Guest Column by Lance Cole
A jury of his peers convicted Jerry Sandusky of 45 of 48 charges. While Sandusky has the right to pursue appeals from the trial, and that right must be respected, his guilt has been established.
He is no longer an alleged child molester and pedophile; he is a convicted offender. The jury’s deliberations over two days and the not-guilty verdicts on three of the charges where the evidence was weaker or conflicting show that the jury did its job carefully and responsibly.
Although the jury’s verdict completes an important chapter of the Sandusky story, the case is far from over. Important questions remain to be answered before the public interest in this case can be resolved.
Questions concerning the initial handling of the investigation before Attorney General Linda Kelly took over, events in 1998 when District Attorney Ray Gricar declined to prosecute Sandusky, the actions of senior Penn State University officials when they learned of allegations against Sandusky and the actions of officials at The Second Mile, among others, all demand further investigation and public explanation.
Unfortunately, none of the investigations under way will be able to effectively resolve these questions.
Certainly, there are ongoing investigations. The Pennsylvania attorney general’s office is pursuing criminal charges against two senior Penn State officials, a federal grand jury is investigating and former FBI director Louis Freeh is heading an investigation for the Penn State board of trustees that has resulted in additional evidence being turned over to prosecutors. The reason the current investigations cannot put to rest all the questions surrounding the Sandusky case is that they suffer from conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.
An investigation by the attorney general’s office of its own conduct, even under a prior attorney general, will never satisfy all of the public that nothing was covered up.
The same holds true for that office’s investigation of any matters relating to Gricar. Some are sure to question whether state prosecutors fully and fairly investigated the actions of another state prosecutor.
A similar concern will hamstring any investigation by federal prosecutors. Federal investigations of state officials are viewed as suspect, whether because of suspicions of political bias or general unease with federal authorities interfering in state affairs.
The Freeh internal investigation suffers greater shortcomings. Beyond the inevitable questions about whether such an investigation can be independent and complete, Freeh lacks two essential tools: subpoena power and the power to grant immunity to compel the testimony.
Fortunately, there is a solution to this serious problem, one that has worked well over the past century whenever major scandals have arisen: A special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the Sandusky case.
From the Teapot Dome scandal to Watergate to the recent investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutors have been effective at bringing wrongdoers to justice and satisfying the public that the facts all were revealed and nothing was covered up.
State special prosecutors are equally effective in high-profile cases, as illustrated by the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. Overall, history shows that a competent and unbiased special prosecutor with full investigatory powers is the only effective way to satisfy the public interest in a complete investigation of a scandal involving government officials.
Now that Sandusky’s trial has concluded and attention can move on to matters beyond his guilt or innocence, the Legislature should act to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue unanswered questions in the Sandusky case.
Whether by special legislation or by a cooperative effort between the appropriate legislative committees and the attorney general, the Legislature should act in a bipartisan manner to satisfy the public interest in a full and fair investigation of the Sandusky case.
The jury has done its work in the Sandusky trial. The Legislature now should appoint a special prosecutor to finish the job.
The special prosecutor should be someone of unquestionable integrity, competence and independence. She or he should be given all of the powers necessary to conduct a thorough and unimpeded investigation. No arbitrary timetable should be imposed, but the special prosecutor should be charged with expeditiously pursuing all the evidence wherever it leads.
In addition to prosecuting any violations of law, the special prosecutor should prepare a final written report that will satisfy the residents of the commonwealth once and for all that justice has been done and nothing has been covered up in the Sandusky case.
Lance Cole is a professor and director of the Center for Government Law and Public Policy Studies at Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law. He previously served on the staff of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Whitewater Committee.
A jury of his peers convicted Jerry Sandusky of 45 of 48 charges. While Sandusky has the right to pursue appeals from the trial, and that right must be respected, his guilt has been established.
He is no longer an alleged child molester and pedophile; he is a convicted offender. The jury’s deliberations over two days and the not-guilty verdicts on three of the charges where the evidence was weaker or conflicting show that the jury did its job carefully and responsibly.
Although the jury’s verdict completes an important chapter of the Sandusky story, the case is far from over. Important questions remain to be answered before the public interest in this case can be resolved.
Questions concerning the initial handling of the investigation before Attorney General Linda Kelly took over, events in 1998 when District Attorney Ray Gricar declined to prosecute Sandusky, the actions of senior Penn State University officials when they learned of allegations against Sandusky and the actions of officials at The Second Mile, among others, all demand further investigation and public explanation.
Unfortunately, none of the investigations under way will be able to effectively resolve these questions.
Certainly, there are ongoing investigations. The Pennsylvania attorney general’s office is pursuing criminal charges against two senior Penn State officials, a federal grand jury is investigating and former FBI director Louis Freeh is heading an investigation for the Penn State board of trustees that has resulted in additional evidence being turned over to prosecutors. The reason the current investigations cannot put to rest all the questions surrounding the Sandusky case is that they suffer from conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.
An investigation by the attorney general’s office of its own conduct, even under a prior attorney general, will never satisfy all of the public that nothing was covered up.
The same holds true for that office’s investigation of any matters relating to Gricar. Some are sure to question whether state prosecutors fully and fairly investigated the actions of another state prosecutor.
A similar concern will hamstring any investigation by federal prosecutors. Federal investigations of state officials are viewed as suspect, whether because of suspicions of political bias or general unease with federal authorities interfering in state affairs.
The Freeh internal investigation suffers greater shortcomings. Beyond the inevitable questions about whether such an investigation can be independent and complete, Freeh lacks two essential tools: subpoena power and the power to grant immunity to compel the testimony.
Fortunately, there is a solution to this serious problem, one that has worked well over the past century whenever major scandals have arisen: A special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the Sandusky case.
From the Teapot Dome scandal to Watergate to the recent investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutors have been effective at bringing wrongdoers to justice and satisfying the public that the facts all were revealed and nothing was covered up.
State special prosecutors are equally effective in high-profile cases, as illustrated by the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. Overall, history shows that a competent and unbiased special prosecutor with full investigatory powers is the only effective way to satisfy the public interest in a complete investigation of a scandal involving government officials.
Now that Sandusky’s trial has concluded and attention can move on to matters beyond his guilt or innocence, the Legislature should act to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue unanswered questions in the Sandusky case.
Whether by special legislation or by a cooperative effort between the appropriate legislative committees and the attorney general, the Legislature should act in a bipartisan manner to satisfy the public interest in a full and fair investigation of the Sandusky case.
The jury has done its work in the Sandusky trial. The Legislature now should appoint a special prosecutor to finish the job.
The special prosecutor should be someone of unquestionable integrity, competence and independence. She or he should be given all of the powers necessary to conduct a thorough and unimpeded investigation. No arbitrary timetable should be imposed, but the special prosecutor should be charged with expeditiously pursuing all the evidence wherever it leads.
In addition to prosecuting any violations of law, the special prosecutor should prepare a final written report that will satisfy the residents of the commonwealth once and for all that justice has been done and nothing has been covered up in the Sandusky case.
Lance Cole is a professor and director of the Center for Government Law and Public Policy Studies at Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law. He previously served on the staff of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Whitewater Committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment