Judge refuses to toss charges against Sandusky

[MindMover]

Source: USA Today

BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) — A judge has refused to throw out child sex abuse charges against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

Judge John Cleland rejected an argument by Sandusky's lawyer that the statute of limitations may have run out for eight of the 10 alleged victims.

Cleland also rejected defense motions that some of the charges against Sandusky were not specific enough and that evidence was lacking in others. But the judge said Thursday that Sandusky can make those arguments again before a June trial.

Sandusky is charged with more than 50 criminal counts that allege sexual abuse of 10 boys over 15 years. He has denied the accusations.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-12/sandusky-charges/54217406/1?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=206567

[Ecumenist]

1. Good. He is LONG overdue for prosecution for his crmies against children, creep. This doesn't

surprise me at all. Frankly, I would have been surprised if the charges were tossed.

[nolabear]

2. Well ya THINK?

I don't believe there should be a statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. Anything else he wants to try and disprove is up to him.

[gratuitous]

3. Whether there should or shouldn't be is a matter for the legislature

Courts have to go to trial with the laws they have, not the ones they wish they had.

Due process is so messy.

[Posteritatis]

4. Good. (nt)

[Boabab]

5. Why isn't he behind bars already?

Here's hoping he hasn't had any access to children since the indictment.

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. Have you seen this?

Edit to add source: http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/sandusky-home-borders-elementaryschool-grounds-administrative-action-taken-930818/

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. THAT doesn't bode well, IMO.

They want charges dismissed, so they come in with statute of limitations reasons? Sounds like me at the crap table hoping for a 7 from a new shooter.

Glad the judge saw through this.