由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
NCAA版 - Did Joe Paterno break the law?
相关主题
Joe Paterno NEEDS TO GO我觉得最应该被惩罚的是Mike McQueary
发酵中,PSU的猥亵男童事件Contrary to What You Have Heard, the Freeh Report has Big Problems
Paterno在这个事件中可能有一手How the Media May Have Framed Joe Paterno
McQueary Seeks $4 Million From Penn State这些人是不是应该立刻,迅速,马上的辞职
Joe Paterno may have faced charges FROM ESPNPenn State will let JoePa go - New York Times
囚徒困境Sandusky事件细节回放 - 引自 CBSSports.com
JoePa 现在担心的是不是会被起诉了从法律责任上说,是不是Joe Pa也应该被charge
看了一遍Grand Jury Report里根JoePa有关的章节再看grand jury report
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: paterno话题: sandusky话题: mcqueary话题: law话题: curley
进入NCAA版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
s*******e
发帖数: 144
1
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11
While Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly says that her office won't
file charges against Joe Paterno for not reporting the alleged child sexual
abuse by former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, the 84-year
-old coach could eventually face criminal charges for perjury, obstruction
of justice and violating the state's Child Protective Services Law. Paterno
could also become a defendant in civil lawsuits filed by Sandusky's alleged
victims. Those lawsuits could allege that Paterno negligently failed to
prevent a third party with whom he had a supervisory relationship (Sandusky)
from committing abuse.
Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
Under Pennsylvania law, as in other jurisdictions, perjury refers to
knowingly lying while under oath. Obstruction of justice describes
interference with the administration of justice, such as by concealing
evidence or delaying or frustrating a criminal investigation. While Paterno
has thus far escaped these criminal charges, his statements and behavior
suggest that he remains vulnerable to them. That is particularly evident
when considering troubling inconsistencies between Paterno's testimony to
the grand jury that investigated Sandusky and the testimony of Penn State
assistant Mike McQueary.
These inconsistencies related to Paterno's and McQueary's statements about "
Victim 2" in the grand jury's statement of facts. According to the grand
jury's findings of fact, McQueary detailed how in 2002 he saw a naked
Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in the showers in the Penn State
football locker room. McQueary also testified that he told Paterno what he
saw the following day, though it isn't clear from McQueary's testimony how
explicit he was in his description to Paterno.
After hearing from McQueary, Paterno alerted athletic director Tim Curley.
Yet instead of relaying what McQueary claims to have told him, Paterno
conveyed a milder and vaguer description. Specifically, Paterno testified
under oath that McQueary had said that Sandusky was engaged in fondling or "
doing something of a sexual nature" to a boy.
To be sure, the phrase "doing something of a sexual nature" technically
includes forcibly subjecting a child to anal intercourse, meaning Paterno
may have been more evasive than untruthful. Then again, Paterno's hazy
choice of words could encompass a band of sexual acts, from raping a 10-year
-old boy to inappropriately touching or patting a child, that ranges too
widely in heinousness to be deemed consistent with McQueary's allegedly more
specific statements. The phrase unnecessarily imports ambiguity and
generality where none had existed, and dubiously invites the listener --
Curley -- to assign a lack of severity to the incident. From that lens,
Paterno appears to have told Curley a different account than what McQueary
had told him.
The inconsistent testimonies raise several questions:
• Did McQueary lie to the grand jury about what he saw or told Paterno?
• Did Paterno lie to the grand jury about what McQueary had told him?
• If neither witness lied, did Paterno intentionally misrepresent what
McQueary had told him in order to discourage Curley from aggressively
investigating the matter or alerting the police? If so, did Paterno conceal
the severity of the evidence or delay the onset of a criminal investigation
to such an extent that he obstructed justice?
It should be reiterated that Paterno is at least publicly regarded by law
enforcement authorities as a witness, rather than as a possible defendant;
if authorities thought his actions clearly violated the law, he would have
already been charged, just like Curley and former Penn State senior vice
president of business and finance Gary Schultz. For purposes of obstruction
of justice, Paterno also benefits from Pennsylvania's statute of limitations
, which prevents authorities from charging individuals with crimes after a
period of years. Although the length of years can be extended or "tolled"
under certain circumstances, authorities would likely encounter difficulty
charging Paterno nearly 10 years after the 2002 incident. Statute of
limitations would not help Paterno deflect perjury charges, however, as his
grand jury testimony occurred within the last year, thereby clearly falling
within the applicable five-year statute of limitations.
Nonetheless, the potential exists for Paterno to face both perjury and
obstruction of justice charges, especially as the investigation intensifies
and as other witnesses, as well as defendants and potential defendants, talk
. Also, should Curley and Schultz and, if eventually charged, university
president Graham Spanier seek plea deals, they may be willing to implicate
Paterno in exchange for more favorable treatment. Paterno, conversely, could
seek the same type of arrangement with prosecutors, implicating Curley,
Schultz et al. in exchange for avoiding prosecution. It is thus very
possible that Penn State officials who worked closely together may wind up
in a "prisoner's dilemma" where they will have an incentive to cut a deal
and implicate their former colleagues before those former colleagues cut a
deal and implicate them.
Child Protective Services Law
Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, certain individuals,
including teachers and school administrators, have a legal obligation to
immediately report suspected child abuse to child protective services or law
enforcement, or to a "person in charge" (supervisor), who must then report
the alleged abuse to the authorities. The reporting must be honest. When in
writing, the reporting must also include known information about the nature
and extent of the suspected abuse, along with other material details.
Within one day of learning from McQueary of the alleged abuse, Paterno
notified Curley, his boss. By doing so, Paterno satisfied an obligation to
immediately report to a person in charge.
On the other hand, one could read the Child Protective Services Law to
classify Paterno as himself a person in charge of McQueary and as one who
had a subsequent obligation to report to the authorities. Still, Curley's
status as Paterno's boss likely insulates Paterno from liability, at least
for failing to notify child protective services or law enforcement.
Paterno may have nonetheless violated the Child Protective Services Law by
failing to tell Curley the specific story as told by McQueary and by failing
to provide known information about the nature and extent of the suspected
abuse. As discussed above, if McQueary's testimony is true, Paterno appeared
to downplay the severity of the incident while speaking with Curley. His
portrayal seemed incomplete, if not outright disingenuous. Also, while
Paterno made his initial report of the suspected child abuse to Curley by
phone, any written communications would have required the known information.
In Paterno's defense, law enforcement authorities have indicated that, in
their current view, while Paterno appeared to do the bare minimum, he
technically satisfied his legal obligations under the Child Protective
Services Law. Whether that viewpoint proves sustainable could depend on the
development of new and more incriminating facts and public pressure.
Negligence
Although Sandusky retired from coaching Penn State's football team in 1999,
he remained connected to the university in a professional capacity. Until
this past weekend, in fact, he was listed on the school's website as "
assistant professor emeritus of physical education." He also enjoyed access
to the football team's gym and other facilities, as well as use of a psu.edu
e-mail account.
Sandusky's alleged victims could file lawsuits against Penn State for
negligently failing to protect them from Sandusky. Under tort law, employers
have a duty to prevent their employees from committing crimes or civil
harms on others while their employees are engaged in their employment. Even
after Sandusky retired, Penn State, by allowing him on campus despite
questions about his treatment of children, could have breached a duty of
care to children whom Sandusky allegedly abused. Penn State, for its part,
could maintain that it took preventative steps, including prohibiting
Sandusky from bringing children to campus and taking away his keys to
university facilities. It could also portray Sandusky as no longer an
employee but rather a retired individual who was permitted to use a very
limited range of campus resources.
The alleged victims could also sue Paterno on similar grounds. While Paterno
was not technically Sandusky's "boss" after 1999, it seems plausible to
assume that Sandusky -- still actively involved with the team, albeit in an
informal capacity -- continued to view himself as Paterno's subordinate.
Victims of Sandusky could allege that Paterno negligently failed to protect
them or to adequately warn authorities of Sandusky's alleged abuse of
children.
Should tort lawsuits be filed, expect Penn State, Paterno and other targeted
Penn State officials (e.g., Curley, Schultz and Spanier) to attempt to
settle the claims before they go to trial. At a minimum, such trials would
paint the university and its top officials as immoral and irresponsible, and
as embracing a "hear no evil, see no evil" approach to what appears to be
the actions of a sadistic man.
Michael McCann is a sports law professor and Sports Law Institute director
at Vermont Law School and the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor
of Law at Mississippi College School of Law. He also serves as NBA TV's On-
Air Legal Analyst. Follow him on Twitter.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/09/joe.paterno/index.html#ixzz1dEzfEr6a
1 (共1页)
进入NCAA版参与讨论
相关主题
再看grand jury reportJoe Paterno may have faced charges FROM ESPN
bowden完胜 (KO)Joe PA囚徒困境
Penn State football还不下蛋?JoePa 现在担心的是不是会被起诉了
看样子还是有penn state的同学对事情的严重性认识不足看了一遍Grand Jury Report里根JoePa有关的章节
Joe Paterno NEEDS TO GO我觉得最应该被惩罚的是Mike McQueary
发酵中,PSU的猥亵男童事件Contrary to What You Have Heard, the Freeh Report has Big Problems
Paterno在这个事件中可能有一手How the Media May Have Framed Joe Paterno
McQueary Seeks $4 Million From Penn State这些人是不是应该立刻,迅速,马上的辞职
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: paterno话题: sandusky话题: mcqueary话题: law话题: curley