By Dick Miller
WE.CONNECT.DOTS: What do former PA Supreme Justice Cynthia Baldwin and Attorney Wendell Courtney have in common?
The short answer is that both were legal counsels to Penn State, are frequently mentioned in the scandal involving convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky and – to date – each has been able to dance through the raindrops.
Justice Baldwin is a Penn State alumnus, was president of the alumni association, chaired the Board of Trustees and served as general counsel to the University. According to news reports she convinced Trustees to resist calls for independent oversight of athletic programs several years ago. The additional eyes might have detected problems with Sandusky earlier than Gov. Tom Corbett’s slow-walking criminal investigation.
After Corbett cashed his contribution checks from the PSU nation and rolled over his even slower-moving Democratic opponent, the probe into Sandusky’s molestations increased pace.
Corbett needed cover for slow-walking the investigation. He and his handpicked successor for Attorney General, Linda Kelly, widened the probe. They went after PSU officials under a seldom-enforced law that requires people in a position of oversight to report suspicions of child endangerment.
Convenient for them, famed coach Joe Paterno – one of their targets – died shortly after being named a “person of interest.”
Two others, Tim Curley, former athletic director, and Gary Schultz, retired VP for finance and business have been indicted for their roles in the alleged cover-up.
They have been charged with perjury before the indicting grand jury.
Justice Baldwin drove them from State College to Harrisburg to testify before the grand jury. Curley and Schultz believed Baldwin was their legal counsel. They claim they did not hear Baldwin tell Barry Fuedale, presiding judge over the grand jury, her purpose there was to represent Penn State.
Now Corbett and Kelly’s successor, Kathleen Kane, wants to use Baldwin as a witness to support the perjury claims. Lawyers for Curley and Schultz have raised malpractice issues with Baldwin’s conduct. Legal experts question Fuedale’s propriety in permitting Baldwin to hear secret testimony.
Last week the state Supreme Court rejected defendant motions to stop Baldwin from testifying. That court, instead, says this is a question for trial Judge Todd Hoover first. There may be no trials of the three defendants in 2013.
Kane, the first elected Democrat to be attorney-general, took over in January. Democrats should not expect her to conduct the office for personal and political gain like her predecessors. However, in her first six months on the job, Kane appears to be moving the cases at Penn State in a manner that will vindicate Corbett, quickly shut down a multi-year investigation of Corbett’s friends as trustees at the Hershey Foundation and indicted the most recent Democrat leadership at the Turnpike.
If Wendell Courtney did not keep his low profile, the smear case against Curley, Schultz, former PSU president Graham Spanier and Paterno might unravel. This direction would further substantiate critics’ contention that Corbett manipulated investigation events to – at the least – avoid damage to his campaign.
Spanier has also been indicted based, at least somewhat, on testimony by Baldwin. His lawyers also dispute her continued denial of attorney-client privilege. Baldwin’s version is, conveniently, never to individuals, always to PSU.
Courtney was outside general counsel to PSU 1980 to 2010. For thirteen years, he was also pro bono counsel for the Second Mile, a state college non-profit run by Sandusky. Second Mile’s mission was to help wayward boys.
Courtney did not testify before the grand jury and declined to be interviewed by Freeh’s staff. Other grand jury testimony indicated that one victim of Sandusky’s molestations told his mother he showered with Sandusky in 1998. She called PSU police. As counsel to PSU, Courtney reviewed the police report before sending it on to Centre County District Attorney.
Bottom Line – Is there any doubt why lawyers and judges are minimally represented in the prison population? The reasons should be they know the laws and take an oath. What baloney! Instead, perception is they are a fraternity that looks out for one another.
