Jerry Sandusky Not Testifying in His Trial Shows Defense's Lack of Confidence
The testimony portion of Jerry Sandusky's trial has come to a close, as the defense rested its case today, per the Patriot-News. The prosecution did not offer a rebuttal, and closing statements will begin at 9 a.m. on Thursday morning.
Despite what Sandusky attorney Joe Amendola promised jurors during opening statements, one person that did not testify in Sandusky's defense was Sandusky himself.
This decision isn't exactly a surprise. Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports speculated yesterday that the fast timetable of the defense indicated that there just wouldn't be time for putting Sandusky on the stand.
The defense could theoretically make the direct examination as short as possible—"Did you commit any of these crimes?" "No." "No further questions."—but the cross-examination by prosecution would be lengthy, brutal and withering. And there would be nothing the defense could do about it.
Do you agree with the decision to keep Sandusky off the witness stand?
So, really, what this comes down to is the defense not having enough confidence in Sandusky's ability to do himself any favors while on the stand. Of course, if the defense's strategy is to argue that Sandusky suffers from a personality disorder, it would stand to reason that he wouldn't be able to connect with jurors, so this isn't exactly an inconsistent approach to the case.
Moreover, let's remember the last time Sandusky was subjected to questioning in public. That was when Amendola delivered Sandusky via the phone to Bob Costas, and we have been over how terribly that went for Sandusky.
And Costas isn't even the one trying to convict him.
After the closing statements, it's on to jury deliberation. The longer that takes, the more uncertainty there is in the jury's mind, and the better that goes for the defense.
If the decision comes back soon, Sandusky is in a world of trouble. And judging by the defense's decision to keep him off the stand, Sandusky's attorneys think he is in a world of trouble already.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?