Posts
Associated Press
Legal experts say emails and other
evidence from the Penn State sex abuse case suggest that Joe Paterno and
other university officials put boys in danger with their failure to
report sexual abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky more than a
decade ago.
The allegations are similar to those made against a top
Philadelphia archdiocese official who was convicted on child
endangerment charges last month.
Duquesne University law professor Wes Oliver said
former FBI Director Louis Freeh's investigative report on the Penn State
scandal reads like a prosecution case for a child endangerment charge
against Paterno, then-President Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim
Curley and now-retired vice president Gary Schultz.
Oliver noted that Monsignor William Lynn was convicted
for allowing a suspected pedophile priest to be around children.
Prosecutors said Lynn helped the Philadelphia archdiocese keep predators
in ministry and the public in the dark.
"If you look at what happened here, it's very clear
that they were aware that they had a pedophile on their campus," Oliver
said.
Will Spade, a former Philadelphia prosecutor who worked
on a grand jury investigation of priests about a decade ago, agreed:
"Spanier, Paterno, Schultz and Curley are arguably responsible for
endangering all of those kids that were abused later."
Freeh's report, released Thursday, also suggests that
Paterno may have misled a grand jury when asked when he first heard
about Sandusky's misconduct. Paterno died in January of lung cancer at
85.
So far, the only two figures arrested in the alleged
cover-up are Curley and Schultz. They were charged last fall with
perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse and are awaiting
trial. They have denied any wrongdoing.
Spanier, who was ousted as Penn State president over
the scandal, has not been charged, but a grand jury continues to
investigate
Paterno family spokesman Dan McGinn declined to comment on the criminal legal issues on Friday.
At the very least, the Freeh report provides powerful
ammunition to Sandusky victims looking to sue the university or
Paterno's estate.
The report said that Paterno and the other university
officials hushed up child sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky in
2001 for fear of bad publicity. Asked on Thursday whether the actions of
the four men amounted to a crime such as conspiracy or obstruction,
Freeh said that would be for a grand jury to decide. But the former FBI
chief and federal judge said the evidence shows "an active agreement to
conceal."
Freeh described Paterno as "an integral part" of that
agreement. According to his report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up a
plan that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of
Public Welfare in 2001. But Curley later said in an email that he
changed his mind "after giving it more thought and talking it over with
Joe."
The report also called into question the truthfulness
of Paterno's grand jury testimony last year, when he was asked whether
he knew of any abuse allegations against Sandusky before the 2001
episode in which Sandusky was spotted assaulting a boy in the locker
room showers.
"I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be
involved in of that nature, no," Paterno testified in a grand jury
appearance that lasted only a few minutes. He added that a rumor "may
have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I
don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a
rumor."
But emails published in the Freeh report suggest
Paterno closely followed a 1998 police investigation of Sandusky that
ended without charges. In an email captioned "Jerry," Curley asked
Schultz: "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know
where it stands."
Paterno, "were he alive, he would probably be
scrutinized right now, as we speak, by a grand jury," said Jeff
Anderson, a lawyer who represents a young man suing Sandusky, Penn State
and Sandusky's charity over claims of sexual abuse. "When he did give
testimony, now revealed to have been dubious at best and false on its
face, that is illegal perjury because it was given under oath. So he is
exposed."
Perjury, though, is rarely charged and is famously
difficult to prove at trial. A jury has to find corroborating evidence
of the falsehood, and the lie has to be intentional, not a simple
misstatement. In Paterno's case, prosecutors would have had to prove
that Paterno had not simply forgotten about the 1998 investigation,
according to University of Pennsylvania law professor Chris Sanchirico.
When the scandal broke wide open last November,
Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly said Paterno was not an
investigative target. On Friday, Kelly spokesman Nils Frederiksen
refused to discuss the investigation, citing the confidentiality of
grand jury proceedings.
Spanier's lawyers had no comment Friday but have denied he knowingly covered up Sandusky's crimes.
On the civil side, Paterno's role in the scandal could
expose his estate to liability, said Altoona lawyer Richard Serbin, who
has pursued lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Church and other
institutions in Pennsylvania for the past 25 years. Paterno was
considerably wealthy; he and his wife donated millions to the
university, and in April the school paid millions in retirement benefits
to his family and estate.
"When a responsible party passes away, that does not
mean to say their wrongful conduct is excused by death," said Serbin,
who does not represent any of Sandusky's victims. "Their estate becomes
the representative of that person, and assets of their estate ... remain
exposed to any verdict or judgment."
___
Dale contributed to this report from Philadelphia.
0 comments:
Post a Comment