SOC205 - WEEK 6 - DISCUSSION 1

SOCIETY, LAW AND GOVERNMENT

"Sandusky Motion for a New Trial"

From the e-Activity, summarize at least two (2) arguments presented for and against granting Sandusky’s motion for a new criminal trial. Identify the most likely factors that you believe would support the judge’s decision to grant a new trial. Provide a rationale for your response.

Two arguments presented for and against Sandusky’s motion for a new criminal trial consist of first the due process clause which effectively states that any said defendant has the right to enact the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to protect self against any self-incrimination in any case of law. The agreeable purpose of the Fifth first allows the interpretation of laws, scope, person, and acts of continued liberty to be facilitated. Based upon Clause 39 of Magna Carta protection is enacted and facilitated to prevent seizure, stripping unless by acts of equal.

In effect the laws, land and liberty must be addressed, substantiated, and proved without doubt of guilt and not by unproved assertions. Active in all knowledge is that the non-facilitated assertions are remandated to slurs, slander and hearsay which has no basis unless founded in evidential evidence of clearness, clarity and right. Therefore, the act of the Fourteenth further supports the standing of due process and in the case of incorrectness it is a fiduciary that stands alone.

The scope is realistically bound in details of actuality, truth and proven as done in finality. Because of this the entire rebound is allowable and cast disparity and any change asserted because upon the prevalence of truth those assertions or allegations become mute, useless, void and viewed suspiciously as untrue.

In active consideration of person, it allows the view of the Fifth to stand as a person to concurrently protect the equitable thought of “person” to legal person or individual during any court proceeding and as such it protects the act of remaining “mum” throughout to not incur a penalty of self-persecution.

Lastly, the effect of liberty is not only the protection of the bodily but the protection of the freedom to life without pretension. As such the effective correct conduct cannot be hindered unless clarity in judgment is faulty and conclusive.

Consequently, due process has not been proven to be given or enacted and therefore a new trial can be facilitated due to the active and non-active factual basis of assertions without detail or procedural process that was neglected and escalated during the case without sealed and concluded evidence.

Secondly, in the manner of hearsay and the testimonial process this level of acceptance is immeasurably done by the judge and jury to determine the true and applicable purpose of acceptable, usable testimony. Any testimony levied against the defendant is effectively going to be considered an actual rendering of scenario facts or a non-conclusive detailed scenario that does not correlate or actively relate to the case. If there was not time to contemplate and reflect on submission of testimony to foil and thrust and repudiate testimony then it reflects and actively pulls on lack of due process again and reflect that the hearsay testimony can be determined null, void and entrapment.

Since the prevalence of hearsay testimony is dependent on inner courtroom dispersement and its inner connectively it is also applicable to cross examination that includes the level of its correlativity and as such it is always questioned. Therefore, if hearsay is questionable also is the cross-examination process. Thus the act of being admissible becomes a question, a stall and sometimes a fault.

In consequence, the usage of hearsay can be effectively challenged and if summarily judged as compromised it too can all be discarded and become a basis for a new trial if conviction was heavily dependent upon hearsay. But if hearsay is not comprimisable then it can stand as a facet of conviction but not in its entirety.

Therefore, the due process clause and hearsay that was or has the ability to be viewed as compromisable can cause a judge to grant a new trial based upon the motion to submit and as explanatory basis of findings to reconcile.

In the event that Sandusky were to be granted a new trial, discuss two (2) specific aspects of the case that you believe the defense and prosecuting attorneys would alter in their new arguments. Provide a rationale for your response.

In effect of defense attorney the act of proving the allegations or assertions are false would be one attack, next the witness or hearsay would be attacked, examined and determined why not reported earlier with further cross-examination with streamlining the counts to depict and pinpoint allegations to specifics.

As the prosecuting attorney the altering of position would include the pursuit, foil and thrust against argument of hearsay, protective stance against due process clause and any allegations against counts charged.

Therefore, in acting of either the prosecuting attorney or defendant the act becomes a dual of wit, legal and display. As thus, those best prepared have the ability to shred either opponent’s case or defend or offend as best they can.

Thank you.

Felicia

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hearsay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/pennsylvania-sandusky-appeal/index.html

http://cscja-acjcs.ca/judges_decisions-en.asp?l=5

SOCIETY, LAW AND GOVERNMENT
WEEK 6 - DISCUSSION 1
RESPONSE TO CO-STUDENT

I agree with your points and post, the possibility of gaining a retrial could be based upon all facts of objection stated by his attorneys. Further I feel that the approach should have been different and since one can be tried for only one crime and not again for the same crime that the numerous charges or claims of misdoing all should have been staggered and his attorneys should have presented an overall attack to defend.

Also, since the statutory limitation should have caused dismissal and then there were the witnesses they could not interview, the expert in the field was not available along with two assistants.

As per the information that you listed, if I was his attorney I would have made a motion to postpone to facilitate questioning and view an analysis of the expert in the field.

The only thing I question is the amount of time, the disparity of memory and why the hesitation to cry for help a long time ago. But since the court case appears to be based on eight young men testimony, I feel that a retrial still could be possible.

Once again, feeling railroaded is what it amounts to if the defense argument states it had not enough time to query and question.

Thank you.

Felicia