Sandusky jury resumes deliberating after review

Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky arrives at the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa., June 22, 2012. / AP Photo

Updated at 12:02 p.m. ET

(CBS/AP) BELLEFONTE, Pa. - Jurors in Jerry Sandusky's child sex abuse trial resumed deliberations Friday morning after listening again to testimony from a key prosecution witness in their second day of weighing the high-profile case against the former Penn State assistant football coach.

The jurors took copious notes as they listened to lawyers read the testimony from Mike McQueary and Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a family friend of McQueary's. CBS News' Paula Reid reports from the courthouse that the reading of McQueary's testimony took a little more than an hour.

McQueary told the court he saw Sandusky engaging in a sex act with a young boy in a Penn State shower in 2001. Dranov later testified that McQueary told him a different version of the story that didn't include the then-graduate assistant seeing sexual contact.

However, McQueary testified that he hadn't told Dranov all that he saw.

Sandusky paid close attention as attorneys read the transcripts. His wife, Dottie, sat behind him chewing gum.

Special Section: The Penn State Scandal
Sandusky jury asks to rehear testimony
Sandusky jury resumes work unaware of new allegation

Sandusky is accused of sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period, using his charity for at-risk youth, The Second Mile, as a source of victims who would be dazzled by gifts, grateful for his attention and — perhaps most importantly — unlikely to speak up.

Sandusky has repeatedly denied the allegations. The defense portrayed him as the hapless victim of a conspiracy to convict him of heinous crimes. They explain the 48 charges against him as the result of an investigatory team out for blood and accusers who willingly played along in hopes of securing a big payday.

23 Photos

Jerry Sandusky gets 30 to 60 years in prison

When Friday's readings were finished, Judge John Cleland told jurors he wanted them to move along in their deliberations and that in the future they would have to rely on their memories of testimony because he isn't inclined to take up more time doing additional readings, Reid reports.

The jury deliberated for more than eight hours Thursday before adjourning at the end of a long session that featured dueling portrayals of Sandusky as a "predatory pedophile" or the victim of a conspiracy between investigators and his accusers.

Shortly after the jury began deliberations Thursday, attorneys for Sandusky's 33-year-old adopted son, Matt, dropped a bombshell, saying he'd been sexually abused by the former coach and had been prepared to testify against him if called to the stand.

Sequestered during deliberations, the jury was under orders from Cleland to ponder only the case placed in their hands.

The jury heard from eight accusers who claim Sandusky engaging in sexual contact ranging from kissing and fondling to forced oral or anal sex.

One testified he felt at times like Sandusky's son, at others his "girlfriend."

A second accuser — a foster child at the time authorities say he was abused — said Sandusky threatened he would never see his biological family again if he told anyone he was forced to perform sex acts but later took it back and claimed to love him.

One accuser testified to receiving what he called "creepy love letters" from Sandusky. "I know that I have made my share of mistakes," read one handwritten note. "However, I hope that I will be able to say that I cared. There has been love in my heart."

The defense said the longwinded letters were simply the manifestation of a personality disorder characterized by excessive emotionality and attention seeking.

Two people who prosecutors say were sexually abused by Sandusky haven't been identified. McQueary's testimony is the basis for charges involving one of those alleged victims.

It was also McQueary's testimony that touched off the massive scandal that rocked Penn State and forced a re-examination of the role of college administrators in reporting abuse allegations.

Sandusky has denied the allegations, but did not testify in his own defense. Jurors are aware, however, of the denials he gave "Rock Center" just after his arrest. In it, Sandusky seemed to stumble at times and struggled to give direct answers to questions about his conduct.

Asked if he was sexually attracted to boys, Sandusky told NBC's Bob Costas: "Sexually attracted, you know, I, I enjoy young people. I, I love to be around them. ... No, I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."

Senior Deputy Attorney General Joseph McGettigan III seized on that in closing arguments, saying: "I would think that the automatic response, if someone asks you if you're a criminal, a pedophile, a child molester, or anything along those lines, would be: 'You're crazy. No. Are you nuts?"'

Prosecutors said Sandusky used gifts and the allure of Penn State's vaunted football program to attract and abuse vulnerable boys who came from troubled homes, often ones without a father figure in the house.

"What you should do is come out and say to the defendant that he molested and abused and give them back their souls," McGettigan told jurors. "I give them to you. Acknowledge and give them justice."

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[RCC_Soldaten]

There are 48 counts that the jury has to reach a verdict on. Then there is the paperwork. It takes a while.

[bonzothemonkey]

Since his adopted son has come out and accused Sandusky of abuse, this seems to make a real case for allowing any criminal trial to be "reconvened" when critical evidence comes out prior to the sentencing of a defendant.

[ToxicKitty]

This is another perfect example of the jury system gone bad. The problem with a jury of ordinary citizens is that most people are just plain stupid. Eight hours of deliberation? Come on folks, let's not over think it. This is the same kind of jury that let Casey Anthony walk.

[booker59]

The jury hasn't reached a verdict yet, so unless you're just getting really nervous I don't see any grounds for criticizing them as of now. And I don't get your point about 8 hours of deliberation? Is that too much or not enough?

[lloydbest1]

First, let me get this out of the way:

Jerry Sandusky IS Guilty. Not doubt. He did it. All of it. And the chances he was the innocent victim of a vindictive, fame seeking prosecution and gold digging accusers are so infinitesimally small it isn't even worth discussing among the general public. He should be hung by his unmentionables until he passes out.

But I have to ask.....How would you do things differently? How would any of those frothing at the mouth, as I am, work this to gain the outcome the vast majority of us want without completely twisting our justice system beyond recognition?

In my opinion, trial by jury works better than anything we've tried in the past and I can't think of a new and untried approach that would work any better. It obviously isn't perfect; O.J. got a pass as did those police officers who were caught on good (for the time) quality video beating the <censored> out of Rodney King are only two examples of "justice" going off the tracks. I'm sure you can think of others.

We have the luxury of insisting on S's. guilt. As does his prosecuters. The jury does not. It can't. They need to decide this thing on the evidence (and it IS overwhelming) and not on emotion. If I, and I alone were the arbiter of his fate, he would have been worm food before May Day. But we can't go off and do things like that. Not here. If he turned out to be innocent after all, fat chance though that may be, I would bear guilt for the rest of my life.

Perhaps the greatest gife America has given this world was a definitive statement of "innocent until proven guilty" that applies to all who come under the baleful eye of the court.

[Aceduece]

Unfortunately today I feel that some jurors take the statement "beyond a reasonable doubt" too far. It's almost like if they didn't see a crime with their own eyes that there is reasonable doubt. The justice system needs to insert a phrase indicating "common sense" also.

[SuKeCe]

I hope that Sandusky's wife will also be on trial for aiding in child abuse. She's standing by her man then and now. Both need to be prosecuted.

Then, justice in the ranks at Penn State need to be in line for prosecution.
Society needs to remedy this horrible injustice to the victims, fully.

[cynthiascott301k]

I am anxiously awaiting the Jury's decision in this trial.

[cynthiascott301k]

The people's case are very damning and strong against the accuse. I have belief in this jury that justice will prevail no matter what. The defense team should stop making false accusation against the Prosecution teams of coaching the abuse afflicted children in their quirk for justice.

[jwilsonte5]

This seems almost like procution droped ball maybe on purpose!! Other thing procution did like allow professors from penn state on jury! and than had fellow professors as witness for sandusky the perv.seems they could of put his son on stand and penn state has lot at risk all professors could lose there jobs.Something besides sandusky STINKS !!

[americalove1]

I'm hoping the deliberations aren't too quick. Hopefully, the jury will take its time. As reported by attorneys, and shown, for example, by the OJ Simpsom trial, a quick verdict usually favors the defendent.

[booker59]

On the jury thing, I'm kind of ambivalent. The judge did point out that because of the nature of the location and how central Penn State is to the area, it would be impossible to find a jury that isn't connected somehow, but when I read the backgrounds of the jurors I was a little startled at HOW directly intertwined so many are with the people involved in the case. And americalove1, I remember when it was announced the OJ verdict had been reached so quickly, and in a room full of people waiting for it I was the only one who said, "It's gonna be not guilty", only because I believed that after the months of testimony and mountains of evidence no jury would be able to go through it all and take the responsibility for a guilty verdict that fast, but "reasonable doubt" would not take nearly as long.

[51saint]

The prosecution didn't hear about it until yesterday & they can't introduce new testimony without first supplying the defense with it. But the good news is that if he gets acquitted he'll be charged with new crimes of abuse and incest! The way this judge is behaving he might just let Sandusky off with some ridiculous sentence of a couple of years, even if he's found guilty. This is the same judge that has already said the prosecution didn't have a strong case & has dropped some of the charges. If he gets retried for his son's abuse it would probably be a different judge, maybe one with some sense! And it would add years to his sentence, keeping him off the street and saving more kids from his vile attacks.
One thing that I don't understand is that number 10 for his victim count. Where did they come up with that number? For every guy that has come forward there are at least 10 more that haven't, due to shame, death, criminal behavior because of their abuse at Sandusky's hand. When you are abused by an adult that you trust it warps the way you see the world, you often don't trust anyone after that. And you feel worthless so you don't care what happens to you, one hell is just like another. I know that because for 60 years that's the way I've been living. I have to pray every day that I can accept any feelings of joy in my life because I don't feel worthy of it. I hope that at least these victims will be able to trust in our justice system and feel even a little redemption! Me, I don't trust our country's justice system as far as I can throw it! It's just another piece of Hell in my book!!!

[Abigail79413]

He is going down - hopefully - this could turn out to be another OJ Simpson trial. You never know