Civil Procedure

Pepper Hamilton Can't Terminate Its Appeal in Paterno Case

, The Legal Intelligencer


Pointing to the significant amount of time and money spent on the appeals process, the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied Pepper Hamilton's request to end its appeal in the defamation case that was brought, but recently discontinued, by the estate of Joe Paterno.

This premium content is reserved for American Lawyer subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • Mark Hentz

    Mike McQueary has never in any of his testimonies or private correspondences claimed that "he saw Sandusky rape a boy in 2001" nor did he ever tell anyone at any time that he saw that. During his GJ testimony and at the trial the prosecution badgered him into agreeing that he “believed” Sandusky was raping the boy but he admitted that he did not see that. What he actually witnessed in 2001 and actually told people afterward are the only things of relevance as facts and he has stated many times that he never witnessed the physical act of rape and that he never used the words rape or anal sex at any time in telling any person what he did witness. Not for nothing, the Sandusky jury returned an acquittal on the charge of IDSI related to the idea of Sandusky raping the boy in 2001 and did so most likely because McQueary never claimed he saw that. McQueary’s “beliefs” circa 2011 were inadmissible as facts in the case and entirely irrelevant. Per Joe Friday, “Just the facts, Ma’am.” Nonetheless, in the GJ presentment the PA-OAG extrapolated McQueary’s beliefs into fact and wrote that he saw Sandusky rape a boy in 2001 and reported that to his superior Joe Paterno soon after. a demonstrable falsehood. A lie and an act of unethical misconduct. This included the false implication that McQueary turned his back on the boy and left him in the shower to continue being raped by Sandusky leading to credible threats against his life. We’ve learned since that McQueary contacted the lead prosecutor complaining about the mischaracterization of his testimony in the presentment and asking for permission to publicly correct the record. He was denied that with the prosecutor warning him that it might somehow jeopardize her case against Sandusky. This single lie has caused immense damage to the Penn State community and the Legal Intelligencer is irresponsible in promulgating this misconduct and this lie and should correct its story and cease to perpetuate this lie in the future.

  • almerrricapi

    Have you ever thought of learning how to trade and be successful from it? Google Superior Trading System they will help you how to do it and be great at it.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202794113536

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.