Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary gave public testimony for the first time yesterday to a packed Dauphin County courtroom in Harrisburg.
Questioned by Deputy DA Bruce Beemer, McQueary told the court that he saw Jerry Sandusky having sex with a young boy in the locker room showers.
He described hearing a “rhythmic, slapping sound” and saw Sandusky standing behind a boy in the shower “having some sort of intercourse with him”.
The defendants are two Penn State administrators, Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, who are charged with lying to a grand jury about what was reported to them. Neither ever reported the incident to police.
McQueary’s father, John, also testified. His son called him shortly after witnessing the assault and they also discussed in person what to do about it. “I’m now in the position to say Gary Schultz did nothing about it,” John McQueary testified.
NYT story is here.
In a crowded ornate courtroom Jerry Sandusky told Judge Robert E. Scott that he wished to waive the preliminary hearing where some of his accusers were prepared to testify.
These are a few sketches from his short appearance in court.
And you can read about it here.
Here are some sketches I did – still working on my watercolor chops – of arguments in two cases before the Supreme Court today.
The first, Mayo Medical Laboratories v. Prometheus Laboratories, is a very complex case about whether you can patent a natural process, in this case monitoring the metabolites a drug.
I can’t begin to explain it, but Lyle Denniston can. Click here for his analysis.
In the second case, PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, the Justices were asked to reference the journals of Lewis and Clark to determine if a river in Montana was once navigable.
It seems that title to the riverbeds beneath commercially navigable waterways belong to the states, and those of non-navigable rivers belong to the nation. I did not know that.
The dispute is between a Montana power company that operates several dams on the river and the State of Montana which says it is owed over $50 million in rent and interest.
You can read about it here.
In two recent cases the Supreme Court has expanded Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness to include the lab technician who actually did the test.
In today’s argument the petitioner is challenging his conviction because the lab tech who performed a DNA test was not called to testify, but his report was introduced through the testimony of another expert witness.
Justice Alito asked petitioner’s lawyer, Brian Carroll, “Hasn’t it long been accepted that experts may testify to the facts that form the basis for their opinions?”
When it was State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s turn at the lectern Justice Scalia said, “We don’t know how good the individuals who did the test were. And that’s why it’s up to the state to bring forward testimony saying what the lab did. And the only testimony they brought forward was the testimony of this witness who was not there.”
Nor did Justice Kennedy seemed convinced as Mike Sacks tell it here.
How far can the police go in procuring a warrant based on an affidavit “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” that the resulting search not only violates the Fourth Amendment, but exposes the officer to civil action? Beats me.
I wasn’t in court to cover the story, but rather to try out a new combination of sketching media. Here’s what I came away with.
This was not the usual audience of spectators. I don’t think they had anything to do with the cases being argued, and in fact they looked a little bored.
The case is Messerschmidt v. Millender.