Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Football legend Joe Paterno died this week. Unfortunately, his integrity and legend were mortally wounded months ago when the revelations about accused pedophile, Jerry Sandusky, erupted. JoePa, the Penn State legend, and leader of Linebacker U. deserved better than the legacy Sandusky’s behavior has thrust upon him.

You can debate whether Paterno did enough when then graduate assistant Michael McQueary came to him with complaints of Sandusky’s alleged sexual assault of a young boy in the PSU locker room. Did he do enough by passing the complaint along to superiors or should he have gone the further step and called the authorities outside the University? Was he protecting PSU by “keeping it in the family” or following the appropriate chain of command? All are moot questions now.

What does linger is the stench that Sandusky has cast upon this sports icon. JoePa deserved better from a man that was his friend. Whether you believe that Paterno did too little out of loyalty to his longtime assistant, or acted to protect his beloved school, one thing is clear: there is one man who can restore the gloss to this coach’s legend–Jerry Sandusky.

He and his publicity seeking attorney can do the right thing– accept responsibility. End this charade of a defense that he was only trying to teach a kid how to properly soap himself up in the shower or just liked to wrestle naked with young boys.

Acceptance of responsibility is a major factor in the rehabilitative prong of our sentencing schemes. It reflects an honest attitude toward one’s past transgressions and a willingness to change. More importantly, it demonstrates respect for the victims, saving them the further indignity of having to take the witness stand in a public trial and relive their ordeals. In this case, young men who were allegedly sexually abused by another man. One can only imagine the scars that they bear that fester beneath their skin.

If Joe Paterno was truly your friend and mentor; if you are truly saddened by what your selfish behavior has done to this man, then step up Jerry; be a real man and a real friend; take your punishment. Wipe the dirt off the legend of JoePa that you so selfishly soiled.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

A recent opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, advisors to the U.S. Attorney General, may be paving the way for legalized online gaming. The opinion does not deal specifically with legalizing online gaming sites; rather, the advisement focuses on federal prohibition of internet sales of state lottery tickets. The opinion specifically addressed the lawfulness of proposals by Illinois and New York to use the internet and out-of-state transaction processors to sell lottery tickets to in-state adults. The Justice Department was concerned that the Federal Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. 1084 may prohibit states from utilizing the internet for in-state transactions if the same transmissions cross state lines

The essence of the opinion is that the interstate transmission of wire communications pertaining to state authorized lotteries do not relate to a “sporting event or contest” to which the Wire Act applies. In a number of circles this is being touted as the forerunner to online interstate gaming.

From time to time internet sites have sprung up to permit or promote online gambling. Illegal gambling, often mob related, utilizes these sites to accept wagers that are charged to credit cards. A recent federal gambling prosecution in this state focused on local bookmakers who were taking action based upon the illegal online sites. Prosecuting the creators and those who maintain these sites is virtually impossible given the manner in which the sites are created.

For decades Connecticut had taken a paternalistic approach to its prohibition against gambling. It wasn’t until the early 70′s when the Lottery was first created that this state first abandoned its puritanical view of gambling. Early decisions by our Supreme Court looked upon gambling as an evil that lured the wage earner to risk his family’s meager income. The worker had to be protected from himself by the state.

I recall when the Lottery was first created I was an intern working in my Dad’s office. My father represented several of what he referred to as “gentleman Bookmakers.” These were independent, small-time guys, not mob affiliated. One fellow in particular was a steady customer. he went about his “business” without harming or threatening anyone. By and large the police left him alone until some Mayor or politician demanded a crack down on these “evil-doers.” There would be a raid and the bookie and his several runners were rounded up. People rarely went to jail for bookmaking, usually paying a hefty fine and some probation.

When the Lottery was created my Dad decided to raise a constitutional challenge to the new law. His argument was that the State of Connecticut had become the biggest “bookmaker” in the state. No longer was the state the pater familias, caring for the wayward wage earner. Now that the Lottery could reap millions in income without raising taxes our puritanical views changed. It was left to me as the intern to fashion the challenge that the new lottery laws denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to our bookie clients.

I threw myself into the task and crafted what I convinced myself was a masterful constitutional challenge that no judge could ignore. Meanwhile the Lottery was an instant financial windfall for the state. Our client’s case was assigned to an old, nearly retired judge in the Circuit Court, then the lowest of our three court branches at the time. This old timer was close to retirement and his assignment as a Circuit Court judge had him way down on the judicial totem pole.

I remember reporting to my friends, after a very painful oral argument, that I would have had more success, and perhaps a more attentive audience if I had argued the case in front of some of the rummies who hung around the area where the court was located. What I painfully learned that day was that some very old, almost irrelevant minor court judge was not about to tell the State that this new found wealth was unconstitutional.

Now housing the most successful casinos in the western hemisphere it is unlikely that we will ever revert back to our puritanical roots.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Happy New Year to Connecticut’s media. On January 1st new rules took effect, passed by the Rules Committee of the Judicial Department, now allowing for the televising of nearly all criminal proceedings. What was previously an experiment is now going to be a permanent addition to our criminal courts. Matters involving allegations of sexual assault and juveniles will not be televised. Juvenile cases are not considered adult prosecutions and are conducted in sealed courtrooms. Victims of sexual assaults have long been provided anonymity in our recorded criminal proceedings. The victims are referred to by initials in all published court records.

The new rules spell out the procedure for a media application for permission to televise. One stationary camera and microphone will be permitted. Jury selection and jurors will not be televised. Conferences between lawyers and the Court at the bench are also off limits, as are discussions between an attorney and client or shots of the papers at counsel table. Preserving the anonymity of jurors during the trial is particularly critical. The reactions of TV pundits like Nancy Grace and the resulting public condemnation of the Casey Anthony jurors proves the need to protect jurors from exposure during the trial. Connecticut does not favor sequestering jurors during trials, even those as sensational as the recent Cheshire cases. Displaying the faces and names of jurors creates a risk that someone will attempt to influence or threaten a juror.

Preserving client confidentiality is the driving reason behind prohibiting filming counsel and client exchanges. The public’s right to know, which stems from the First Amendment, does not permit unfettered intrusion into the behind-the-scenes exchanges between a defendant and counsel. Bench conferences are intended to be outside the hearing of the jury. If those conferences were recorded by the media it would create a risk that jurors could ultimately learn information that was specifically kept from them to preserve the fairness of the trial process.

The biggest issue facing lawyers and judges alike is how to conduct themselves under the constant spotlight of the media. Judge Ito, who presided over the O.J. Simpson murder trial, is the model for what judges should NOT do. Ito was enamored with the spotlight and it diverted him from conducting himself with appropriate decorum. In contrast, Judge Belvin Perry, who presided over the Casey Anthony trial, was the model of judicial temperament and decorum. Televising trials should cause judges to work assiduously to ensure the fairness and balance of the process. The written record of a trial fails to display judicial demeanor. A judge’s body language and voice inflections can have an impact on a jury’s perception of certain testimony. The visual record is undeniable if a judge crosses the boundaries of impartiality. Under the correct circumstances televised trials provide needed transparency to the criminal justice process.

Lawyers playing to the TV viewers have no place in the courtroom. It is not a stage. There is always an element of theater in a successful trial lawyer, but with limits. A lawyer should comport himself or herself in front of the cameras no differently than if there were was no camera there. The added by-product of the televised camera will allow the public to truly gauge the effectiveness of an attorney. As lawyers we should feel compelled to act with the respect and decorum the courtroom demands. It is not the Gong Show.

The unfortunate downside to televised trials is the ability of TV producers to edit what is actually shown to the public. I favor a C-Span type approach, where the evidence is displayed in its entirety, without editorial bias. That bias was apparent in the manner in which HLN and TruTV televised portions of the Anthony trial. The commentators, for the most part, displayed an anti-Anthony bias in the commentaries that accompanied the televised testimony. As a veteran of many appearances on the former CourtTV I came to understand that not everything that occurs in a trial can fit within the format of a program. Constraints of time and the need to focus on the most critical evidence certainly justify editing content for the viewers. Editing content to fit the bias of a media commentator should not be permitted.

Unfortunately, there is nothing our judges can do to ensure the fairness of comments and presentation to the public. We have to trust in the integrity of the media. One would hope that those who make the editorial decisions are guided by the same demand for transparency in their actions that they are demanding of our courts. If the coverage of the Anthony trial is any foreshadowing, I don’t have a high degree of confidence in that regard.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

To listen to Joe Amendola, the attorney for embattled former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, in the weeks leading up to his Tuesday preliminary hearing, this was to be the first stages of the battle. Reportedly, his client was looking forward to exercising his right to confront his accusers in a public forum. Shockingly, the hearing did not go forward. Citing tactical considerations Sandusky’s lawyer waived the hearing and the matter is scheduled next for pre-trial discussions.

Pennsylvania follows a practice that had prevailed in Connecticut until the late ’70′s. When I first began to practice law in 1975 no felony prosecution could proceed to trial without a finding of probable cause by a judge, after an evidentiary hearing. Hearings in Probable Cause (HPC’s) were commonplace. Experienced lawyers differed in their approaches to such hearings. A defendant could elect to waive his right to a hearing. He remained clothed with the presumption of innocence and the matter moved toward trial. The growing crush of criminal business was a prime factor in the revisions to our practice that eliminated HPC’s in all but Class A felonies.

The necessity for the HPC derived from the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a judicial determination of probable cause before a defendant could be held to answer at trial. In the instances where hearings went forward a finding of probable cause was almost a foregone conclusion. The state’s burden at this stage was to establish that reasonable grounds existed to believe that a crime had occurred and that the accused was responsible. That burden was met by the production of a scintilla of evidence. That standard differed significantly from proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard needed to convict.

In 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gerstein v. Pugh, ruling that the judicial determination of probable cause for a warrantless arrest did not require an adversarial hearing. Following that ruling sworn affidavits were appended to an arresting officer’s report. An in camera judicial review and a finding of probable cause was all that was needed. The HPC became superfluous.

HPC’s are still required for crimes punishable by life imprisonment or death. Before the practice changed an HPC was looked upon as a discovery bonanza. At that time Connecticut did not favor open, early discovery of the particulars of the state’s case. Witness statements could not be obtained prior to the completion of that witness’ testimony at trial. Having the opportunity to cross-examine a witness in advance of trial was a tactical bonus. Today defense lawyers are provided early access to the prosecutor’s file, eliminating the need for a dry run-through of the state’s case at a preliminary hearing.

Many lawyers will opt to waive the HPC, particularly in street crime situations. If a critical witness testifies at the HPC he is subject to full cross-examination. There are two important considerations for the lawyer. First, the witness’ testimony has been preserved and since he was subjected to cross the defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights are satisfied. If that witness fails to appear at trial the recorded testimony is admissible in his stead. Second, exposing the witness to the theories of a defense lawyer’s cross only allows the cunning, street-wise witness to better prepare to field the examination at trial. Given that probable cause is so easily established, little is often gained from conducting the hearing.

Amendola claimed the waiver was based on tactical reasons. He then spoke for an hour outside the court, castigating some of the victims, claiming they are motivated by the chance at big dollars in lawsuits against the University. If there is such a point to be made it could have been done effectively through an aggressive cross of the alleged victims. Amendola chose a press conference instead. His client would be well served if Amendola read the Rules of Professional Conduct in his state: “Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity. (a) A lawyer who is participating . . . in the . . . litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

Taking on the complainants in a press conference is like only playing a football game in the locker room.

Let me know what you think. Post your comments below or send me a Tweet @RichMeehan on Twitter.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

If you are a bilked investor, reeling from the revelations that your money that was to be segregated in the coffers of commodities broker, MF Global, you are looking forward to the testimony of former CEO Jon Corzine before the House Agriculture Committee. Mr. Corzine was originally expected to take refuge behind the Fifth Amendment. Corzine would appear to hold the answers to many of the questions surrounding the crash of MF Global, especially how investor money became commingled and lost. Despite the protection the Fifth offers Corzine’s prepared statement, reported today, indicates that he will answer questions. News reports indicate that he has no answer to that crucial question.

But what if he changes his posture and pleads the Fifth? We all know the most famous of our constitutional rights: “No person shall be . . . compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” A part of Americana, the Fifth was born out of the resistance of English Puritans in the seventeenth century to forced confessions. The concept first appeared in a petition to the English Parliament in 1647 by members of a political movement called the Levellers. The Puritans brought the concept to the New World and it eventually was incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

Taking the fifth, pleading the fifth, taking the nickel–no matter the reference–it is the single greatest protection afforded under the Constitution. In 1966, in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court declared that police had an affirmative obligation to inform those in custody of the panoply of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, central among those was the right to remain silent. Every criminal lawyer knows that the best thing a client can do when confronted by the police is to exercise this right, at least until an attorney can be retained.

As with any constitutional right, the Fifth can be waived. When that right attaches and what constitutes a valid voluntary waiver has spawned hundreds of judicial decisions. In a criminal trial that right means that the prosecution cannot compel the accused to take the stand and testify. A witness summoned before a grand jury, or a Congressional hearing, can safely invoke the privilege without the necessity of explaining to anyone, including the court, the reasons why the witness believes that answering questions may lead to self-incrimination. If the invoking witness was to be forced to justify the use of the privilege, that person would be inadvertently exposing precisely the information sought to be protected. The privilege wold be defeated in its very exercise.

In a criminal trial the accused has the right to testify and the right to elect not to testify. When a defendant declines to take the stand the judge will canvass that person in the absence of the jury, not to expose why the privilege is being exercised, but to insure that the defendant is aware of his rights and is making a knowing, voluntary waiver. Following that the court will instruct the jury that they may draw no adverse inference from the witness’ failure to take the stand.

In the case of the witness who invokes the privilege in the grand jury, the Government has the option to abandon its efforts or seek to immunize the witness. In the latter case the prosecutor would apply to the court for a grant of immunity. Again, the court cannot inquire of the recalcitrant witness why the privilege was exercised. Once immunized, the witness must testify or face being held in contempt. In the grand jury scenario the court can order that witness incarcerated until the witness either relents and agrees to testify or that grand jury’s term has expired.

Corzine has made it known that he presently intends to answer most questions in the Congressional inquiry. Ron Blagojevich was just hammered with a 14 year sentence, increased in part because he testified falsely at his trial. Unlike Jerry Sandusky, who can’t seem to shut up, Corzine may be well advised to “take the nickel.” If that occurs, for those who saw their money disappear, the questions will remain unanswered. Unfortunately, that is the American way.

Let me know what you think. Post your comments below or send me a Tweet @RichMeehan on Twitter.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

California Judge Michael Pastor sentenced Dr. Conrad Murray this week for the death of pop icon, Michael Jackson. Pastor delivered the maximum allowable sentence with sharp words of criticism for the fallen physician. He ordered Murray to serve four years, as well as make restitution to Jackson’s estate in excess of 100 million dollars. Murray was denied an appeal bond and immediately remanded to custody; but how much real “time” will Murray serve?

The increase in violent crime in the latter half of the last century led to tougher sentences. In turn prison populations increased past the point where the aging prison infrastructure could accommodate the influx. The result: institution of programs designed to find alternatives to actual incarceration while still paying lip service to the concept of getting tough on crime. Prison overcrowding often led to violent offenders being granted early release where many again committed additional violent crimes.

Many jurisdictions embraced the concept of indeterminate sentences. Rather than a flat term of years, an offender received a sentence ranging from a lower to a potentially higher term. After some minimum period of the lower term the inmate was now eligible for release on parole. The parole decision was to focus on the inmate’s adjustment while incarcerated, balanced against the need for society to be protected from further crimes.

Connecticut was an indeterminate sentencing state until 1981. Prior to that date a court could only sentence an inmate to a lower term of no more than one-half the maximum provided for that offense and a higher term up to the maximum. Thus, a five year felony sentence could be no more than two-and-one-half to five years. Inmates were eligible for parole release in advance of the expiration of the lower term, based on complicated “good time” credit rules. Inmates earned as much as five days per month credit which further reduced the minimum term.

In 1981 we moved to the concept of determinate sentences. Now a judge imposed a flat term of years. The defendant convicted of a five year felony could be sentenced to the full five years. In many instances the court would insure that the offender was also subject to probation by imposing a higher term then suspending that after a lesser period followed by a term of probation. Probation ran from 1 to 5 years (today sex offenders are subject to greater terms of probation from 10-35 years).

Despite the change to determinate sentencing, prison populations were increasing almost exponentially leading to programs like transitional supervision. Inmates were being released after they served a small fraction of the sentence.

In the mid-90′s sentencing reform advocates succeeded in passing laws referred to as Truth-in-Sentencing. The focal point of these laws was the violent offender. States and the federal Bureau of Prisons now required violent offenders to serve 85% of the determinate term imposed before they could be released. In most instances parole was abolished.

In this state, non-violent offenders serve 50% of their term before release. Violent offenders must serve 85% as of legislation that became effective on July 1, 1996. A link to the Department of Corrections website lists the specific offenses which are subject to the 85% requirement (http://www.ct.gov/doc/cwp/view.asp?a=1520&Q=270074&docNav=|)

As for Dr. Murray, California was among the states that adopted truth-in-sentencing laws in the mid-90′s, but news reports are indicating that due to jail overcrowding Murray will serve no more than 50% of his sentence. I suppose we should now refer to this as “half-truths-in sentencing.”

Let me know what you think. Post your comments below or send me a Tweet @RichMeehan on Twitter.

Comments(3)

|

E-mail

|

Print

The travails of former Penn State coach, Jerry Sandusky, are well known. It seems each week brings more revelations or more fall out. While the University and its former coaches deal with the growing scandal, Sandusky’s attorney, Joseph Amendola has been on the talk show circuit in an apparent attempt to counter the growing public perception that his client is a degenerate pedophile before a jury is even impaneled in his criminal case.

Monday, Amendola shocked the legal community with his controversial, impromptu offer to NBC’s Bob Costas to get Sandusky on the phone during the lawyer’s interview with Costas. What followed was a departure from all conventional legal advice– a client giving a recorded TV interview. It was live, unedited and direct. Costas did not sugar coat his questions, challenging Sandusky on the meat of the allegations that have been made public. Sandusky’s pregnant pause as he contemplated the question of whether he has a sexual attraction to young boys has stirred more debate. Did the interview help him in the court of public opinion? Does it even matter in his defense whether it did or didn’t?

Before the advent of reality legal shows like CourtTV and Nancy Grace, public comments about pending sensational cases were limited to news broadcasts and print media. With Twitter and the increase in televised trials cases have moved from the courtroom to your smartphone and TV screen. There is no denying the power of TV personalities to shape public opinion. How much would Casey Anthony be reviled if not for the constant barrage of opinion on her guilt from Nancy Grace and others on HLN nightly, during and after the trial. Interestingly, however, while they helped shape the post-verdict condemnation of Anthony, their constant rants did nothing to affect the jurors who acquitted Anthony.

So is Amendola’s interview tour the new wave in criminal defense? Having defended notorious cases I can attest that it is a simple task to get a public platform. Broadcast and print media are hungry for any inside information and will always reach out to the lawyers for interviews and comments. It doesn’t take a publicist to seek out journalists. Add to that the allure of being touted in national broadcasts, lawyers hungry for acclaim are easy targets. But there are rules, both written and unwritten, that should govern a lawyer’s decision to speak publicly. Amedola, however, went beyond just providing comment on a pending case, he offered up his client. One would be hard pressed to find support for such a decision among experienced criminal lawyers.

Let’s start with the lawyer’s ethical obligations. Connecticut’s Code of Professional Responsibility provides: “Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity (a) A lawyer . . . shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

The rule does not mandate silence but circumscribes what is permitted. The balance of the Rule would appear to insulate Amendola to some extent: “. . . a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this subsection shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.”

Ohio has a similar Code provision. The real question is not whether there has been a violation of an attorney code of conduct, but whether the decision to allow his client to speak publicly is one that an attorney of average competence would make. Here there is a real split. The new age of TV lawyers would probably support the decision if there was something tangible to be gained. Most traditional practitioners would recognize the pitfalls. Amendola had no control over the direction the interview would take. He placed his client at risk that he would make a statement that would further damage his cause. At the very least, he allowed a permanent record to be made that may be admissible at Sandusky’s trial.

On balance an experienced lawyer would weigh the risks versus the benefits from such an edgy play. Given the widespread comments of disbelief following the interview, one is hard pressed to see where they believed there would be an benefit to Sandusky.

Let me know what you think. Post your comments below or send me a Tweet @RichMeehan on Twitter.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

The evil allegedly perpetrated by ex-coach Jerry Sandusky has done more than tarnish a sterling football program’s reputation and brought down its iconic coach. What will most assuredly follow is a score of lawsuits, not unlike those involving the Catholic Church and pedophile priests. Sandusky will be the central target of these lawsuits, and the history of the legion of successful cases targeting the Catholic Church, demonstrates that the financial fall out will be substantial.

While Sandusky is the initial target, plaintiffs’ lawyers will be looking to the deeper, institutional pockets for compensation for these victims. Again, the Church cases provide the roadmap. Sexual abuse is a civil wrong (or tort ,as the law describes it) as well as a crime. For civil liability purposes it is referred to as an intentional tort. The victim is entitled to a panoply of potential damages, including in many instances, punitive damages. The dilemma for victims of intentional torts is how to collect those damages.

There is a significant difference for insurance indemnity purposes between intentional torts and negligent torts. One can insure against the possibility of a claim for negligence and be indemnified by an applicable insurance policy. In most instances insurance will not indemnify someone who is sued for an intentional act. In the instance of sexual abuse lawsuits there is generally no insurance policy to cover the verdicts or effectuate a settlement. For that reason if Sandusky acted alone, without any tolerance of his actions by the University, the victims would be left with a limited fund to pursue consisting of whatever Sandusky assets could be marshaled. In most instances the victories would be hollow and the victims would go uncompensated.

In the Church cases lawyers argued that the institutional defendant–the Church– knew of the predilections of its deviate priests and tacitly condoned those actions by failing to remove them from parishes or warn potential victims of the past wrongs. Generally, an employer is not responsible for the intentional wrongs of its agents, servants or employees unless the employer has past knowledge of those tendencies and has condoned such conduct in the past. If that is established the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, otherwise known as vicarious liability, applies; that is, the employer is now held responsible for the victim’s damages.

Thus, in the Penn State cases the University was put on notice of Sandusky’s alleged tortious conduct when Michael McQueary reported the alleged locker room rape of a ten year old. Once the report was made known the University became obliged to investigate the allegation, and if proven to have substance, then it triggered the further responsibility to eliminate the risk to other victims. Instead, it has been reported that Sandusky received mild sanctions and was permitted continued access to the campus’ sports facilities to run his youth programs. If all of this is proven true the University and its administrators may become responsible to indemnify the victims of any proven sexual abuse. The Church cases demonstrate that the settlements and verdicts will amount to millions of dollars.

Two other issues face the victims in pursuit of civil justice. The first is the statute of limitations. Prior to 2002 (ironic that it is the year of the first discovered Sandusky assault) Pennsylvania only provided minor victims of sex assault with an additional two years beyond their 18th birthday to bring suit. In that year, however, the statute was expanded until the young victim turned 30 (in Connecticut a victim has until age 35).

The additional issue is the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This doctrine finds its roots in the old English common law– “the King can do no wrong.” Under this concept state governments were generally exempt from being sued unless special legislation permitted it. For example, in Connecticut there are certain statutes that permit certain types of claims, such as injuries on public highways. In the absence of such statutes a citizen here must petition the State Claims Commissioner for permission to sue the state and its agents. That petition must be filed within One year of the wrong or the right to sue is forever lost.

PSU is a state university, and as such may be exempt from suit without some special provision in Pennsylvania law that would remove the bar of sovereign immunity. Whatever the eventual outcome, it is clear that the fallout from the Sandusky mess will effect more that PSU’s won/loss record on the gridiron.

Let me know what you think. Post your comments below or send me a Tweet @RichMeehan on Twitter.