Analysis of Sandusky's Appeal and John's Juror Case: Law Perspective

This case study examines two legal scenarios: Jerry Sandusky's appeal for a new trial based on ineffective counsel and questionable evidence, and the potential disqualification of a juror (John) due to personal bias in a case involving a deceased child. The analysis of Sandusky's case considers arguments for and against his appeal, focusing on the admissibility of expert testimony, the validity of interview methods used with victims, and the potential for a fresh trial based on legal technicalities. The study on John's case argues for his replacement as a juror to ensure impartiality, citing the potential for personal sentiments to influence his judgment. Desklib offers this document along with a variety of study tools and solved assignments for students.

Society Law and Government
System04128

Table of Contents
Sandusky’s Case.........................................................................................................................2
John’s Case.................................................................................................................................2
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................3
1 | P a g e

Sandusky’s Case
Arguments for Sandusky
1. Sandusky can ask the court to call upon the psychologist as experts and the
psychologist can examine the mental conditions of the accusers. They can call Esplin
who is an expert witness was called as an expert in molestation case of Michael
Jackson.
2. The interview methods that were used with the victims by prosecutors and the police
was witness coaching and it was done to get a specific outcome. This is not legal.
Argument against Sandusky
1. Testimony of the victims is the main evidence which is against the Sandusky. All the
victim will testify against him (Thompson, 2019).
2. Most of the witness of Sandusky have turned hostile.
The judge can give him a fresh trial if he can prove that his lawyers did not have enough time
to prepare the case the statute of limitations for some charges had expired (Sandusky moves
for new trial after sex abuse conviction, 2013). If he can prove that, either evidence were
insufficient or there was no proper implication of hearsay evidence.
John’s Case
Judges should be disqualified from presiding over cases in which there is the appearance that
personal considerations could affect the juror in their ruling. In a jury trial, the judgment is
given on the basis of majority and if one of the jurors decision is based on the majority and
Jon is that juror whose decision will decide the on whose side the majority will prevail. Jon
might give his judgment in against the accused person because his sentiments might come
into effect for the parents of the deceased child. Jon should be replaced with another juror.
2 | P a g e

Bibliography
Sandusky moves for new trial after sex abuse conviction. (2013, January 10). Retrieved from
CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/pennsylvania-sandusky-appeal/
index.html
Thompson, C. (2019). Jerry Sandusky launches new appeal, citing ineffectiveness of counsel
that cost him a fair trial. Retrieved from Penn Live:
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/jerry_sandusky_mounts_new_appe.html
3 | P a g e