Sandusky Request to Dismiss Abuse Charges Denied by Judge

Former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, who is scheduled to face trial in June for allegedly abusing boys during a 15-year period, lost a bid to dismiss the charges.

State court Judge John M. Cleland in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, denied several requests in an omnibus motion submitted by Sandusky’s lawyers including ones to dismiss because the allegations weren’t specific, lacked sufficient evidence or were too old. Cleland gave Sandusky the option of revisiting some requests at a later date and reserved ruling on others because of the ongoing investigation.

Some of Sandusky’s “requests for relief are premature,” Cleland said in his ruling today.

Sandusky, 68, is scheduled to face trial June 5 on on more than 50 criminal counts tied to the alleged abuse of boys he met through a charity he founded for needy children.

Cleland also denied Sandusky’s request to postpone the trial beyond the June date. He ordered state prosecutors to deliver a written statement of any uncharged misconduct evidence to Sandusky’s lawyer along with details on the prior criminal records of all Commonwealth witnesses, according to the ruling.

Joseph Amendola, an attorney for Sandusky, declined to comment on the ruling, citing a gag order.

In a ruling earlier this week, Cleland barred attorneys in the case, including past attorneys and employees of the state’s Attorney General’s office, from making any statements regarding Sandusky’s guilt or innocence and stating opinions on the factual or legal merits of the case and credibility of any potential witnesses.

The case is Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Sandusky, CP-14-2422-2011, Court of Common Pleas, Centre County, Pennsylvania (Bellefonte).

To contact the reporter on this story: Sophia Pearson in Philadelphia at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.