Why wasn't Sandusky's son called to testify?

This transcript is automatically generated

We deliberations under way for the second day in the child sex abuse trial of former Penn State football coach Jerry sandusky and we're told that the jurors.

Are once again listening to a few hours of testimony from some of the prosecution's star witnesses.

Including former Penn State assistant Mike McQueary who claims to have witnessed one of these acts take place and -- faces 48 counts.

And a possibility of life in prison.

A total of ten alleged victims have come forward many of them testifying touring this trial.

And now comes the shocking news from San does he's adopted son Matthew sand dust he whose lawyers -- -- That he was prepared to testify.

Claiming that he was also abused by his father.

Fred TC is a former federal prosecutor Jennifer bond -- is a criminal.

Defense attorney Jennifer what do you make of this news about Matthew.

Coming forward offering his testimony why wouldn't.

We have been called.

What -- look I'm not surprised.

That he too was abused are allegedly abused by -- -- in fact and the president took so long for this to be revealed to the public.

I think -- at this belated hour the eleventh hour allegation that the prosecution was wise not to actually have -- called as a witness because remember not.

Indictment none of the charges alleged in the indictment involved claims against this particular victim these would be presented -- uncharged other crimes evidence.

And the defense is gonna stand -- And say -- -- -- notice of this we know -- we're gonna make these allegations so two inch in this sort of possible -- is possible prejudice to the defense at the eleventh hour would -- create some air that the prosecution doesn't want to -- want any.

Possibility that they have to retry this case and put those victims back on.

And Fred there were also comments from Matthew San -- early on.

Supporting his father Fred.

Saying that his father didn't abuse him and actually showing up at different events supporting his -- to that -- been problematic for the prosecution to right.

It -- a -- Rick I know Jimmy getting -- he's -- about as good as they dead and I disagree with Jennifer one point she's absolutely right the prosecution is not Smart not to call this guy.

But but for different reasons first of all he was on the defense list as a witness so they can't argue surprised.

But more importantly you don't wanna rush in and put this guy on position you know that he -- come out support his father he's publicly denied that he was the victim of -- any type of abuse.

By by Jerry sandusky -- You know what I would not -- put the guy on I think it would have been too dangerous and quite frankly.

-- -- I believe the stories the prosecution.

You to use the threat of this kid and rebuttal to keep sandusky off the stand.

I will let the guy testify I think he would have been the worst -- personal moral and would have gone down pick themselves down like a -- a sledge -- -- what about about what happens what about the fact Jennifer that that the jury is asked to be re read.

The testimony of the -- coach Mike McQueary what about that.

Once I would be concerned about that because they're not only looking for -- -- testimony but they were looking for some -- testimony that.

Impeachment queries testimony so his credibility to believability of what he's saying is at play at the same time remember my queries testimony.

Although corroborates all the claims really involves one -- I believe only one count Andy and me the count that involve young man.

In in the -- who never testified himself because we still don't know who he was so it's possible that this jury is just doing what the judge instructed them to do.

Which is to take each count separately analyze each one separately you can't say he's guilty of all that just because he's guilty of some of it.

So I think the jury's probably just being very cautious following the judge's instruction -- -- response to do.

And what about Fred V this strategy on the part of the defense to paint this as one giant conspiracy.

Against -- -- -- how -- juries usually take that argument.

It you know first of all I think that's absolutely ridiculous and outrageous -- that that law enforcement a decade and a half ago decided to get together.

And go after some guy who extensively had dedicated his life.

They're helping children that they were going along only -- this guy you know is being as of being up had a file.

I I think that that that is.

-- borders on obnoxious but I'll tell you want they want peace admissible really refute -- Remember the jury heard testimony.

That there were falsified contracts -- sand dust he had made up to give to the schools obese children the victims.

So that he could justify spending time and being with them.

And the second mile -- said these conference we've never seen and paralyzed so.

This whole conspiracy thing would have had to include the planning -- contracts in -- and thus he's possession I don't see it.

Deliberations continue day to for the jurors up -- Pennsylvania Jennifer bond -- Fred TC thank you both think that.

Watch Live

Why wasn't Sandusky's son called to testify?

Details

Clips

Editor's Picks

Sen. Rand Paul: Obama's speech is a 'misdirection campaign'

Franklin Graham: How the IRS targeted my religious charities

Obama’s foreign policy address

Obama shifts focus to counterterrorism policies

Gutfeld: World, meet radical Islam

Rep. Cantor: Lois Lerner owes Americans an 'explanation'

What evidence will be key in George Zimmerman trial?

Lawmakers overlooking CIA's role in Benghazi attack?

British PM David Cameron vows to never give in to terror

Did IRS official wave Fifth Amendment rights at hearing?

Biking with Bush: Wounded vets join president for ride

Did Benghazi attack derail Romney's presidential campaign?

Transcript

Recommended