From the release of the initial grand jury presentment against former Penn State assistant football coach and Second Mile founder Jerry Sandusky, the prosecution has skewed public perception against the defendant with the creation of the Penn State Sex Scandal headlines. It is not a coincidence that the Office of the Attorney General has prosecuted its case against Sandusky in the court of public opinion and continues to do so.
The prosecution's use of the media is and has been one of timing. Case in point, look at the key distinction between the accusations against Sandusky and those leveled against former Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine: Jerry Sandusky was investigated and indicted before the media circus was unleashed. For its lengthy investigation and failure to immediately indict and take Sandusky into custody, former Attorney General and now Governer, Tom Corbett has been a target of criticism. However, imagine if Corbett had indicted Sandusky for charges on one victim three years ago. Would the court of public opinion been so quick to replace the presumption of innocence with one of guilt? If you're objective and honest, no.
In this case, the prosecution knew one victim would not be nearly as scintillating as eight or ten. The prosecution knew that a quality defense attorney could certainly attack the credibility of one victim, but eight? Imagine if they had elected to prosecute on the first victim only and seven or nine victims subsequently showed up with their civil attorney's standing next to them talking about suing Penn State and JoePa, would we then have looked at their credibility differently?
Instead, based upon its elected strategy, the prosecution can now say, "Sure lightning can strike the same place once, maybe twice, but eight times?" The prosecution knew how the public thinks and developed a strategy consistent with the psyche of the masses because that would be its jury. Consequently, the victims are presumed credible and Sandusky presumed guilty.
Now, fast forward to a week before the Preliminary Hearing after the defense attorney has called out the victims to testify and the defense has put on a full court press while the prosecution has fallen in the background of the media circus. Is it a coincidence that the new presentment with new charges for two new victims are brought against Sandusky and a man who has not spent a day in jail now finds his new home to be a cell next to "other criminals"? Or, was it a calculated measure consistent with the prosecution's overall strategy to skew media coverage and, thereby, public perception back to the idea of a man that does bad things to little boys? In doing so, a direct message is sent to the defendant, " if you think a day in jail is bad, consider the feeling of spending the rest of your life there?" Not a bad way to engage in a two-pronged attack in an effort to leverage a plea deal immediately before the victims are scheduled to testify, right?
Herein lies the lesson, regardless of what side of the fence you fall on, prosecution or defense, you need to see the big picture, live in the moment, and be two steps ahead of the other side. Unfortunately for Mr. Sandusky, it appears to be the prosecution that's teaching the lesson -- at least at the moment.