Sandusky Lawyers Seek New Trial
BANFIELD: We mentioned before the break that lawyers for former Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky, have decided to appeal the child sex abuse convictions that their client got in court. Just 10 days ago, Sandusky was sentenced to between 30 and 60 years in prison. But according to a new 31-page court filing, his lawyers want a brand new trial. They say the last one wasn't fair because they weren't given enough time to prepare for it. This is high profile. Defense attorney, legal commentator, Joey Jackson, joins me now to talk about this. In all fairness, this was a seven-month process.</s>JACKSON: It was.</s>BANFIELD: And there were, what, 52 original counts that Jerry Sandusky was facing. You're a lawyer. That is an enormous amount of material -- the evidence, the reading, the documents, the thumb drives to thumb through. Is that fair?</s>JACKSON: Here's what it comes down to. It comes down to the issue of reasonableness. He gets arrested in November of 2011. The trial proceeds seven months later in June. This issue is, did they deny him a fair trail because they were not afforded an opportunity to prepare? Certainly, seven months could be deemed reasonable and will be deemed reasonable by the court. I don't think that's a meritorious argument. I further don't think in their motion, Ashleigh, that it's meritorious to say that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence or there was legally insufficient evidence. What trial were they watching? I don't want to be too prosecutorial here, but certainly the evidence seems to be compelling. I don't think --</s>BANFIELD: -- boy after boy after boy with the same M.O., many of them having never known each other prior to this.</s>JACKSON: Right. I don't think those arguments have any merit. Further, they were talking about jury sequestration, the jury should have been sequestered, maybe they were contaminated. I don't think that has any merit. And further --</s>BANFIELD: By the way, this is a defense attorney who fought moving the trial into another jurisdiction. It was like apples -- the strangest dynamic that played out prior to trial. The prosecutors wanted to move this trial out, get a fresh jury pool.</s>JACKSON: Interesting, isn't it? Interesting.</s>BANFIELD: It was the defense that didn't want it.</s>JACKSON: The only thing that I think might have merit in their argument is they're arguing about the statute of limitations as it relates, again, to child abuse and when charges can be filed. The law in Pennsylvania was changed twice. In 2002, it was moved to say that you have 12 years after the 18th birthday of the victim. It was later amended. What the lawyers are arguing --</s>BANFIELD: Retroactive to all cases.</s>JACKSON: Exactly. What they're saying, Ashleigh, is that you cannot retroactively apply that statute. And if the statute of limitations was up upon the charging of Sandusky, then that should not apply.</s>BANFIELD: Doesn't the law spell out whether you can retroactively apply the new law?</s>JACKSON: Yes. But they're making the argument that -- here the law pretty much clearly says that it doesn't apply retroactively. It applies to those people who are not statute of limitations out. So ultimately -- because it would otherwise be what we call an ex post facto law. Remember reading about that? Ex post facto.</s>BANFIELD: You're so smart.</s>JACKSON: Not at all. Not at all.</s>BANFIELD: I don't remember reading about ex post facto.</s>JACKSON: I think that's the best argument, but the other -- the whole argument, Ashleigh, about, you know what, it's against this sentence from 30 to 60 years is cruel and unusual. He faced 442 years, Ashleigh. The judge clearly went well below that, and that doesn't have merit either.</s>BANFIELD: The option -- the request for the defense to at least lower the number of years that he is facing because it's cruel, don't see it happening?</s>JACKSON: Not at all. Don't see it happening at all. If there were errors made in the trial, was the outcome determinative? I don't think it was. It was harmless error.</s>BANFIELD: Couple of seconds left. If he gets a new trial, does he get out on bail while he awaits the new trial?</s>JACKSON: I think based on the nature of this offense. It would be tough for a judge to justify releasing him.</s>BANFIELD: So he is where he is at least for the time being?</s>JACKSON: I think he stays. I think he stays.</s>BANFIELD: It's good to have you.</s>JACKSON: That's my prediction.</s>BANFIELD: Thank you. You're always so smart, ex post factor or not.</s>JACKSON: It's a pleasure.</s>BANFIELD: Thank you. Have a great weekend.</s>JACKSON: You, too, Ashleigh.</s>BANFIELD: Thanks, everybody, for watching. Stay tuned now for NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL, with Michael Holmes sitting in for Suzanne Malveaux.</s>MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: And thanks to you, Ashleigh. Welcome to NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL. And as Ash said, I'm Michael Holmes. Suzanne Malveaux is still out. We're taking you around the world in 60 minutes.