Sandusky jury seeks clarification on hearsay in janitor’s testimony

BELLEFONTE, Pa. - The jury in the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse trial, having resumed deliberating at about 1:15 p.m. EDT Friday after hearing transcripts of two witnesses’ testimony, returned to the courtroom briefly Friday afternoon to be given further instruction from Senior Judge John Cleland.

Cleland reread his instructions to the jury regarding the counts related the alleged victim No. 8, the unidentified boy Jerry Sandusky is accused of molesting in a Penn State shower in November 2000.

It’s the second request the jury has made about parts of the case that pertain to an unidentified alleged victim.

After six minutes of instruction from Cleland, the jury returned to deliberate at 3:32 p.m.

James Calhoun, the janitor prosecutors say saw the alleged abuse, couldn’t testify for the prosecution about the incident because of a medical condition, but Ronald Petrosky, the janitor Calhoun allegedly told about the incident, did testify about what Calhoun told him.

Cleland said the hearsay statement from Calhoun isn’t enough by itself to sustain a conviction.

"You must decide if there is other evidence that supports that a crime was committed besides Mr. Calhoun’s hearsay statement," Cleland said, adding that the jury will have to decide if direct or circumstantial evidence exists. And he said circumstantial evidence is just as valid.

The instructions from the judge were the same as what he first read to them in his instructions on Thursday before the jury left to deliberate.

Ed Blanarik Jr., a criminal attorney in State College, Pa., said it’s not unusual for a jury to ask to be "recharged" by a judge, known as a "supplemental charge," if it needs more instruction about a charge or a point of law.

In the case of the Sandusky trial, Blanarik said, he thinks jurors have reached a decision about the incidents where alleged victims testified, but are still grappling with the merit of Calhoun’s testimony.

"They’re having a harder time reaching a decision on that, and asking the judge to reinstruct them on what is circumstantial evidence is probably getting to that issue," Blanarik said. "Can we find someone guilty on indirect evidence?"

This is the second time the jury has asked the judge a question. The first was addressed Thursday night, when the jurors wanted to know if they could hear the testimony from Mike McQueary and Jonathan Dranov.

The defense has sought the dismissal of the charges related to alleged victim No. 8 several times, including right after closing arguments Thursday.

Day 2 of jury deliberation began with the reading of the 115-page transcript of the testimony from prosecution witness Mike McQueary, who testified he heard "skin on skin smacking sounds" that made him sure he saw an "extremely sexual situation" in a Penn State shower room Feb. 9, 2001.

It wrapped up with the short reading of about 20 pages of testimony from Dr. Jonathan Dranov, who testified McQueary didn’t use graphic terms in telling him about the incident regarding alleged victim No. 2.

Jurors returned to deliberating in courtroom 2 at 11:07 a.m. Sandusky, 68, faces 48 counts of child sexual abuse. A conviction could put him behind bars for the rest of his life.

The jury appeared attentive throughout the reading of the testimonies.

All but one juror - the Penn State student - took notes during the part of McQueary’s testimony in which he recounted the alleged incident. The jury has been allowed to take notes throughout the testimony phase and they were allowed to do so again Friday.

In his testimony, McQueary said he saw the incident three times, but defense attorney Karl Rominger said McQueary’s written statement and his grand jury testimony say he said he saw it twice.

Most jurors were taking notes when McQueary was asked on cross-examination by Rominger about the first look he had at Sandusky and the boy.

During the reading of Dranov’s testimony, the jurors appeared to be most interested when Dranov said McQueary heard "sexual sounds."

The most prolific note-takers appeared to be juror No. 1, a woman who works at Walmart; juror No. 3, a woman who has been a longtime Penn State football season-ticket holder, juror No. 8, a man who’s a retired Penn State professor of soil science; juror No. 10, a woman who works as an administrative assistant in the Penn State’s department of energy and mineral engineering; juror No. 11, a part-time Penn State dance instructor and mother of a 6-year-old son; and juror No. 12, a woman who’s a Penn State professor of mechanical engineering.

The juror who’s a Penn State student didn’t take notes and appeared to be fidgeting.

The jury didn’t seem to react to the issue of the date change, from March 1, 2002, to Feb. 9, 2001.

Sandusky sat emotionless during the reading, sometimes closing his eyes. He shook his head and looked up to the ceiling when he heard McQueary say he didn’t participate in Second Mile golf tournaments.

Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, was in the courtroom for the reading of the testimony Friday morning. She was not in the courtroom for McQueary’s original testimony. Also in court were their sons Jon and Jeff and daughter Kara.

The jury, which began its deliberations Thursday, had asked to hear the testimony of McQueary and Dranov, a family friend, again.

Senior Judge John Cleland said he understands why the testimony of McQueary and Dranov is important, but, in the future, unless the testimony is crucial, jurors will need to rely on their memories and notes.

"As a practical matter, we just can’t go back and redo every witness," Cleland said.

---

)2012 Centre Daily Times (State College, Pa.)

Visit the Centre Daily Times (State College, Pa.) at www.centredaily.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services