Wait! Whut?! Judge's instructions to Sandusky jury (unbelieveable)

[onenote]

118. No. That's where the original story that you were commenting on came from.

And since you've asked, in criminal law, each offense has to be proved separately and stand or fall on its own evidence. Which is why the judge has thrown out a couple of the charges -- the evidence as to those particular charges -- specific acts involving a specific victim at a specific time -- could not be proven because no evidence of them was presented, even though evidence of identical acts involving the same or different victims at different times were testified to and thus can go forward.

I'm not going to pretend to know the specific sentencing guidelines for Pennsylvania. How much discretion, if any, a judge has in regards to sentencing will vary with the state law. It is not uncommon, however, for the law to give the judge the ability to impose the maximum sentence for each and every separate offense on which a defendant is guilty. When the jury finally comes back in this trial, it will not simply announce Guilty or Not Guilty. It will announce a separate verdict on each and every one of the 48 (I think that is the number of charges still remaining) that were presented against Sandusky. One of the reasons that it may be taking the jury as long as it is taking them is that they may take this aspect of their responsibilitly seriously and are reviewing and separately discussing and voting on each one of around four dozen charged offenses.

Civil suits are separate -- the outcome in a criminal case doesn't alway dictate the outcome of a civil case. However, if Sandusky is found guilty, his chances of avoiding civil liability are slim. If he gets off on some (or, heaven forbid, all) of the charges, the lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence v. no reasonable doubt) makes it possible for a civil judgment to still be awarded relating to the actions that were not proven to be a criminal violation.