary exam. But any perv would be committing a crime for doing the exact same thing for sexual gratification. Intent may be obvious but the instruction still needs to be read to the jury. Due process and all that whatnot. Cheers.

[robinlynne]

15. We don't go to gynecologists until we reach puberty, after we get our periods, just for clarity.

[Lionessa]

25. My daughter started at 9 and most in the neighborhood by 10.

Don't know why, but puberty seems to be hitting much earlier these days.

That said, I don't agree with the poster you're responding to. There is no possible analogy of a coach touching a child and a GYN touching a child.

[abelenkpe]

52. Whoa really?

I didn't start until sixteen. That would have been a real bummer in jr and high school....Why are girls starting so soon?

[Aerows]

79. I didn't start until 14

So I don't understand it either.

[LuckyLib]

113. It is due to body mass. Young girls are heavier, with more body fat

than they were in the past. Even 50 years ago, girls who began development at a very early age tended to have more body fat than those who started later.

[freedom fighter jh]

64. One theory is that it's because of hormones in food.

Another is that it's too much exposure to light.

[hunter]

68. Probably food...

Not "hormones" as such, but just extra calories and a few things that mimic hormones.

It's in our genes to reach reproductive age quicker when environmental conditions are favorable. That's how we overran the other apes, and eventually the carrying capacity of the planet itself.

[robinlynne]

84. Does that mean it is fine and healthy?

[hunter]

88. No.

[Nevernose]

106. I've personally known a 10 year old pregnant with her 2nd child

It's a fucked up world we live in.

[southernyankeebelle]

33. You are right. Still he is a big man on campus. I use to respect the head coach thinking

they never got in alot of trouble. Turns out they all looked the other way. Shame on them. How many guys did they hurt doing nothing? I pray they don't let him off. But sad thing is money talks.

[Auntie Bush]

55. If Sandusky gets off I'm going to lose all faith in our justice system.

Especially if Zimmerman gets off too.

[southernyankeebelle]

69. I lost faith in justice a while back. There really is a 2 tier system in america. If you are rich

you can buy your way out of anything. If you are poor forgetaboutit. That goes on if your white or black.

[AngryAmish]

4. Jury instructions explain the law to the jury

It may be an element of PA law that doing certain things can be considered a crime depending upon intent. For example, I touch my kids privates every day giving them baths and changing their diapers. What I do is not a crime. But if I was doing the same thing with intent for sexual gratification, then that would certainly be a crime. The jury can infer intent from the facts surrounding the touching.

The appearance of smoke without fire is just a circumstantial evidence instruction given in most every trial. In Illinois they used the analogy of if a person has an umbrella and they are wet then you can infer that it is raining (which is a terrible instruction).

If it is any consolation the jury generally ignores the instructions. Are they readig the instructions before the closing arguments?

[KharmaTrain]

23. Instructions = Guidelines

The jury's responsibility here is to address the specific charges and see if a law was broken. Generally the charges are written specifically with the law included in the indictment and are read as part of the instructions. As you say it's not always germaine to the charges at hand...but they don't ignore these instructions, they use them to define the paremeters of the indictment. The problem is when there are two or more laws that contradict one another or the laws are vague when applied to the specific case.

It's natural in cases as controversial as these for people to judge on surface and not at the specific charges in the indictments and the applicable laws. In too many cases when the law isn't clear then a jury can't convict and people interpret this as some nefarious conspiracy. Too often the concepts of innocent until proven guilty and guilty beyond reasonable doubt get lost in the translation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Or, in Illinois, if you find an honest judge, you can infer that they are a tourist.

[MADem]

5. That's not right--is that a "Not guilty by reason of insanity" loop hole?

Very odd instructions.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. I t kind of makes sense to me.

I don't know the particulars of the case but I assume he being charged with more than just the anal rape we all heard about.

If any of those charges include "inappropriate touching" (or whatever the statutory equivalent is) then the jury must believe the act was for sexual gratification versus "helping him wash himself" or "wrestling" or whatever cockamamie excuse the defense is presenting.

Hmm. Is cockamamie a word? I was surprised it was in the spell check.

[MADem]

80. Ahhh--yes, I see what you mean! That makes (horrific) sense--sort of like the pervert who lives

down the street from the Griffins of Quahog needing help in the bath!

Cockamamie is most certainly a word!! It's popular around my house, too!!!

[vankuria]

7. WTF

Rape is often considered not an act of sexual desire but rather an act of violence against the victim and doesn't make it any less a crime. As for Sandusky, I'd say forcing a child to give him anal sex, blow jobs and everything else he's acused of makes him guilty as hell.

[RedCappedBandit]

62. Yes. Rape often has nothing to do with sexual desire

I have no idea WTF this judge is smoking.

[sadbear]

9. Has the defense actually proven that he didn't act out of sexual desire?

The answer kinda makes the first instruction moot.

[Aerows]

10. How could they prove that?

Intent seems pretty obvious in this case to me.

[sadbear]

12. Yep.

[robinlynne]

18. i think the defense is alleging that he has a disease, some sort of temporary insnity thing.

[former9thward]

63. The defense is not required to prove that.

You have it exactly opposite. The prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Intent is one of those elements.

[obamanut2012]

11. There is no sexual desire component needed for a rape charge

Regardless of the victim's age.

[AngryAmish]

21. Yes there is certainly need to be an intent element to the crime.

My examples above - doctors, parents etc. all do things to their kids that would be considered sexual assault if done for sexual reasons. if the rule is no touching, ever then kids would never get their diapers changed.

[obamanut2012]

29. Yes, but the intent does not have to be sexual desire

And, a minor can never, ever give consent for ANYTHING. Sexual or not.

[soccer1]

103. But.....

If a child is sexually molested by a parent, doctor or any "caregiver", I wonder if "sexual intent" has to be established before the person is charged with a crime against the child. I would think not. Wouldn't the act in itself be a crime regardless of the reasons that drove the act? Certainly any caregiver will not be charged for simply bathing or examining(doctor) a child

It seems that the judge in the Sandusky case was pointing out to the jurors that merely showering with a child or washing a child's hair, or touching a child's leg,etc do not meet the legal standard of a criminal act ( unlawful contact with minor, corruption of minors). I interpret the judges instructions as distinguishing between the simple acts I just mentioned and acts that led to sexual molestation. There are 8 victims and 48 charges against Sandusky. His instructions might help the jurors when they are going though each charge for each victim.

[mercuryblues]

14. that is crazy.

No members of the jury, I did not rape those kids out of desire. I raped them well, because I could. Can I go home now? I promise the next kids I rape will be because they tied their shoes wrong. I also promise I will never ever rape a kid out of desire, therefor I can never be guilty of rape.

I wish I could say now I've heard it all. But I am sure a republican politician will top that by the end of the day.

[Bonhomme Richard]

17. Rape is a crime of violence not sexual desire. WTF Judge?

It's like saying that a guy that shot someone dead was not guilty of murder if he didn't get off watching the bullet enter the victim.

[lunatica]

119. Actually the word rape is also used in statutory cases when one is a minor

If one of the people having what would otherwise be consensual sex is a minor 15 or 16 year old and the other is 18 or 19 that is called statutory rape. So yes, there are instances where rape is about sexual desire.

The law has to be very precise.

[Whiskeytide]

19. That's an appropriate charge...

... where Sandusky's defense is "I showered with them and was naked with them, but there was no sex - I was just exercising very poor judgment". I understand that's his defense. This is the Michael Jackson defense. It doesn't allow Sandusky to say "I was exercising poor judgment when I had sex with him". If the jury believes sexual acts occurred, then he will be convicted.

[slackmaster]

20. I agree with you, that is indeed unbelievable

I don't believe it at all. I suspect something got garbled somewhere.

But it is kind of entertaining watching people come unglued over a few Tweets.

[onenote]

24. This is what happens when one relies on tweets by non experts

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)

There were 51 separate charges against Sandusky, only some of which were for intercourse (or rape). Some were for "corrupting a minor" and some were for indecent contact (i.e., touching but not sexual intercourse). The judge has to give the appropriate charge for each separate offense on which the prosecution is seeking a conviction. My guess (and I'll admit its just a guess) is that the charge that has folks screaming "unbelievable" is in fact the charge given for one of the offenses that doesn't involve actual sexual intercourse, but rather is an event, such as "indecent contact" that requires a finding that the defendant acted out of sexual desire since, as another DUer pointed out elsewhere on this thread, a parent or nurse or doctor or other caretaker who touched a minor's genitalia would be guilty of a crime if intent wasn't an element of the offense.

[Are_grits_groceries]

35. And the jury members are experts?

They can listen as intently as they want, and they may still hear the same garbled message. What s said abut ONE charge may be carried over in someone's mind to another.

[onenote]

37. assuming you are correct, what is your proposed solution

To not charge Sandusky with certain criminal acts for which sexual intent is a prerequisite? Not tell the jury what the law is?

[Are_grits_groceries]

54. No. Of course not.

There never will be a perfect trial of any kind.
Maybe if I was on the jury, the judge did precisely point out what charges certain standards are applicable to and I would completely understand. Is that going to be written somewhere so that I can refer to it? That would help. Even if I was listening intently, I don't know if I could remember everything.

I don't expect a quick verdict if they carefully go through each charge as they should. With so any charges and instructions, it would be easy to mix things up.

Then again, it could be over by this afternoon.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. You're going to consider facts instead of tweets? That's going to slow things down.

[Whisp]

66. thank you for that.

I can put my cast iron fry pan down now.

now sure where I was going to throw it.

[Lisa D]

74. You are correct.

When the judge told the jurors that they had to determine intent, he was NOT talking about the charges of oral sex, rape, or fondling. Those charges are either guilty or not guilty.

When he mentioned intent, the judge was talking about the lesser chargers and said the jury had to make TWO determinations. Example: The charge is that Sandusky showered with a minor child. The jury needs to:

1. Determine if Sandusky showered with a minor child.

2. If they decide that he DID shower with a minor child, then the jury has to determine if his INTENT was sexual or "innocent."

Now, it seems obvious that Sandusky's intent was sexual, but since there are people who innocently shower with minor children (such as parents with toddlers), I suppose such an instruction is necessary. So the judge is saying it's not just the act itself, but the intent behind it that they need to determine.

That's where the intent part of the judge's instructions come in. There are 48 charges and they vary in degree

[DevonRex]

75. IOW calm the fuck down everybody. Really.

Truly.

[treestar]

108. Exactly.

I get so tired of this "hair on fire" shit from people who don't even try to understand what's going on.

[DearAbby]

28. SINCE WHEN IS RAPE SEXUAL????????????????

[SlimJimmy]

32. Rape, as a legal concept, must be sexual. The intent of rape; however, is almost never sexual

in nature. But I do see your point.

[KurtNYC]

109. see post #24 -- these were instructions about the other charges

[rhett o rick]

34. The judge did this so he can throw out the jury verdict if guilty for not following his

instructions. The fix is in.

[onenote]

59. You might try reading post #38.

And then you might try editing your post so you don't look so foolish.

[Spazito]

38. Here is what the Judge said, according to an article on Pennlive...

Some of the charges alleged against Sandusky are more obviously crimes if they jury believes the evidence, he said.

Oral sex between a man and boy, for example, he said.

But, the judge told jurors that back-cracking, leg touching, washing a boy in a shower, and lathering his body is not criminal in and of itself.

To find Sandusky guilty of those things -- many of them alleged by some of his eight accusers -- jurors have to find that Sandusky did it to satisfy his own sexual desire. “If he did not act out of his own sexual desire then he committed no crime, even if he acted in poor judgement,” Cleland said.

There is more at the link here:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_judge_giv.html

The Judge also made it clear to the jury that even if they believed Sandusky suffered from histrionic personality disorder it was NOT a defense.

[cthulu2016]

41. +1

[MineralMan]

112. But all of that won't fit into a tweet,

and doesn't create as much of a kerfluffle. If we had the full instructions to the jury, nobody would bother to read them, probably.

It's a good thing the jury has the complete instructions. They can rule, based on everything, not a tweet.

[Spazito]

114. Yep, they, from what I understand, receive the instructions both orally and in written form...

so they have them in hand during their deliberations. If the Judge hadn't been detailed in his instructions then the possibility of grounds for appeal would be even greater as has been pointed out by another poster in this thread.

With 48 charges to deliberate on, it is key, imo, the jury gets clear instruction as to the law and how it pertains to the charges.

The make-up of the jury causes me much more concern than the Judge's instructions. 8 out of 12 are or have been directly affiliated with Penn State and 2 of the 4 alternates as well.

[ecstatic]

39. We excuse a lot in this country, but child rape is not one of them

Sandusky will be convicted. People often forgive and excuse murder, but not rape--especially child rape.

[cthulu2016]

40. Do we have any reason to think the tweets are precisely accurate?

Jesus. They're Tweets.

Isn't the judge obviously talking about an element of one crime as a part of comprehensive jury instructions?

Isn't it obvious that the judge is not talking about the allegations of unambiguous sexual contact in what is tweeted?

(Putting your penis in a kid is a crime all day long. Patting a kid on the butt is not a crime unless sexually motivated.)



Sheesh.

[slackmaster]

42. If it's on the Internet, IT MUST BE TRUE!

[slackmaster]

43. UPDATE!!! TWITTER IS DOWN FOR THE AFTERNOON!!! W@E MAY NEVER KNOW THE TURTH!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002838166

[Bake]

45. The jury really must conclude that if he molested the children, it was out of sexual desire.

Not bad judgment. Why else would he MOLEST them??? I think Sandusky goes down.

Bake

[littlewolf]

46. Nothing surprises me anymore either ... Nifong anyone .... nt

[perdita9]

48. It doesn't matter if he robbed your house it only matters if he meant to rob your house

Granted, I'm not in the legal profession but this doesn't make any sense.

[ieoeja]

78. Previous posters explained it pretty good.

As to your analogy, I took an injured kid to the hospital during a basketball game. He had brought a ball to the game with him and grabbed what he thought was his on our way out. Next day I was called into the principal's office and accused of theft because he grabbed the wrong ball.

I laughed at the principal, said a few things high schoolers don't often get to say to their principal (but when they're that fucking stupid you can get away with a lot), found the kid and helped him swap basketballs back with the other kid.

Other than the principal nobody really seemed to think that was theft. Yet he did take something that belonged to someone else without that person's permission.

[joeybee12]

49. Also, showering with a boy and lathering him up is not a crime...

Also what the judge said...seems to me, when you take the entirety of what this judge said, he must be on Penn State's payroll.

[rocktivity]

50. It's a crime if it's done to wash away evidence of sexual contact.

Last edited Tue Dec 1, 2015, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

there's no reason to lather up someone who's more than five years old.


rocktivity

[joeybee12]

51. Lathering a boy who is not your son is criminal, IMHO

It's inappropriate contact and I can't imagine PA law says otherwise...this judge is bothering me.

[TBF]

67. My five year old can wash himself up just fine -

I buy him the bottles of Sponge Bob soft soap and you have never seen such a clean kid. He loves to smear it all over himself and the tub. Hopefully the jurors are smarter than this judge.

[abelenkpe]

53. Sandusky may walk?

Kinda thought he may honestly. But only because I'm totally jaded. Justice is for the rich and famous, never for the ordinary. But let's not give up on the jury yet.

[slackmaster]

56. He already walked, and he's been nominated to fill the next vacancy on the Supreme Court!

[abelenkpe]

76. kitteh! :)

[Blue_Tires]

57. does anyone have the FULL context of the statements?

instead of this meaningless fluff?

[onenote]

60. Post #38 offers more context, if not full context

It also suggests that the hysterical reaction of many on this thread is unwarranted.

[DallasNE]

61. Rape Is More Than "Poor Judgement", It Is A Violent Crime

Anal sex qualifies as "sexual desire" in my book and there is at least one witness to that act. Could this be an incomplete quote and taken out of context? One would sure hope so.

[Whisp]

65. what the HOLY SHIT?!!!!

will read more, this can't be true, someone is leg pullin ghere....

[soccer1]

70. The judge's jury instructions make sense to me........

An example: if a person puts his hand on a child's leg, that is not necessarily a crime UNLESS that act indicates he was acting out of sexual desire. How would a juror know if sexual desire drove the action? Well, the testimony of the sexual crimes coming after the "hand on the leg" pretty much makes it clear that the action was not just affectionate or friendly in nature. Ditto for the showering, cracking of backs, soaping up of victims, etc. I believe the jurors will have little problem understanding his instructions.

[Posteritatis]

72. Yep. This thread's context-free kneejerk outrage. (nt)

[EFerrari]

71. WTF?

[Are_grits_groceries]

77. They were tweets by people

who have been very good reporting this story. One I have followed for a long time and found him to be very accurate.
This seems to have been garbled or misunderstood by these people.
People seem to be giving the jury either a lot more credit or a lot less credit about understanding the judge. They are probably along a continuum.

When intent has to be considered at any point, it gets tricky.

In addition, this judge had earlier expressed his doubts about the entire case and whether there was enough evidence. He ultimately decided to let it go to the jury and refused to dimiss it. He makes me very wary.

[WinkyDink]

82. Maybe this judge is a wee bit simpatico, IYKWIM.

[onenote]

86. Or maybe he's just stating the law.

Maybe you should talk to an experienced trial lawyer before you display your ignorance.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. Why would a man molest a child except out of a sexual desire for children?

[onenote]

87. Please try reading the posts in this thread that put this in context.

[LynneSin]

90. Ready for the other shoe to drop - Sandusky's adopted kid just told the media that he was molested

Is the Jury sequestered? Do they even know that?

[soccer1]

102. Jury is sequestered for deliberations....

[JoeyT]

91. If he walks, it won't be because of this.

This is just an explanation of how the law works to the jury for the charges that didn't involve actual kiddy fiddling.

When the trial gets underway properly is when you'll know whether the judge wants him to walk or not. (Which may well be the case)

[a kennedy]

92. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

if they find him NOT GUILTY......I'm gonna

[soccer1]

105. I'm certain Sandusky will be found guilty....

it's just a matter of which charges for each victim he will be found guilty of. I think he will be spending a long time in prison. Of course, I've been wrong before when I try to guess what a jury will do.

[MrScorpio]

94. I'm assuming that he had a stiff prick while he was in the act of molesting those boys...

So, unless there was some medical evidence that proved that Sandusky's turgid boner AND his boy diddling behavior was somehow the product of some strange and unheard of before ailment, I would vote to convict his aberrantly degenerate ass and demand that he be buried UNDER prison for the rest of his unnatural life.

I'm totally cool with the judge's instructions.

[cbrer]

95. Apparently I could shoot someone

As long as I didn't intend to murder them.

Even if I'm exercising poor judgement.

WTF?

[soccer1]

96. I imagine establishing "intent" is important in any criminal trial.......

How can specific charges be brought unless level of "intent" is determined by the prosecutors?

[AngryAmish]

97. There are lots of non-intent based criminal laws

Too many, actually. Drug possession, for example. If you have dope on your person, you are possessing the drugs. If someone sneaks it into your pocket that may be either an affirmative defense or you are at the mercy of the prosecutor in deciding whether it was a crime.

[soccer1]

99. Yes, I understand your point....

The good news (sometimes) is that a jury determines "innocence" or "guilt". I also believe that prosecutors sometimes "overcharge".

There must be many factors involved in "the charging process". And unfortunately, if a person, innocent of a crime, can not afford a very able attorney, then he is at a disadvantage. And, in the scenario you present, sometimes "innocence" can not be proven. When something is "planted" on a person how can that be proven in a court of law? Pretty difficult I would say.

[cbrer]

100. You mean...

You can't claim temporary insanity?

Or accidental possesion?

[cbrer]

98. Perhaps if establishing

degree of complicity, or pre-meditation. He didn't accidentally rape those kids, and he wasn't insane.

The acts were illegal under any scenario. I could more reasonably expect those issues to come up during a sentencing phase.

I guess with a defense structure that is rigged to get people off, rather than establish justice, one may expect these maneuvers.

[slackmaster]

101. Actually, that is true provided that you are acting in legitimate self-defense as define by law

Even in a self-defense situation, shooting someone with the intent of KILLING could get you charged with murder.

[onenote]

111. apparently you don't have a clue what your talking about

The fact that intent matters in a criminal offense, including homicide, doesn't mean that you can always get off the hook for your actions. There is a difference between pre-meditated homicide, negiligent homicide, manslaughter, etc. Do you think someone who drops a gun, has it go off, and it kills someone across the street should be treated the same as someone who gets a gun, hides outside someone's house and, with full intention to kill that person, shoots him or her?

Of course you don't. Which makes your WTF even more inexplicable.

[cbrer]

115. OK so I picked a bad example.

Here's a clue for you.

Adult men giving blowjobs to kids has no accidental nature to it. In an earlier post I stated that those instructions may be more appropriate for a sentencing phase. If one is to believe witness testimony, guilt is real and intent is firmly established.

So the judges directions seem to at best point out the obvious. At worst, open a door for interpretation of mental state. Which has never been a feature of this defense.

There are enough examples of highly publicized trials going haywire. It doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility that this judges instructions creates jury conflict, or simple doubt. To some degree. Reasonable? How the hell could anyone know?

[onenote]

116. Here's a clue for you. You still don't know what you're talking about

As has been explained here several times, Sandusksy has been charged with multiple offenses -- over 50 initially. Some involve activity that is presumptively sexual in nature: Oral/genital contact and intercourse for example. Others are lesser offenses, such as "corrupting a minor" or indecent contact. Each offense has its own set of instructions. The terms of the instructions are dictated by law, not the whim of the judge. You want to get a reversal in a criminal case -- have a judge give an instruction that leaves out an element of the offense. I'm willing to bet that the instruction about sexual desire being an element of an offense has nothing to do with the crimes Sandusky has been charged with for engaging in oral sex. It probably has everything to do with lesser offenses, such as corrupting a minor or indecent contact where sexual desire is a formal element of the crime and cannot be ignored by the judge or presumed by a jury.

But hey, it was on twitter and must be accurate, right?

[cbrer]

117. You twittered this?

Not a pastime of mine, so I couldn't say.

So the deviant nature of this guys acts is interpreted differently because presumption of innocence means ignoring preponderance of evidence in other related charges? I'm really asking here. I didn't know what I was talking about, but having had my hand slapped, now I am curious.

And this then relates to punishment, and how many life sentences one can tack on? Or is there a carry over to civil suits that depend on those judgements? Or what?

[onenote]

118. No. That's where the original story that you were commenting on came from.

And since you've asked, in criminal law, each offense has to be proved separately and stand or fall on its own evidence. Which is why the judge has thrown out a couple of the charges -- the evidence as to those particular charges -- specific acts involving a specific victim at a specific time -- could not be proven because no evidence of them was presented, even though evidence of identical acts involving the same or different victims at different times were testified to and thus can go forward.

I'm not going to pretend to know the specific sentencing guidelines for Pennsylvania. How much discretion, if any, a judge has in regards to sentencing will vary with the state law. It is not uncommon, however, for the law to give the judge the ability to impose the maximum sentence for each and every separate offense on which a defendant is guilty. When the jury finally comes back in this trial, it will not simply announce Guilty or Not Guilty. It will announce a separate verdict on each and every one of the 48 (I think that is the number of charges still remaining) that were presented against Sandusky. One of the reasons that it may be taking the jury as long as it is taking them is that they may take this aspect of their responsibilitly seriously and are reviewing and separately discussing and voting on each one of around four dozen charged offenses.

Civil suits are separate -- the outcome in a criminal case doesn't alway dictate the outcome of a civil case. However, if Sandusky is found guilty, his chances of avoiding civil liability are slim. If he gets off on some (or, heaven forbid, all) of the charges, the lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence v. no reasonable doubt) makes it possible for a civil judgment to still be awarded relating to the actions that were not proven to be a criminal violation.

[GeorgeGist]

104. That outta bring out the knee jerks.

[treestar]

107. jury instructions come from the law

it is not a judge's personal opinion. They come straight from case or statutory law.

This is some tempest in a teapot taken out of context. Why not quote all of the jury instructions rather than jump to conclusions?

[onenote]

110. Precisely. And not giving the proper instruction can be reversible error.

It seems as though many of those screaming about the judge's instructions don't seem to realize that what they are suggesting the judge should have done would have resulted in a winnable appeal on any convictions made with respect to the offenses for which an incomplete set of instructions was given.

[Zoeisright]

120. Sexual desire has nothing to do with rape.

It's all about power. That judge needs to go if that's the way he instructed the jury. He not only does not understand the law, he does not understand the way the world works past 1880.

[soccer1]

121. I disagree...

Certainly, for the rapist, sexual gratification must be a significant component of a rape. I would think the underlying mental health disorder(s) that lead a person to rape are many and varied. But the one constant is the sexual act.