You're watching...
Former Penn State coach to appeal child sex abuse conviction; lawyer responds
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
And in the impact segment to -- may know former Penn State football coach Jerry sandusky convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse.
He's expected to get life in prison when he is sentenced in September however.
His -- say they will appeal and are also asking for a -- -- that despite what one of sandusky lawyer said right after the jury verdict.
The judge in this case was marvelous judge Cleveland.
Was the ultimate jurors he -- -- He was firm.
He was reasonable.
With everything we asked for I believe the jury -- did -- the evidence that was presented to it.
And I don't dispute or have any problem with the jury's verdict.
That was indices co counsel Joseph Amendola.
And joining us now from Harrisburg Pennsylvania call -- -- -- the other co counsel imparted to them and -- in this case.
So it seems muted and then you're appealing we're going to appeal.
And but you're guy here partisan -- on everybody -- the right things so what are you basing your appeal.
Well if you listen carefully he said based on the evidence they had in front of them -- partly we weren't able to present everything we wanted to.
Secondly we weren't given enough time to prepare which is a major issue seven months without enough I think.
I know it wasn't.
We were given -- to the documents within days of trial literally thousands the month before.
Which is to two of us expected to read through cross for us to do any -- -- I wanna be very precise here so even though you had seven months to prepare for the trial.
The prosecution.
Which is required to hand over documents.
To you did it how long before the actual trial began how when did you get a final.
Stop that the final belt of documents literally days before -- -- we statue we face is not exaggeration a week Tommy was two weeks.
Within two -- within two weeks a trial.
We received thousands of podcasts so you say that it -- enough time for you to go over these prepared the defense that your client is entitled to.
Correct what -- is there anything else that you you want a new trial while would you want a new trial.
Well first of all the governor just signed a bill here in Pennsylvania which will allow for the use of psychological -- -- -- and sexual cases.
We believe that we could have presented -- psychologists who would have been able to explain.
Certain aspects of the case but couldn't because Pennsylvania law doesn't allow that.
But will allow it in a few days I don't I don't really cronies -- -- yeah I don't really know we go in here because there's so much testimony against you were client.
So many people had stepped forward then you -- -- you know the witnesses in the shower and you have all of this stuff.
Now I understand a robust defense is part of the constitution and we all get that.
But I'm not sure.
It looks to me and correct me from long that you trying to use technicalities.
To get a guy off.
Who.
Is guilty beyond a reasonable -- -- you trying to use this system somehow they are we -- had this experts say luck.
The overwhelming evidence is that -- did it because I did it.
The easy answer there is anybody can argue that any lawyers trying to -- used to system the government used -- to exclude certain evidence.
The government use the rules of discovery didn't give a sort of -- -- -- -- -- bottom -- on any appeal is this.
Did the guy do it.
And I think that your co counsel was pretty clear in his statements after the trial that he had any -- With what was presented no way it was presented and he thought the judge and and everybody else did the job that they are required to do.
And we have appellate courts because one out of five times judges make the wrong decisions.
In the course of their employment doesn't mean they're bad judge report jurist it's just simply -- -- wrong judgment call -- the wrong moment.
Data -- Linux has come on -- just yeah you sound like -- stand up guy you and I have done -- a compliment.
Are you coming on and you your answer new questions straightforwardly and that's what we like us which you really feel comfortable with this that you get this -- -- -- off on a technicality which usually we have.
Him walking around which you feel personally comfortable without.
You know years ago I got a guy off on a technicality and that district attorney came out to me so I hope you're happy and I looked at the district attorney said.
If -- -- just done a B and C you could have admitted that evidence so really the only reason these trees -- you didn't do your job ahead but would you dodge your question now.
I'm not here you might be perfectly right that the prosecution didn't do what they would supposed to do we -- as a human being.
Would you feel comfortable having a skywalk and around the streets of America I.
If if he's guilty the answer is no of course not my problem -- that -- though as I'm sworn.
Sworn to zealous advocacy and so I can't second guess a person's guilt or innocence only the jury decides -- my job as a safeguard the process itself.
It's unfair to put me in a position to say which -- how would you feel I only feel well if I do my job to my best ability and I.
