Archive

In twist, Attorney General Kane gets pulled into Jerry Sandusky case | TribLIVE.com
Politics Election

In twist, Attorney General Kane gets pulled into Jerry Sandusky case

dnKaneAttorneyGeneralIndictment082515
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane leaves her preliminary hearing Monday, Aug. 24, 2015, at the Montgomery County courthouse in Norristown.
ptrkane102915
Kane later successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to remove Judge Barry Feudale from supervising a statewide grand jury.
dnKaneAttorneyGeneralIndictment082515
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane leaves her preliminary hearing Monday, Aug. 24, 2015, at the Montgomery County courthouse in Norristown.
ptrkane102915
Kane later successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to remove Judge Barry Feudale from supervising a statewide grand jury.
PennStateAbuseJPEG027bd
Former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky leaves the Centre County Courthouse after attending a hearing about his appeal in Bellefonte, Pa., Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015.

The judge presiding over former Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky’s latest appeal on Thursday ordered Attorney General Kathleen Kane to present, under seal, any evidence she has regarding leaks from the Sandusky grand jury.

Senior Judge John Cleland of McKean County, assigned to the case in Centre County, reacted to a statement Kane’s office released a day earlier.

In it, she accused state Judge Barry Feudale, who supervised the Sandusky grand jury, of leaking sealed matters to two Philadelphia Inquirer reporters who were investigating his removal as a grand jury judge.

The Supreme Court removed Feudale at Kane’s request after she took office in 2013. The leaks Kane referred to did not pertain directly to the Sandusky child sex abuse investigation.

But Kane has alleged in the past that Feudale may have been too cozy with some of her predecessor’s prosecutors, including Frank Fina, who led the Sandusky investigation.

In an internal review of the Sandusky prosecution, conducted by a specially appointed deputy, Kane was able to draw no conclusions about leaks from the Sandusky grand jury.

Sandusky’s appellate attorney, Al Lindsay, has maintained that investigative information from the case was leaked to reporters to aid that investigation months before anything was formally unsealed.

In an apparent attempt to address that issue, Cleland issued a rare bench order forcing Kane to present to him within a week any information she has that Feudale or Sandusky’s prosecutors “orchestrated, facilitated, cooperated in or arranged for disclosure of otherwise secret grand jury material.

“… She shall detail who was involved, what was disclosed, when and how it was disclosed” by Wednesday, Cleland wrote.

Attorney General spokesman Jeff Johnson said Kane and her staff will comply with Cleland’s ruling but had no further comment.

Lindsay said he was surprised by Cleland’s order and hailed it as a sign that the judge is taking his arguments “very seriously. … I’m thrilled.”

The order was one highlight from a 30-minute legal argument on whether Lindsey should have subpoena power to aid his efforts to build a case against the 2012 conviction of Sandusky, the longtime defensive assistant to Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno.

Sandusky is serving a 30-year minimum prison term for abusing 10 boys to whom he was introduced through his Second Mile youth charity.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.