Judge to Sandusky jurors: Consider what witnesses have to gain or lose

By: Crimesider Staff
Topics: 911 ,; Daily Blotter

Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky leaves the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa., June 20, 2012.

/ AP Photo

(CBS) BELLEFONTE, Pa. - Judge John Cleland gave the jury in the child-sex abuse case against Jerry Sandusky its instructions for deliberation Thursday morning. He told them that, "poor judgment does not in and of itself amount to criminality," and to consider "whether the witnesses have anything to gain or lose by the outcome of the case."

Pictures: Child-sex scandal rocks Penn State

"It is not necessarily a crime for an adult to touch a child," said Judge Cleland. "For example, it is not a crime for a downhill skiing coach to grab a hold of a child's leg to grab hold of a child's leg to reduce their speed...It is a crime for a man to have oral sex with a boy or have the boy perform oral sex on him."

He continued: "Other forms of physical contact are more problematic. It is not necessarily a crime for a man to take a shower for a boy, to wash a boy's hair or rub a boy's shoulder."

The jury, he said, must "distinguish expression of familiar and family affection from and act of lust...If he did not act out of sexual desire then he did not commit a crime even if he did act with poor judgment."

Sandusky is accused of six crimes - involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of a minor, endangering the welfare of a child, indecent assault and attempted indecent assault of a child - stemming from accusation he abused 10 boys over 15 years in hotels, at his home and in the football team's showers.

On Thursday, Judge Cleland dropped three of the 51 charges against him. Sandusky denies the allegations.

Additional reporting by CBS News' Paula Reid in Bellefonte, Pa.

Complete coverage of the Jerry Sandusky trial on CBSNews.com

23 Photos

Jerry Sandusky gets 30 to 60 years in prison

View the Full Gallery »

22 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 22 Comments


by Lifesablast June 21, 2012 8:20 PM EDT: Just think, the crimes against his son Matt are not included in this
trial. He can and probably will be prosecuted for these newly found
crimes. That should keep the Alumni Association pouring in money for
his defense for a good long time. But here's hoping they find him
Guilty.; Reply to this comment

by Jaylah54100 June 21, 2012 8:15 PM EDT

Of course, dotty Dotty has nothing to "gain or lose", right?

I mean, if her husband goes to prison for the rest of his life, and all of their savings are taken away for legal fees and victim reparation, and she loses her big house in the 'burbs, she'd be okay with that, right?

Reply to this comment


by jyez07420 June 21, 2012 10:15 PM EDT: agree 100%. the judge has no business pointing this out, that seems a question more for the defense to raise in closing arguments. it also is weird that he doesn't question, as you say, the motivations of his wife and others in his getting off. he should never have gone there. i can make a guess to his motives, but i'll keep quiet on those...just as he should have done.


by endrepubs June 21, 2012 7:58 PM EDT: Fair question by the judge. The accusers stand to gain large sums of cash from Penn State. Penn State has deep pockets and will pay dearly for this crime. Pay out will probably be in the Tens of Millions of dollars.; Reply to this comment


by friend2012 June 21, 2012 7:51 PM EDT: This is one of the worst story I have ever followed. Little boys who have been taken advantage of because they believed they could attend football games and meet the Penn State players. I for one can not think of anything bad enough for Sandusky even his wife makes me sick.

It really makes me sad.; Reply to this comment


by MichaelinAtlanta June 21, 2012 2:37 PM EDT: When you serve on a jury in a criminal trial, you have the right, the power and the duty to vote as your conscience and common sense dictate. Because the conscience and common sense of jurors is the whole reason we have jury trials in the first place!; Reply to this comment

by jnpgh June 21, 2012 1:39 PM EDT

I would like this judge to explain to me and the rest of the world just how oral/anal sex performed on a minor by an adult is "an expression of familiar or family affection" and NOT an "act of lust" or sexual desire??

Just how would that work???

Are you KIDDING me!!!

Where did they find this judge? The Second Mile fan club??

Reply to this comment


by finchart June 21, 2012 4:32 PM EDT: the judge has his own victims i am sure. i am a survivor and this wreaks of the immature white male ego. lies, lies and more hedonistic lies.


by canislupus16 June 21, 2012 1:25 PM EDT: Sounds like Judge John Cleland is just another pedo. While his instructions about "familial touching" may be valid, I have to wonder why he even ventured into the territory of what the accusers stand to gain or lose - it's irrelevant and a distraction from the task at hand. For example, if Sandusky is guilty - and I believe the effin pervert is - and the accusers stand to gain big sums of money from various civil lawsuits, so what? Cleland is an idiot. They sound like some pretty weird instructions.; Reply to this comment


by tmn June 21, 2012 1:09 PM EDT: Jerry could end up in a penal institution - imagine!; Reply to this comment

by 167irishboy June 21, 2012 1:06 PM EDT

This trial should have been moved outside of Pennsylvania.

Sounds like the judge has a skybox on the fifty yard line for the Penn State football games. What a disgrace for someone in the position of a judge to instruct a jury on what they should consider when deliberating their judgement.

Just like most of the other rich, powerful, or celebrity defendants, O.J. Sandusky's jury will let him go free. Once he abuses some other kids out there in the world maybe they'll finally put him behind bars where he belongs.

Reply to this comment


by twmat311 June 21, 2012 2:36 PM EDT: You nailed it with the 1st line. Plus they hold the trial right down the PSU highway, where conveniently picked jurors could be found.

by twmat311 June 21, 2012 1:03 PM EDT

What if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict - what's the chance this judge will vacate it?

Reply to this comment


by twmat311 June 21, 2012 4:03 PM EDT: I've been in PA too long to think that judges and juries here are impartial and objective. This jury is largely PSU aligned (employees, a student, other loyalists); who's to say the judge isn't?