The circus at Penn State involving Jerry Sandusky and the allegations of child abuse has me just shaking my head. Now I read an article that really makes me wonder whether Sandusky’s criminal lawyer shouldn’t just sit down and shut up. In this article — published last week — Joe Amendola is discussing with the newspapers the advice that he is giving his client, or that he might be forced to give his client.
Sandusky is steadfast in his claims of innocence, and Amendola continues to plan his client’s defense. They aren’t yet talking about making a deal.
“That could happen if more allegations come forth and Jerry gets to the point where he realizes fighting against more than the original allegations might be a real uphill battle,” Amendola said. “Bottom line, Jerry has always maintained his innocence, from the first allegation, and continues to maintain innocence. What happens with any additional charges which may be filed remains to be seen.”
There is nothing good that can come from an attorney answering questions like “Will he plead guilty if more charges come out?”
Choosing to answer a stupid question is one thing, but Joe Amendola really got into problems in another interview, where he basically said, “If my client is guilty of these crimes, he should go to jail for life.” I am sure that what he meant was to say, “These are pretty serious charges, and there are a lot of them, and it’s very serious business.” But no lawyer should ever allow himself to be quoted as saying that if his client is convicted, he should face the maximum punishment.
The State Bar’s ethical guidelines for attorneys are primarily directed toward not making statements that will prejudice the ability of the parties to get a fair trial. And one can certainly argue that there is no way the Jerry Sandusky will be able to empanel a jury of twelve intelligent, sentient people who don’t already have an opinion about him. Perhaps Joe Amendola has just been trying to humanize his client — to get out in front of the cameras, to show that he is a good guy, etc. Certainly, reading the rest of the interview, it seems that Amendola was trying to say to people, “Don’t be so quick to judge. There is a lot more to be said.” But sending Sandusky on to be interviewed by Bob Costas — without preparing him for some unfriendly questions like “Are you sexually attracted to young boys” — is just plain stupid. And it didn’t get much better for Sandusky when he was interviewed by the New York Times and discussed his continuing relationships with some of the alleged victims.
The tone of what Joe Amendola has been saying — that the victims are lying, that they seem coached — is just all wrong for a criminal defense lawyer to be taking publicly. You may want to say that in a courtroom, but not publicly.
Then come the questions — the “what if” questions. And they lead to headlines like this one — “Jerry Sandusky’s Lawyer Says He May Have To Talk His Client Into Pleading Guilty.”
The best thing that Jerry Sandusky and Joe Amendola can be doing right now is laying low.
