|

Troubled actress Lindsay Lohan was arrested again in Manhattan in the early morning hours of November 29 after an altercation with a Florida psychic in the “Avenue” nightclub in Chelsea. Allegedly, Lohan became incensed when Max George of the band The Wanted began lavishing his attention on Tiffany Mitchell, the 28 year old psychic, instead of Lohan, and Lohan punched Mitchell in the face. When Ms. Lohan subsequently attempted to exit out of the back of the bar in a black Escalade at 4:00 AM, Mitchell identified Ms. Lohan and she was arrested on third degree assault charges.

“Lilo” has additional legal issues beyond the 3rd degree assault charges, however. Back in February of 2011, she was arrested for the theft of a $2,500 necklace in Kamohe & Co., a Venice Beach, CA. jewelry store, and pled guilty to theft charges later in 2011 with a sentence of 120 days in jail, which was reduced to community service, which she never performed. When the sentencing judge learned that Lohan failed to perform her community service, he sent her to jail for thirty days, but due to overcrowding in the California prisons, she was released within hours of her incarceration.

Then on June 8th of this year, Lohan apparently crashed her Porsche into an 18 wheeler in Santa Monica, California, but claimed that it was her assistant who was operating the vehicle. Ironically, on the same day as her dustup with Ms. Mitchell in Avenue, Lohan was charged with Santa Monica police with three misdemeanors stemming for the June 8th accident; lying to a police officer; obstructing governmental administration; and reckless driving. As a result, Lohan now faces violation of probation charges in California based on the four misdemeanors she has been charged with (three in California and one in New York). Considering how fortunate she has been in the past in avoiding jail time for her legal transgressions, it is certainly possible that Lohan’s luck has finally run out.

Lohan is due back in New York Criminal Court on January 7th to face the third degree misdemeanor assault charges. Under the New York Penal Law, third degree assault is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by 1 to 3 years in jail and a $1,000 fine. Her attorney seems quite confident that she will be exonerated and stated: “Once again, Lindsay Lohan is a victim of someone trying to capture their 15 minutes of fame.” Time will tell in latest installment of the Lohan legal saga.

Continue reading ›

|

On September 27, 2012, the trial began for 41 year old Ophadell Williams, the tour bus driver charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the March 12, 2011 accident on I-95 in the Bronx which killed 15 passengers. The prosecution contended that Williams was fatigued and speeding when he lost control of the bus while returning from the Mohegan Sun in Uncasville, Connecticut. As we originally reported on September 6, 2011, the bus struck a guardrail, flipped over, struck a stanchion and the roof was sheared off, killing 15 people and seriously injuring 23, including one man whose arms were torn off trying to protect his head. Williams was indicted by a Bronx County Grand Jury on 15 counts of vehicular manslaughter; 15 counts of criminally negligent homicide; and 23 counts of vehicular assault. Additionally, he was charged with reckless driving and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle.

In its opening statement, the prosecution contended that Williams was fatigued and driving recklessly, swerving in an out of lanes and never slowing down, when he lost control of the bus and struck a signpost stanchion on I-95 in the Bronx, “peeling off the roof like a sardine can and wreaking death and destruction.” The prosecutor acknowledged that Williams was not on drugs and was not intoxicated, but argued that Williams was so sleep deprived that it affected his reflexes as if he were intoxicated.

Williams’ defense attorney repeated the defense that his client made since the accident happened, that he was cut off by a tractor-trailer, and that this maneuver led to the fatal crash. He also argued that despite Williams’ own injuries, he made a valiant effort to rescue some of the passengers from the wrecked bus.

Investigators have never been able to substantiate that there was any tractor trailer involvement in the accident. What is known is that Williams was traveling at approximately 78 miles per hour shortly before the crash (the speed limit in that area is 55 m.p.h). and there is no evidence to show that Williams either slowed down or downshifted before the accident.

To prove that Mr. Williams is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, the prosecution must establish that Williams knew or should have known of a substantial and unjustifiable risk in his operation of the bus and disregarded the risk. For the criminally negligent homicide charges, there is a somewhat lesser burden of proof on the prosecution, to prove that Mr. Williams “failed to perceive” the substantial and unjustifiable risk in driving while fatigued and speeding, in contrast to a reasonable person who would have perceived these risks and avoided the conduct. Frequently, the prosecution files different levels of charges, so that if they do not obtain a conviction on the highest level, they have the opportunity to establish the lesser charges and still get a guilty verdict.

To substantiate their contention that Williams drove the bus recklessly and was speeding, the prosecution called Robert and Sonia Varley to the stand. Mr. Varley was driving with his wife south on I-95 at approximately 4:15 am when they observed a brightly colored bus weaving in and out of lanes and speeding. Mr. Varley testified that he was using his cruise control in the range of 63 to 73 m.p.h., and Williams would pass him and then slow down. Varley thought the driver might have been intoxicated and he testified that he was “afraid to be near him” and honked his horn at the bus.

The prosecution also put on testimony from some of the surviving passengers on the bus, including Truc Thanh Tran, who testified that she heard people screaming and yelling, and saw people dying. They showed the jury a 55 minute video of the investigation of the accident, replete with flattened guardrails, crushed bus parts, a blood splattered metal pole and shoes and cell phones spread around the bus. Ms. Tran also testified that the man seated next to her died in the accident, and that she was pinned in her seat and had to be removed by emergency personnel. In his cross examination of Ms. Tran, the defense attorney for Mr. Williams attempted to show that Ms. Tran’s injuries were not serious and that she, along with numerous family members and surviving passengers, are suing Mr. Williams and the bus company, World Wide Travel, in civil lawsuits for money damages. Other passengers were expected to testify during the trial, which is expected to proceed for several weeks.

Mr. Williams has been in jail since September of 2011, as he has not been able to raise the $250,000 bail. World Wide Travel has since gone out of business but the tour bus industry appears to be a thriving business, despite significant safety concerns.

Continue reading ›

|

In her latest skirmish with the authorities, Lindsay Lohan was arrested this past week by the NYPD and charged with leaving the scene of a personal injury accident pursuant to Section 600 of the New York State Vehicle & Traffic Law. Jose Rodriguez, a Jersey City resident and restaurant worker, alleges that Lohan clipped him with her Porsche while driving outside a New York City club at the Dream Hotel. Rodriguez informed police that after Lohan struck him with her car, she drove off without stopping and reporting the accident to police.

There is footage of the accident, which is of poor quality, that appears to show some contact between Lohan and a pedestrian, who then chases after Lohan’s Porsche as it drives away. Mr. Rodriguez claims that he suffered a knee injury due to the accident.

Under this section of the Vehicle & Traffic Law, if a person operates a motor vehicle “knowing or having reason to know” that personal injury has been caused to another person, they are required, before “leaving the place where the said personal injury occurred”, to “stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle, and give his or her name, residence, insurance information to the injured party, if practical, and also to a police officer.”

The District Attorney is likely to offer Lohan a plea deal to a violation. The reason for this is that leaving the scene charges can be difficult to prove—did Lohan really know, or “have reason to know”, that she struck Mr. Rodriguez with her car? It is not easy to prove that someone had “reason to know” in a scenario in which there may have been glancing contact between the car and Mr. Rodriguez. Recently, in a much more serious case in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, postal worker Ian Clement was found not guilty of leaving the scene of a fatal accident involving Marilyn Dershowitz, who either fell under or was struck by Clement’s truck and died at the scene. Clement claimed that he never knew that he had been in the fatal accident with Ms. Dershowitz and left the scene without reporting the accident. Even with evidence that bystanders were honking their horns and screaming at Clement to stop, he drove away from the scene. On September 20, 2012, the jury found Mr. Clement not guilty of the charge.

Ms. Lohan was released on her own recognizance and issued a desk appearance ticket. If Lohan is found guilty of the charge against her, which is a Class B misdemeanor, she is facing fines of between $250 and $500.00 and potential jail time, which is very unlikely to be imposed due the apparent limited injuries suffered by Mr. Rodriguez.

Continue reading ›

|

On September 19, 2012, Ying Wai Phillip Ng and his wife, Pui Kuen Ng, both naturalized citizens from Hong Kong, pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The charges emanated from an elaborate scheme which the Ngs, both 47, developed though their driving school, known as N & Y Professional Service Line. The scheme worked as follows: Mr. Ng would target non-English speaking applicants who were seeking to obtain commercial driver’s permits but were concerned that they couldn’t pass the written portion of the exam because it is only given in English or Spanish. Many of the Ngs customers spoke other languages, including Mandarin, which they are fluent in.

The applicant for a commercial driver’s permit would be provided by Mr. Ng with jacket which contained a hidden camera in the sleeve. The applicant was shown how to point the camera at each test question, and an image of the question would then be transmitted to the ceiling of a van occupied by Mr. Ng outside of the DMV office. Using a pager, Ng would then provide the correct answer to each of the questions: two beeps for the letter a, four beeps for the letter b, and six beeps for a c.

The evidence showed that approximately 720 applicants were then able to obtain fraudulent commercial driver’s permits through the DMV. The Ngs charged $1,800 for their “services.” The fraud was apparently brought to a grinding halt when an undercover agent through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security posed as an applicant, paid the $1,800 fee, was provided the jacket, obtained the answers fraudulently, and passed the exam.

In a tragic twist to the story, one of applicants who improperly procured his commercial permit was behind the wheel of a bus which crashed in Virginia in May of 2011, killing four passengers and injuring dozens of others.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office noted that “We must be able to trust that those who drive buses and trucks on our nation’s highways meet stringent standards for safety and competency. …the defendants put the public—passengers, pedestrians and drivers alike—at grave risk in order to line their own pockets. This office will vigorously investigate and prosecute those who seek to undermine public safety for commercial gain.”

The Ngs will be sentenced in January by Judge Leo Glasser. With their pleas of guilty, Mr. Ng faces up to 87 months in jail, and Pui Ng faces 30 months. In addition to their jail terms, the Ngs were ordered to close the school effective immediately and pay restitution of $175,000 to the government.

Continue reading ›

|

In New York County Criminal Court this week, the trial of 63 year old postal truck driver Ian Clement commenced. Clement is charged with leaving the scene of a fatal accident under Section 600 of the New York State Vehicle & Traffic Law, which carries with it a maximum sentence of 7 years as a D felony under the Penal Law. The case involves an accident on July 2, 2011. 68 year old Marilyn Dershowitz, the sister in law of well known attorney Alan Dershowitz, was riding her bicycle with her husband Nathan on West 29th Street in an area which was clogged with postal trucks both parked and moving in and out of traffic. Mr. Dershowitz was riding ahead of his wife. Apparently Ms. Dershowitz attempted to operate her bicycle between two postal trucks when she was struck by the seven ton postal truck operated by Mr. Clement.

Ms. Dershowitz was pinned under the right tire of Clement’s truck. The prosecution claims that rather than remain at the scene and report the accident, Mr. Clement drove off, despite the screams of onlookers and honking horns of other drivers in the vicinity. Mr. Clement pulled the truck into a Postal Service parking lot at the end of the street, where a co-worker supposedly asked him: Did you see the terrible accident?” The Manhattan A.D.A. prosecuting the case, Erin La Farge, stated to the jury that “Practically everyone went to her side, except the person who caused her death.” She argued that Mr. Clement either knew, or should have known that he struck someone, but kept driving. Clement did acknowledge that he “felt a bump” and the truck shook somewhat, but he admittedly left the scene of the fatal accident.

Ms. Dershowitz died approximately one hour later at Bellevue Hospital.

In what I believe was a very dangerous argument to make to a jury in a case involving a fatality, Mr. Clement’s defense lawyer contended that: “The City would come to a standstill” if truck drivers stopped and investigated every honking horn or bump in the road. He further suggested that there was no one to blame criminally, and that the case was being pursued because of the notoriety of the Dershowitz family. In addition to Alan Dershowitz being a nationally known lawyer, Ms. Dershowitz’ husband Nathan Dershowitz is also an attorney.

Under Section 600 (2) of the Vehicle & Traffic Law, entitled “Leaving the Scene of An Incident Without Reporting”, “Any person operating a motor vehicle who, knowing or having cause to know that personal injury has been caused to another person, due to an incident involving the motor vehicle operated by such person, shall before leaving the place where said personal injury occurred, stop, exhibit his or her license and insurance identification card for such vehicle, …and give his name, residence, insurance carrier…”

Due to the death of Ms. Dershowitz in the accident, Mr. Clement is charged with a violation of the most serious section of this regulation, and faces a maximum of seven years in jail and a fine of not less than $2,000 nor more than $5,000.00.

Continue reading ›

|

With the recent case of Kerry Kennedy’s DWAI arrest so prominently in the news, and the allegation that her motor vehicle accident with a tractor trailer on I-684 was due to her taking an Ambien prior to the accident and falling asleep at the wheel, I read an interesting case out of Santa Clara, California this week. 45 year old ex-convict Kevin Robertson was arrested and charged with driving under the influence and resisting arrest in connection with a June 20, 2012 non-injury car accident in which he claims to have taken an Ambien to help him sleep, eaten dinner, laid down, and then woke up shackled to a chair in the police department. Tests showed no alcohol in Robertson’s blood, but due to a series of health problems, he was taking Morphine, Benadryl and Ambien, all of which were found in his blood.

Robertson’s lawyer employed the “Ambien defense”, also known as the “Zombie defense”, which has apparently been utilized in courts throughout the United States, with uneven results. In 2007, the FDA issued a warning that Ambien, along with twelve other insomnia medications, could cause “complex sleep-related behaviors”, including “sleep driving.” Sleep driving is defined as “driving while not fully awake after ingestion of a sedative hypnotic, with no memory of the event”. The agency also indicated that these behaviors could include making phone calls, preparing food and eating while asleep.

In Robertson’s case, the defense was quite successful, in that after a four day trial, the jury took less than one hour to acquit him of the charges. However, since Robertson was on parole, his problems weren’t quite over, since he could have been assessed 6 months in jail by the parole commissioner for a violation of the terms of his sentence. Fortunately for Mr. Robertson, the Santa Clara police and other witnesses failed to show up at his hearing, and the parole board commissioner dismissed the matter in eight minutes.

In 2009, the Ambien defense led to the acquittal of a Fresno, California resident who killed the mother of 11 in a fatal car crash, and two years previously, a judge determined that a Massachusetts attorney was not guilty in a sleep driving accident in which a man was killed. More recently, in San Antonio, Texas, flight attendant Julie Ann Bronson was charged in a DWI case in which she drank 5 or 6 glasses of wine, took Ambien, and then “sleep drove” her Mercedes convertible into a car occupied by a mother and her two children, one of whom was an 18 month old girl, who was severely injured in the accident. Bronson pled guilty and was sentenced by the jury (as permitted under Texas law) to only 10 years probation, when she could have faced as much as ten years behind bars. The presiding judge added on a six month jail term as part of the probation, believing that the sentence was too lenient.

Continue reading ›

|

In what should come as no surprise to anyone, the first civil lawsuit has been filed against Penn State University subsequent to the guilty verdict against ex-football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was found guilty of 45 counts of sexual assault involving ten victims last month by a Pennsylvania jury. The lawsuit was also filed on the heels of a scathing 267 page report by ex-FBI director and federal judge Louis Freeh, who conducted a eight month investigation during which he interviewed 430 current or former Penn State employees.

Mr. Freeh found that Penn State displayed a “total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State…the most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.” Freeh named Coach Paterno, President Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz as the facilitators of Sandusky’s egregious conduct in “failing to protect against a child sexual predator for over a decade.” He noted that the school officials continued to allow Sandusky to have unfettered access to school facilities and to continue his affiliation with the Penn State football program, and condemned them for failing to intervene after a reported shower incident in 1998, and the sexual assault in 2001 of Victim number 2, witnessed by then Paterno assistant Mike McQueary.

Victim number 2’s attorneys noted that their client was the victim of sexual abuse by Sandusky over several years, not solely the 2001 incident, and that top officials at Penn State facilitated and enabled Sandusky’s access to his victims. If the Sandusky victims were permitted to go to trial, (which would be shocking beyond belief if this happened) the civil attorneys can introduce evidence of Sandusky’s criminal conviction, obtained by a burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”, to prove cases in which the burden would be the much easier civil lawsuit standard of a preponderance of the evidence—meaning essentially by 50.1% of the credible evidence. Additionally, there is damning proof against Penn State, including Curley’s decision not to report Sandusky for Victim 2’s assault but rather recommending professional help and calling his decision “humane”. Curley also apparently sent an e-mail in which he admitted: “the only downside for us is if the message [to get professional help] isn’t heard and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it…” Thus, it is clear that all Penn State officials were concerned about in 2001 was protecting the University and its football program, not the innocent victims of Sandusky.

The sanctions by the NCAA for the Sandusky scandal, including a 60 million dollar fine, the inability to pay in bowl games for the next four years, and the wiping out of all football team victories from 1998 through 2012, seem insignificant in comparison to the damage that Sandusky has caused.

The Penn State Board of Trustees is already on record as stating that their goal is “to find solutions that rest on justice for the victims.” One question that naturally occurs is, does Penn State have enough money through its liability insurance and assets to pay out on all of the presently pending claims and absolutely inevitable claims coming in the future? What is the individual value of each of these cases, in which the victims have been permanently traumatized and as reflected in some of the anonymous statements during the three week trial, bitterly angry. That remains to be seen, and must be keeping the Board of Trustees from sleeping at night.

Continue reading ›

|

On July 25, 2012, Dr. Rohan Wijetilaka, 63, a cardiologist with a practice in Yonkers, was arrested by DEA agents on federal illegal drug distribution charges. It is alleged that Dr. Wijetilaka issued prescriptions for Oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance, and other controlled substances for cash or in exchange for an agreement to bill health insurers for tests that were never performed. Other agencies that were involved in the sting operation included the FBI, the U.S. Department of Health, the Human Service Office of the Inspector General and the Yonkers Police Department. Apparently, the DEA utilized a confidential informant wearing a wire, who was able to obtain an Oxycodone prescription for himself and another person for cash.

The operation began in late April went the informant went in the Yonkers office and paid Dr. Wijetilaka’s receptionist for Oxycodone prescriptions for himself and his ”girlfriend”, although neither was examined by the doctor. Purportedly, Dr. Wijetilaka continued to make sales to the confidential informant through June, in exchange for cash and therapy and exams that were never conducted.

It has been reported that Dr. Wijetilaka also issued prescriptions for Percocet, OxyContin and other controlled substances besides Oxycodone. Also arrested was Dr. Wijetilaka’s assistant and girlfriend, Rachida Naciri, 50, who was charged with criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions, which is a misdemeanor. Ms. Naciri’s case is not in Federal Court, but in Yonkers City Court, where she was arraigned, pled not guilty and is due back in Court on August 16, 2012.

When Dr. Wijetilaka was arrested on the 25th, officers allegedly seized $15,000 in cash from his apartment. He was arraigned before a federal magistrate on July 26, 2012 and released on $200,000 bond secured by $50,000 and two co-signers. As conditions of his bond, Dr. Wijetilaka was required to surrender his passport, not practice medicine, not possess firearms and remain in New York. Interestingly, it has been reported that Wijetilaka’s medical license had recently been revoked earlier in July for performing unnecessary tests, failing to keep records, and for gross incompetence. He was fined $50,000.

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, Preet Bharara, has been very aggressive in his pursuit of illegal drug distribution and corruption by public officials, with several high profile convictions in New York and Westchester, most recently of ex State Senator and assemblyman Nick Spano earlier this year.

Dr. Wijetilaka is due back in White Plains Federal Court on August 22, 2012. If convicted of the charges against him, Dr. Wijetilaka faces a maximum jail term of 20 years and a fine of $1,000,000 or twice the gain from his alleged crimes, whichever is greater.

Continue reading ›

|

On July 12, 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a texting while driving ban in an effort to curb one of the main factors in the plague of distracted driving. Everyone has observed a driver next to them or in front swerving within their lane or literally driving off of the roadway as a result of the use of a handheld device, whether on the phone or texting. The Law, Section 1225-D of the New York State Vehicle & Traffic Law, prohibits the use of a “portable handheld device” while driving. Portable electronic devices include a mobile telephone, laptop computer, two way messaging device, and electronic games.

Drivers holding the device in a conspicuous manner are presumed to be “using” the device, which includes holding the device while viewing, taking or sending images, composing, sending, reading or browsing text messages, e-mails or other electronic data. The two exceptions to the ban are for emergency situations, (such as in accidents) and by police, firefighters or other emergency personnel if they are using the device in their official capacities.

The original texting while driving law created what is known as a secondary infraction, meaning that the investigating officer would have to observe the driver committing another offense such as speeding, disregarding a traffic control device or making an unsafe lane change before he could stop the driver and issue a summons.

In the year since texting ban went into effect, the numbers are dramatic: There were 20,958 tickets handed out since July 2011 for texting while driving, whereas in the year before the total ban, there were 4,569 summons issued. A 2009 study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute revealed that texting drivers were 23 times more likely to get into an accident. This is one law that it is hard to find opposition to, and unlike other regulations which get bogged down on party lines in Albany (similar to our non-functional federal government), the ban passed in an expeditious manner.

The texting while driving ban also included an increase in the points assessed by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles for the infraction from 2 to 3. The fine for a violation is $150.00 plus a mandatory New York State surcharge of $85.00. If a driver has a total of 11 points on his or her license within an 18 month period, the license will be suspended. Taking a safe driver’s class either in person or online will result in a 4 point reduction, and a 10% decrease in insurance premiums. The class can be taken once every 3 years.

Continue reading ›

|

As we all know by now, 68 year old ex-Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted by a Centre County, PA jury on June 22, 2012 of 45 counts of sexual abuse of children. Sandusky was acquitted of only 3 of the total of 48 charges against him. The relatively brief trial included the testimony of eight victims, as well as that of former assistant coach Michael McQueary, who testified that he observed Sandusky engaging in sexual conduct with a ten year old boy in the university showers back in 2001 and reported this abuse to university officials.

In the wake of the long anticipated and emotional conviction of Mr. Sandusky, with a cheering crowd outside the Bellefonte, PA Courthouse when the verdict was announced late last Friday, Penn State is now facing significant issues that will have long-lasting repercussions for the reputation and finances of the institution. First, there is the ongoing perjury case against the two ex-officials that McQueary claimed he informed of the Sandusky sexual abuse, athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice president Gary Schultz. The charges are that Curley and Schultz lied to a grand jury investigating the abuse charges and testified that McQueary never informed them of his observations. Concurrently, former FBI director Louis Freeh, who was hired by the Penn State to do an investigation into whether the school responded properly to allegations against Sandusky in the late 1990’s, will be issuing his findings in the very near future.

Without question, if Schultz and Curley are convicted, this is strong evidence that the university allowed a sexual perpetrator to continue his conduct on school grounds for at least several additional years after they knew there was a problem and could have averted same by alerting authorities and not permitting Sandusky to have access to school facilities and an office on campus.

Another huge problem Penn State is facing are the inevitable civil lawsuits which will now be filed by at least some, if not all of Sandusky’s victims for monetary damages. From an evidentiary point of view, the burden of proof in a civil action, a “ preponderance of the evidence”, (which means that it is slightly greater than 50% that the plaintiff’s version of the events is accurate) is a much easier burden to prove than beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of proof required to convict in a criminal case. We saw this 16 years ago when O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a criminal jury of the murder of his wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman, yet found liable for the killings by a civil jury a year later.

There is no question that Penn State is plenty worried about the possibility of significant civil verdicts against the university, and in keeping with this fear has already begun attempting to begin negotiations to resolve potential civil cases. In a statement, Penn State indicated: “Now that the jury has spoken, the university wants to continue that dialogue and do its part to help victims continue their path forward…to that end, the university plans to invite victims of Mr. Sandusky’s abuse to…facilitate the resolution of claims against the university arising out of Mr. Sandusky’s conduct.”

Even if Penn State is able to resolve the potential civil claims from the victims that testified in the Sandusky trial, that will still not end its legal difficulties and financial concerns. Matt Sandusky, his adopted son, recently revealed that he was also a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of his father. Matt was prepared to testify as a rebuttal witness at the recently concluded trial if Mr. Sandusky took the stand in his own defense, which he elected not to do, as is the case with the great majority of criminal defendants. Further, a state grand jury is still in place, and there is a strong likelihood that either additional victims, other defendants involved in the failure to stop Sandusky, or both, will be identified in the near future.

In sum, Penn State officials are probably being overly optimistic if they believe that they can end their legal problems with an overture to resolve civil claims with the presently known Sandusky sexual abuse victims. Their legal issues as a result of the Sandusky sexual abuse scandal may persist for years to come.

Continue reading ›