There are a lot of issues that swirl around the head of any lawyer who specializes in sex crimes given the situation at Penn State, not the least of which was how could four intelligent men let this situation get to the point where it cost them their careers, and quite possibly, their lives?

Such a question should not only raise the eyebrows of legal experts in the field, but really should command the attention of most anyone who might one day find themselves in a position of such responsibility.

While the guilt of Jerry Sandusky has yet to be decided in a court of law it certainly has been decided in the court of public opinion. Joe Paterno, who previously was perhaps the most esteemed college coach in history, has lost his job and reputation. The well-respected, but now former, university President Graham Spanier has lost the same. The former athletic director and a vice president may also lose their freedom, charged with perjury and failing to report the allegations of child sex abuse made against the former assistant football coach,Sandusky.

Now any attorney not representing Mr. Sandusky would have to admit the 40-count grand jury indictment looks pretty overwhelming at face value. Still, putting aside the question of guilt for the moment, consider the predicament faced by the other four men. Perhaps events will show that the two are in fact guilty of the “cover-up” charges they face, but it somehow seems unlikely that an intelligent man would risk his career, family and perhaps very life to protect a pedophile, or even the university’s reputation.

If so it was possibly the height of arrogance, but having been a criminal defense attorney specializing in sex crimes for two decades, my instinct makes me question whether it really was that cut and dried. From a legal standpoint, certainly it will be argued exactly what they knew and what actions they took at which particular point in time.

A truly interesting part of this legal case is that in Pennsylvania, as in nine other states, “the law is explicit that employees need not report directly to outside authorities and can satisfy their reporting obligation by reporting only to a supervisor,” according to Wendy Murphy a leading victims’ rights advocate and an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston. Murphy also makes the point that there is little job protection for employees who step outside of this “chain of command” and report both to their superiors and to legal authorities.

“In these jurisdictions, employees who report directly to outside law enforcement and child protective service agencies face employment sanctions, including termination, for reporting outside the institutional chain of command,” Murphy claims.

As such, Paterno clearly carried out his legal requirement in the one episode allegedly witnessed by a graduate student employee of the football program. He now admits that on moral grounds, however, he fell short.

All of this may also prove true with the others involved, as well. But given hindsight, it is clear that each and every one of the university employees involved in this situation should have immediately sought their own legal advice when initially confronted with the situation.

The allegations of a cover-up appear believable in the light of the alleged atrocity that lies at the heart of the situation. However, clearly there had been a police investigation and no arrest at that time.

How much different might things look if each one had documented his knowledge and actions through an attorney at the time? In fact, it may have well changed when the other charges were actually brought to light.

But regardless of the outcome of the any the charges in this case, it brings up the one aspect of every alleged sex crime that I have ever defended.

That is, guilty or innocent these four men will always carry the stigma of this case with them. None of their lives will ever be the same.

It is a stigma that is actually codified in Colorado law. That is anyone convicted of any sex crime, down to indecent exposure, will always carry the stigma of a sex offender.

People rewarded with responsibility who need address such crimes may not ever be required to carry that legal stigma, but it should occur to them that the ultimate consequence might remain the same.

This from an angry landowner in Prescott, Ariz, who is livid about golfers urinating in public. Public outcry can easily end up in a conviction for what may seem like a fairly innocent action. Here the writer of a letter to the local newspapers insists that golfers urniating in public should be convicted.

“Just talk to the golfer who did this in the Parker/Lake Havasu area golf course. He is now on the sex-offender list after prosecution for indecent exposure. Believe me, it is against the law.

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubsectionID=73&ArticleID=98534