Monday, May 18, 2020

What Juror In Sandusky Case Told Louis Freeh's Investigators

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

In their motion for a new trial, lawyers for Jerry Sandusky question whether one of the jurors who convicted him gave truthful answers in court when asked about her previous dealings with Louis Freeh's investigators.

Had the defense known the extent of what the juror told Freeh's investigators, Sandusky's lawyers said in their motion for a new trial, she would have been stricken as a potential juror.

During jury selection on June 6, 2012, the juror in question, identified in the motion for a new trial as "Juror 0990," was asked by Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, what she told Freeh's investigators. In an April 19, 2011 summary of that interview, the juror is identified by Freeh's investigators as Laura Pauley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Penn State, who could not be reached for comment.

"It was focused more on how the board of trustees interacts with the president," Pauley told Amendola, as well as "how faculty are interacting with the president and the board of trustees . . ."

In a summary of Pauley's interview, however, Sandusky's lawyers say, "it is apparent that the interview . . . included something more than how the Penn State faculty interacted with the president and the board of trustees."

In her interview with Freeh's investigators, Pauley stated that she was "an avid reader of the Centre Daily Times" and that she believed that the leadership at Penn State just "kicks the issue down the road."

"The PSU culture can best be described as people who do not want to resolve issues and want to avoid confrontation," she told Freeh's investigators, according to their summary of the interview.

Pauley, a tenured professor who served on the Faculty Advisory Committee for three years, had other opinions about the leadership at PSU that she supposedly shared with Freeh's investigators. She said that Penn State President Graham Spanier was "very controlling," and that "she feels that [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State vice president Gary] Schultz are responsible for the scandal."

"She stated that she senses Curley and Schultz treated it [the scandal] the 'Penn State' way and were just moving on and hoping it would fade away."

It's the contention of Sandusky's appeal lawyers that Freeh's investigators were working in tandem with prosecutors and investigators from the state attorney general's office, and that this collaboration, which included the sharing of grand jury secrets and transcripts, tainted both investigations.

While Pauley was being questioned by Amendola, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote, "at no time during this colloquy, or any other time, did the prosecution disclose that it was working in collaboration with the Freeh Group which interviewed the witness."

Yep, at the prosecution table, then Deputy Attorney Frank Fina sat silently while Amendola was questioning Pauley about what she told Freeh's investigators, even though he probably knew about the interview, and may have even seen a copy of it.

That's why Sandusky's lawyers are asking the state Superior Court to hold an evidentiary hearing where Fina and Freeh can be deposed about their collaboration.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers state describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from seven Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."

"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"

"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."

But John Snedden, a former NCIS special agent, said after reviewing the summary of Pauley's interview with Freeh's investigators, that he believed it was Pauley who contacted Freeh.

According to Snedden, Pauley struck him as a "extremely disgruntled employee who was trying to pursue her own specific agenda."

Why does Snedden think it was Pauley who reached out to Freeh's investigators, rather than them reaching out to her?

As a professor of mechanical engineering, she was "not material to the investigation in any way," Snedden said. The school of mechanical engineering is "about as far away from the Lasch Building as you could possibly be," Snedden said, referring to the offices and training facility of the Penn State football team. Also, the summary doesn't indicate that the investigators in any way had sought out Pauley, Snedden said.

In the summary of her interview, Pauley states that her husband, who also taught in the engineering department, didn't receive tenure, and that she thought that the tenure process "was very political."

She also states that when she was director of undergraduate engineering studies, an employee that she reported for mishandling personal information on students began spreading rumors about her allegedly committing some kind of misconduct. She subsequently was removed as director of undergraduate engineering studies and received an annual appraisal that was "not as strong as usual."

She inquired about why she had been removed as director but was told the process was confidential. When the new director was announced, Pauley was never acknowledged or thanked for her seven years of service. "Many of her peers in the department confided in her that they felt she was not treated fairly throughout the process," Freeh's investigators wrote.

"She's trying to air her grievances in front of somebody whom she thinks can do something about it," Snedden said. 

4 comments

  1. "she feels that [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State vice president Gary] Schultz are responsible for the scandal." And there it is. This juror went in already convinced Sandusky was guilty; otherwise, there would be no scandal to speak of. She had a legal obligation to inform the defense team that her mind was already made up. And it's not as if one juror doesn't matter since there are eleven other jurors who would have to agree with her in order to convict. Anyone who has ever read "12 Angry Men" knows one single rogue juror can poison an entire jury.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another example of Fred's flawed, "fact freeh" railroad job of Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley. Time to subpoena the entire exec. comm. of the PSU BoT to investigate their collusion with Freeh AND the NCAA. And that scum Tom Corbett should be subpoened as well to investigate his role after "suggesting" Freeh to be investigated. Hope, Sandusky's defense team will also get Snedden to testify about his findings that the entire "scandal" was a Corbett-Freeh-PS BoT exec. comm. political hatchet job. Time to kill ALL these rats in one, fell swoop.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where do we start with this whole pile of stinking dung, called the PA Judicial System, and Louis Freeh? First we know Louis Freeh lied on his Report, from the very beginning. He makes reference to the fact that he insures "security" of his fact gathering, by having separate a office with separate keys for only his personnel. How Computers were on separate lines and were not part of the PSU internet system. He explains how no one from the outside was allowed in this area unless accompanied by Freeh personnel. He goes on, and writes, "No Party interfered with, or attempted to influence the findings in this report." Then what was the emails (Found in the Corman v NCAA discovery phase) between Emmert, Delaney, and Louis Freeh with regards to what the NCAA needed, and Delaney needed, to impose penalties on PSU? Freeh also goes on and states, "The Special Investigative Counsel (who I have been calling Freeh in this comment) revealed this report and the findings herein to the Board of Trustees, and the general public at the same time." If that was true how did CNN on July 2 2012 report about emails that were found in the Freeh report https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/justice/penn-state-emails/index.html when Freeh didn't release his report to the media until July 12, 2012?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pauley certainly seemed to be a disgruntled employee so would not have made an unbiased witness.

    I think all this evidence should be enough for a new trial but I doubt Sandusky will get one. The judge will just say none of it would have affected the outcome of the trial.

    ReplyDelete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.