Judge Who Freed Sandusky on Bail Volunteered at His Charity

[red states rule]

This story just gets worse folks. How the hell did this Judge get assigned to this case?





The judge who ordered former Penn State (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/ncaa/football/penn-state-scandal.htm#r_src=ramp) defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky be freed on $100,000 unsecured bail worked as a volunteer for his charity, The Second Mile, Deadspin (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/broadcasting/deadspin.htm#r_src=ramp) reported Sunday.

The report came after separate revelations that Sandusky was continuing to receive hefty pension payouts from the university.

Sandusky, 67, has been charged with 21 felony counts for allegedly abusing eight male minors over a period of 15 years. He denies the charges.

Prosecutors had requested a $500,000 bail for Sandusky and that he be required to wear a leg monitor, but District Judge Leslie Dutchcot ruled he be freed without having to post any money unless he failed to show up for court.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/13/former-penn-state-assistant-coach-reportedly-continues-to-receive-monthly/

[Abbey Marie]

They may secretly be hoping that he ends it all now.

[Thunderknuckles]

The judge should have recused himself. That's plain as day.
What Abbey said also crossed my mind.
I seriously wonder if this thing will ever make it to court.

[jimnyc]

Quite frankly, I see this as a non-story. The judge apparently never even met/spoke with Sandusky. His job was solely to bail in the case. Had the prosecution gotten the 500k, he would still have been out by the end of the day.

With that said, I personally think he should have been held without bail. But I don't see any wrongdoing here and the outcome would have been the same. Sandusky is not a poor man.

[ConHog]

Quite frankly, I see this as a non-story. The judge apparently never even met/spoke with Sandusky. His job was solely to bail in the case. Had the prosecution gotten the 500k, he would still have been out by the end of the day.

With that said, I personally think he should have been held without bail. But I don't see any wrongdoing here and the outcome would have been the same. Sandusky is not a poor man.

You're likely right that the judge didn't rule based on knowing Sandusky. However, it's not what actually happened, it's the perception. Take this for example. Suppose the father of one of the alleged victims was a prosecutor, do you think the court would allow them to try the case? Hell no, and they shouldn't. You can't have the perception of impropriety involved in the legal system.


Oh and I think Sandusky is way too big a coward to off himself.

[jimnyc]

You're likely right that the judge didn't rule based on knowing Sandusky. However, it's not what actually happened, it's the perception. Take this for example. Suppose the father of one of the alleged victims was a prosecutor, do you think the court would allow them to try the case? Hell no, and they shouldn't. You can't have the perception of impropriety involved in the legal system.


Oh and I think Sandusky is way too big a coward to off himself.

I suppose the prosecution could have asked him to recuse himself as well, if they were aware. But anyway, I think this would be different had this judge been the one hearing the case at trial. This case was probably in front of him for 5 minutes before a bail was set. And like I said, even if it were the other way around and the $500k was set, he still would have probably gotten out just as quick. I'd be more curious to learn as to why the prosecution didn't try to have him remanded. One would think 40 counts of child abuse over 15 years is enough to hold the man to ensure he doesn't do this again.

But as to what Abbey said - I read another report that he was witnessed at a "Dicks Sporting Goods" store. What's the odds that he was there buying a gun to off himself? And if you work there, and you know him, and you know of the case, do you sell it to him? I'd give it to him for free!

[ConHog]

I suppose the prosecution could have asked him to recuse himself as well, if they were aware. But anyway, I think this would be different had this judge been the one hearing the case at trial. This case was probably in front of him for 5 minutes before a bail was set. And like I said, even if it were the other way around and the $500k was set, he still would have probably gotten out just as quick. I'd be more curious to learn as to why the prosecution didn't try to have him remanded. One would think 40 counts of child abuse over 15 years is enough to hold the man to ensure he doesn't do this again.

But as to what Abbey said - I read another report that he was witnessed at a "Dicks Sporting Goods" store. What's the odds that he was there buying a gun to off himself? And if you work there, and you know him, and you know of the case, do you sell it to him? I'd give it to him for free!

Actually, the prosecutor could not have asked him to recuse himself, because pretrial motions of all kinds come later. Meaning there was no opportunity to ask him to do so. The only thing that could have been done is if the judge would have seen the case on the docket prior to court and recused himself. Nothing wrong done here, but because of the notoriety of the case it would have been better had the judge passed on the hearing.

I'd give him the gun and three bullets.

[Abbey Marie]

Come to think of it, he would probably meet his punishment in prison. Because we all know what happens to child molesters there. And it could get expensive, as he would have to be kept in some sort of protected, isolated situation. EVERYONE knows what this guy did.

[ConHog]

Come to think of it, he would probably meet his punishment in prison. Because we all know what happens to child molesters there. And it could get expensive, as he would have to be kept in some sort of protected, isolated situation. EVERYONE knows what this guy did.

As sick as his actions were I do not and can not condone allowing other prisoners to "punish" him. I'm not saying that that is what you're saying, I'm merely commenting.

[Abbey Marie]

As sick as his actions were I do not and can not condone allowing other prisoners to "punish" him. I'm not saying that that is what you're saying, I'm merely commenting.

You're right, I wasn't saying that. Merely commenting on some of the factors involved in decisions made and to be made.

[ConHog]

You're right, I wasn't saying that. Merely commenting on some of the factors involved in decisions made and to be made.

That would be a tough choice

A) Run and hope they don't catch you
B) Off yourself
C) Spend X amount of years trying to avoid being someone's bitch in prison

Yet another reason to avoid activities such as raping children.

[Abbey Marie]

That would be a tough choice

A) Run and hope they don't catch you
B) Off yourself
C) Spend X amount of years trying to avoid being someone's bitch in prison

Yet another reason to avoid activities such as raping children.

I have the impression that "C" is impossible.

[red states rule]

Come to think of it, he would probably meet his punishment in prison. Because we all know what happens to child molesters there. And it could get expensive, as he would have to be kept in some sort of protected, isolated situation. EVERYONE knows what this guy did.

I have heard that the other inmates usually do not care what you did that caused you to get locked up. You could have stole your grandma's SS check and they would not hold it against oyu

But if you hurt a child, they will hurt you

While Sandusky did not kill anyone, I do recall it did not take long for the other inmates to take out Jeffrey Dahmer