ESPN / AP: Dauphin County Judge Todd Hoover ruled Tuesday that the defendants [three former Penn State administrators] could not call to the stand Cynthia Baldwin, who accompanied the men to grand jury appearances in 2011 and then testified against them.
Baldwin was the university’s top lawyer, and the defendants believe she violated attorney-client privilege.
Hoover wants the lawyers to submit proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions, followed by oral arguments… (more)
EDITOR: This entire prosecution is highly questionable. Not only is it inappropriate for a lawyer to appear to be representing defendants but in fact be serving their adversary, but the entire prosecution smacks of retroactive morality. Even though they were wrong by today’s higher standards, their motivations were pure and their actions not out of the ordinary for the times.
If changes in societal approaches to situations are to be grounds for retroactive prosecution, almost everyone over sixty should do prison time. This includes the Editor.
WOW! The editor appears to have taken a page out of the Lancaster Newspaper Complete Ignorance And Out of Touch With Reality Column! I wonder if the editor would feel the same way if his son was raped by Sandusky? If you hid heinous crimes, then yes, you too should be in prison with Jerry. I used to think this site was a good alternative to LancNews for the folks in Lancaster, but it seems the NewsLanc editor is following in their footsteps.
EDITOR: Try reading the comment again. The issue is not about raping of boys. It is about how the allegations were dealt.
In hindsite it should have been different. Perhaps the accused deserved to be fired. But we do not see a criminal intent on their part.
Ten years ago many executives would have handled matters as they did. Even as rightous a person as Joe Paterno admitted he wished had done things differently.
The Sandusky scandal has caused society to change our attitudes, which is good. But it is not reason to play the hypocrite and act as though what the accused did was not in accordance with the practices of the time.
You made some good points in your elaboration, I do agree with you. Thank you for the clarifying response.