E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJudge allows more visitation, won't restrict former coach from going outside. NBC's Chris Clackum reports.
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Jerry Sandusky can see most of his grandchildren while he awaits trial, the judge overseeing the child sex abuse against the former coach said Monday.
The judge ruled that Sandusky can also use a jury chosen from the State College, Penn., area to hear his case.
Judge John Cleland ordered the state attorney general's office to disclose the ages of purported victims at the time the crimes are said to have occurred, as well as the times, dates and locations of when prosecutors said they happened.
"If, after a reasonable attempt it is apparent that a jury cannot be selected within a reasonable time, then I will reconsider this ruling," Cleland wrote.
The former Penn State assistant football coach appeared in court Friday morning for a hearing that covered conditions of his bail. Sandusky had sought eased bail restrictions that would allow him access to his grandchildren.
Related: Sandusky hearing covers bail conditions
In his ruling, Cleland said Sandusky can see the children under their parents' supervision, except for three grandchildren who are the subject of custody litigation.
Prosecutors had sought to have Sandusky confined to his home after hearing complaints from neighbors about the safety of children, particularly at an elementary school behind Sandusky's house, but the judge denied that request.
The attorney general's office also wanted an out-of-county jury for trial, but the judge decided on a local jury.
According to the ruling, a coordinator may limit the number of people who are allowed to visit Sandusky at any one time. Visits will be limited to two hours, three times a week. Requests to leave the residence in the company of his counsel must be submitted 36 hours in advance.
Sandusky, 68, faces 52 criminal counts for what prosecutors say was sexual abuse of 10 boys over a 15-year period. He has denied the allegations.
Sandusky was released on Dec. 8, 2011 after posting a $250,000 bail. He was placed under electronic monitoring and house arrest. According to court documents, Sandusky has 11 grandchildren, whose ages range from 2 to 14 years old.
Cleland has set a tentative trial date for mid-May.
The Harrisburg Patriot-News reported Monday that former Penn State athletic director Tim Curley, 57, asked a judge to dismiss the perjury charge he’s facing as part of the Sandusky scandal, saying through his attorney that the late Joe Paterno's testimony would have provided the evidence that prosecutors needed.
Pittsburgh attorney Caroline Roberto said in a motion filed in Dauphin County court Monday that Paterno’s statements can’t be used at trial, since she had no chance to cross-examine him when he testified before the secret grand jury, the paper reported. Pennsylvania law requires corroboration in a perjury charge.
Prosecutors accused Curley and former Penn State vice president Gary Schultz of failing to take appropriate action after former assistant coach Mike McQueary told them he had seen Sandusky assault a young boy in the locker room shower and then lying to the investigating grand jury about what they were told.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
Biological relatives are given too much access to children when the relative obviously has mental issues. Sandusky should not be allowed in the same room with ANY children, just as Powell should have never had his two sons when he killed them. Sandusky needs serious counseling. He doesn't need to see any children!
53 Criminal counts!!!!!!!!!!!!1You have got to be kidding me. This guy has so bought this judge. If this was you or I with 53 Criminal counts, we would have had 1 million dollar bond and sitting our behinds in jail. This is just plain disgusting. He should have NO contact with Any child. Parental supervision of these kids seeing him? What protection do those kids have? His kids aren't going against his wishes. Heck his wife admits to knowing what was going on. What makes anyone think his kids didn't know as well. When are we going to start protecting our young? I am just shocked the judge would give this man allowances like this. The judge was just plain bought, for more than the bond no doubt. disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is going on here? What are these judges thinking? While his criminal acts remain allegations, have the trial and however that washes out--then allow him to be around children. Ah, our great criminal justice system at work, where innocents are put behind bars and wrongfully convicted (i.e. usually minorities and the poor) while wealthy and well-connected white , and yes, minority guys too, are given carte blanche treatment!
I, for one, am sick of it. Protect the children!
Find some other board for your spam. Reported.
What part of Child Abuse does the judge not understand? So his solution is to let the guy see kids?
Why not let the Crack Head visit his dealer while your at it..
This guy shouldn't even be out on bail at all. I mean, look at the California teacher Mark Berndt...he was charged with only 23 counts compared to Sandusky's 52, and MB's bail was set at 23 Million, as it should. Plus, ANY abuse of ANY kind against kids is hands down untolerable, but if you read what each man is being charged of and what each of the counts are, Sandusky's charges are seemingly worse than Berndt's (again, ALL are bad, but when I say "worse" I mean that Sandusky is charged with rape type situations while the teacher is being charged with more sicko-child porn type stuff involving pictures...I haven't seen anything yet where Berndt was actually raping kids).
It's just a shame...because of one man's fame, he gets a bail set lower than what most normal citizens would get if they had a large amount of pot. Berndt's bail is more realistic...as I feel that even ONE SINGLE count of any type of sexual based child abuse should be an automatic denial of bail. And to the Sandusky supporters, I hear your cries of "innocent until proven guilty"....but when there is a credible witness who has nothing to gain, only everything to lose by telling the truth in what he witnessed in the shower that day on campus...then save your breath as this guy is as good as a death sentance.
As he should. He's not accused of molesting his relatives. In fact, even those he's accused of molesting kids, they actually haven't found a kid he's molested. All of his accusers are adults.
Not saying he's innocent. It's just interesting he was able to hide this from his family for so long (including the son he adopted). And except for one daughter-in-law, they don't appear to be throwing him under the bus.
Young adults still in teens that saw him as an authoritive figure in their lives. He preyed on those that looked up to and trusted him. That is a child in every way but chronicle age.
are you kidding me,sick sick sick.why would any child be allowed near the man who raped little boys--eye witness--watching kids from his house(school is behind his house)people who live next to this pervert say he is out looking at kids to rape like he did those boys.why is he not in jail-maybe he already has molested his family members already.this guy needs a confinement all by himself for life
why would you say this-to the people supporting this sick raper----- mort44
Yes, he is accused of molesting one of his grandsons.
I didn't know he is accused of molesting one of his grandchildren--then WHY has this occurred?
Accused is one thing. Convicted by a jury is another. Maybe not on news vine, but in the real world at least. I am not defending Sandusky.....but I am defending our established legal system. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Mistakes have been made in the past. I do believe he is guilty, but until such time as a court of law says he is guilty.....he is innocent. My "opinions" are of no consequence in that matter.
Mr./Mrs Mort.........................You are a idiot!!
"Throwing him under the bus," sounds like a plan to me. His offspring must be totally nuts to let that self-pitying misuse of space anywhere near their children.
I think Sandusky can see his grandchildren under the supervision of his children... I mean... innocent until proven guilty, right? That is the American way.
I wonder if the judge would allow his own children/grandchildren to go and visit this creep?
So this judge lets him stay in a home, next to a school, and allows him access to grandchildren. I find this frightening; didn't he learn anything from that crazy bas tard Powell?!
I would hope that the entire judicial system would be looking inward to see how the system is screwed up, but curses! foiled again!. How many more will we have to lose until they understand? *sigh*
How easy it is for you to sit back and judge Sundusky. Have you read the Grand Jury indicments? Have you talked to the kids he has supposed to have molested? Where's your proof.
You and a great deal of others have read the media accounts and judged Jerry Sandiusksy guilty. I would no wish that on anyone, not even you.
The point is, with 53 felony counts he should have no bail whatsoever.
Just another fine example of fairness... Because he has sports freak nut job supporting him. He can get what he wants. I bet he will also just get a slap on the wrist and his name not anywhere near a pred. List. This whole story makes me puke. He is a child Raper and should be treated as such just like all the other "accused" child rapers!
Mark- I have read the grand jury report and so can anyone else; it is online. It is detailed, graphic and damning. There are multiple witnesses (not just McQueary), multiple victims over many years and corroborative evidence in the form of phone records etc.
If Sandusky is not a pedophile, then he is the victim of the most elaborate conspiracy since the L.A. PD framed O.J. Not to mention that Sandusky himself has admitted to repeatedly showering alone with young boys (8 to 12 years old) and "hugging" them while they were naked and he was naked.
Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty; however, our system routinely allows for the protection of the public from potentially dangerous individuals before they are convicted. With multiple counts of child rape, Sandusky should be in jail while he awaits trial, and certainly should not be allowed to have contact with any child. This judge obviously needs a lesson in pedophilia; what an ignorant ruling.
This is outrageous! Shows what a joke the judicial system is - if it were anyone else bail would have either been sky high or denied. Once again, the survivors are left to fend for themselves while the red carpet is rolled out for the pedophile with money and social connections.
Another liberal judge! Lets hope the grand kids are safe, could be another headline story coming soon!!
I see we have already convicted this man..... via the media.
yea we need to let him go cuz it won't be fair if he in jail and we leaglized pedophilia.
So, you'd let your children spend time with him? Whether he is guilty or not, it is wrong to place the most vulnerable, children, in any risk. As there are 53 counts, the only concern here should be for the children and not for him. I guess you put your hero worship of sports "stars" above your care for children.
Judge may as well be a pedo -sympathy could play this part for a fellow sick-o.
if it walks like a duck talks like a duck odds are it is a duck
I am willing to bet he won't do anything with his own grandkids. He will be watched like a hawk, as he should be.
My personal opinion of this guy is he is lower than whale sh!t as a man, but the law is still innocent until proven guilty. If there was only one kid saying he did this, I might find some room to be a little skeptical, but with as many kids and counts as he has, I'm gonna put my money on guilty as charged.
The only thing we have to do now is sit back and see if his money and lawyer can get him off.
I am willing to bet he won't do anything with his own grandkids. He will be watched like a hawk, as he should be.
LMAO. Yeah...go ahead and believe this if you want. Would you take this chance with your kids?
I was molested by my own grandfather. He was very clever. He would even do it with another adult nearby. These child molesters are crafty.
It all OK! APA said they gonna soften the language toward pedophiles and start calling them minor attracted persons. Plus california gonna be lowering age of consent. Child love will be legal soon!
No--the APA is changing the term to "child attracted person" to try and help people before they molest a child. When a person is given a moniker (like "pedophile") which would cause that person to lose a job, lose a house, and so forth--that person's not likely to to seek help and may eventually act.
Many people who are attracted to children never act on the impulse--some males even have themselves chemically or mechanically castrated so that they can decrease the attraction. Not everyone who is attracted to children deserves to be treated like a witch--for some, it is a treatable (or at least manageable) condition.
The age of consent in California is a ridiculous 18-years-of-age. This means that an 18-year-old who admits to sex with a 17-year-old is labeled as a child molester and forced to register as such for life. Why not ask the males that you know whether or not, under this statute, they would be called a "child molester" or "pedophile"? You probably won't get many answers, but about 50% of the males you know would (if old statistics for the age of first sexual contact are correct) would be child molesters--and not a few of the females.
Most industrialized nations recognize the age of 16 as a suitable one for "consent"--the US is an outlier with some states setting their age of consent at 18. Some more sensible states set a "flexible" range in which it is legal for people within 3 or 5 years of one another to have sex, starting at 16 or so. It is ridiculous not to realize that teenagers have sex with one another. It is silly to criminalize something like this which is normal--bearing in mind that it isn't unlikely that you committed this heinous crime yourself.
Basically, please stop this silliness. People who are attracted to children should be able to seek help, and should be distinguished from those who have actually acted on the impulse--this would decrease the number of people who act on the impulse. Teenagers in California who have sex with one another should not be criminals. Seeing the legalization of "child love" in these actions is just silly.
Child molesters will put their hands on anyone they feel is vulnerable...relative or not. My grandfather was a pedophile pig who molested myself, my sister and any kid he could get his hands on.
This is the wrong decision and if the parents of these kids allow their children unsupervised around this monster then they are stupid and evil.
Oops...meant to say supervised or unsupervised visits.
Either way...don't do it.
Those poor kids. They need to know what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable 'touching'.
Okeeboy - Not a 'law' but a principle.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presumption+of+Innocence
How is this man even allowed out of jail. He's an immediate threat to society. Anyone else accused of something like this would sit in jail until trial. He's a disgusting animal and I cannot believe that parents would let their children near him. Grandfather or not, those parents are putting their children in danger. Just gross.
Glad to see the court of public opinion is in session on this guy. Good thing for him (Sandusky) that this court has no legal basis under our constitution. He may be guilty, but that is for the legal court to decide. I don't hink he has access to the elementary school, but I am not sure what "house arrest" means either.
He cannot leave his property. I don't see how him sitting outside on his porch is harming anyone. I think he is a pig, but he has not been proven guilty of anything....how can the neighbors say that he is a danger if he is just sitting outside his house on his own property?
They need to hang the judge who approved the visitation. I sure hope it was a supervised visit! But then again, his kids probably think he's innocent!
Two words: Josh Powell. I believe a judge allowed and ordered his visitation rights, too. I guess lessons aren't learned from history. Is something going to happen? Who knows. I guess we'll just have to ask the kids when he's done with them.
Anecdotes prove nothing. It is just as easy to find a single example of a male accused by his ex-wife of molesting children when he has never done any such thing. It is just as easy to find someone who has been accused of murdering a wife, when that wife's body hasn't been found and she turns up years later living with someone else in a different state.
The visitations are really a matter for the family to decide--if Sandusky can't see the grandchildren, neither can his wife (except outside the home--where she might not feel safe at present). If the judge is allowing the visits, it's actually a tacit admission that the case against Sandusky is (sadly) not as air-tight as we all think. The house arrest and lowish bail suggest the same thing. Many guilty people walk free--and it's quite possible that Sandusky will also walk free.
The children who are involved in a custody dispute will not visit Sandusky--and I wouldn't personally allow my children near such a grandparent--but this is a matter for the court (remember that the judge probably already knows a good deal about the case--more than you do) and the family. But, since the family knows what is going on, there's a good deal less chance he will do anything--well, not right away.
Still, one example proves very little to nothing . . . well, other than the fact that I think it would be better for people with "supervised" visitation to have to go to a location that has security in place, for them to be screened before they enter, and for the children to be in a supervised (and videoed) environment rather than in the problematic individual's own home. Some states do that, and frankly, I think they all should. I also think they all should set up trust funds to which the non-custodial parent contributes child support which is then distributed to the custodial parent--so that there can be no lies about it--and that receipts for what was purchased with those funds ought to have to be produced. But, this is all way off topic.
I personally think Sandusky is totally guilty. BUT that has yet to be proven in a court of law. Isn't one resumed innocent until proven guilty? He has paid bail, he is not convicted, I don't even see how he can be confined to his home.
Mort you seriously need to re-read and comprehend the article AND the case against Jerry Sandusky. Three of his grandkids have claimed being molested by him. So when you read the article and you see where there are three grandchildren he cannot contact you will understand why.
So wait...a teacher in Cali is held in jail with 23 million dollar bail because he's accused of molesting 23 children but sandusky, who's accusers are far more numerous can have the luxury of sleeping in his own bed, eating whatever he chooses, and see his young grandchildren? There is SO much wrong with that!
The only time Sandusky should be allowed to see his grandchildren or any other child is when the lid on his coffin is open.
Most of you can't read. He's not seeing his grand children alone. He's not going to be alone with them therefore he can't harm them.
He hasn't been convicted of anything, yet.
How do you know he won't be left alone with them? If Sandusky's adult children believe he is innocent, why would they necessarily supervise his contact with their children?
Child molesters are notorious for subtly assaulting their victims before outright raping them. In fact, if you read the grand jury report, that was precisely Sandusky's M.O. He started off tickling, hugging, squeezing, wrestling, blowing on their stomachs, putting his hand on their thigh, etc. If they "allowed" him to do the above, he moved on to forced oral sex and sodomy.
He's a classic pedophile and extremely dangerous.
I can read just fine thank you. I have also been a victim of a pedophile while "under supervision".
Why would you want your kids to be around this kind of grand pa