Ruling reverses charges against Spanier, others in Sandusky case
The Pennsylvania Superior Court scaled back the criminal case Friday against three former Pennsylvania State University administrators accused of conspiring to cover up Jerry San- dusky's child sex abuse, validating their assertion that it was unfair to let the university's former top lawyer testify against them.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court scaled back the criminal case Friday against three former Pennsylvania State University administrators accused of conspiring to cover up Jerry San- dusky's child sex abuse, validating their assertion that it was unfair to let the university's former top lawyer testify against them.
In three opinions, the judges reversed a lower-court ruling that upheld obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges against former Penn State president Graham B. Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz, and former athletic director Tim Curley, as well as perjury charges against Spanier and Schultz.
The judges left intact charges of child endangerment, a third-degree felony, and failure to report suspected child abuse, a summary offense, against all three men, as well as a perjury charge for Curley.
But defense lawyers hailed the rulings, perhaps their biggest legal victory in a case that has languished for four years. "We're elated that they threw out the most important charges," said Elizabeth Ainslie, an attorney for Spanier.
A spokesman for Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane said her office would review the ruling and decide if it would appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Prosecutors contend that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz either ignored signs that Sandusky, a longtime assistant to football coach Joe Paterno, was a sexual predator or covered it up.
All retired, resigned, or were forced out in the wake of Sandusky's arrest. Each has denied the allegations.
Beyond email and other evidence, the case against them was built on the testimony of Cynthia Baldwin, a former Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice, who was chief counsel for Penn State during the Sandusky investigation and was present when each testified before the grand jury.
Prosecutors and Baldwin say she was there serving as the lawyer for the university, not its officers.
In her own testimony, Baldwin savaged Spanier, maintaining that information he gave to reporters about his knowledge of Sandusky or his conduct was filled with falsehoods. "He is not a person of integrity," she testified. "He lied to me."
For three years, the defendants' lawyers have fought to quash her testimony. They contend that Spanier and the others viewed Baldwin as their lawyer, and that she could not be a witness because her contact with them was protected under attorney-client privilege.
Superior Court upheld that assertion.
"We find that Ms. Baldwin breached the attorney-client privilege and was incompetent to testify as to confidential communications between her and Spanier during her grand jury testimony," said the opinion, issued in Spanier's case and echoed in the others.
The lawyers for Spanier, Curley, and Schultz only challenged the obstruction, perjury, and conspiracy charges because they were connected to Baldwin.
Timothy K. Lewis, another Spanier lawyer, said he was confident his client would overcome the remaining charges, too. "We and Dr. Spanier have maintained his innocence from the beginning and have always been confident that he would be vindicated, and we remain confident that he will be vindicated of the remaining charges, which have never been adjudicated."
Lawyers for Curley and Schultz did not return calls for comment.
If the rulings stand, the prosecution case may have to rely more on email traffic among Spanier, Curley, and Schultz to prove wrongdoing.
In one series of exchanges, the men appeared to discuss how to respond to a complaint that Sandusky sexually assaulted a young boy in a campus shower. They initially agreed to inform Sandusky's charity, alert authorities, and bar the former coach from bringing children to Penn State's locker rooms. Curley later wrote that he changed his mind about contacting authorities.
"The only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier responded in a 2001 email.
Spanier has said he had no memory of that email and was unaware of any inappropriate or criminal act.
In its ruling, the three-judge panel also sharply criticized Frank Fina, the former state prosecutor who led the investigation and who has since become entangled in a running feud with Kane. The judges said that Fina had told the grand jury judge he would question Baldwin about her conversations with the three defendants, but that many questions ultimately involved "potential confidential communications."
In sum, the panel wrote, Fina's questioning was "highly improper." Fina could not be reached for comment Friday.
Written by Judge Mary Jane Bowes with the agreement of William H. Platt and Patricia H. Jenkins, the opinions spurred immediate reaction from Penn State alumni who have been saying for years that the men were unfairly charged and the university unfairly tarnished.
"The court overturned the despicable violation of these men's constitutional rights by the Office of the Attorney General in collusion with former Penn State trustee and counsel Cynthia Baldwin," said the group Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship in a statement.
215-854-4693 @ssnyderinq
campusinq
Staff writer Mark Fazlollah contributed to this article.