Sandusky appeals sex-abuse conviction, alleging prosecutors’ conduct and a civil-trust setup

Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State defensive coordinator, has filed a post-conviction relief petition seeking a new trial, claiming prosecutors improperly withheld evidence and that the case was affected by misconduct. The 81-year-old contends that the prosecutions’ conduct and a complex financial arrangement surrounding one accuser call the integrity of the verdict into question. The filings, described in coverage of the case, were submitted to the Centre County Court of Common Pleas and cited in reporting by the Daily Mail.

In 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 counts of sexual abuse of 10 boys he met through his Second Mile charity, with the acts alleged to have occurred over a 15-year span from 1994 to 2009. He was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison and was resentenced in 2019 after changes in sentencing law. The new petition argues that the conviction was “infected at every level” by issues ranging from witness coaching to questions about the timing of charges. Sandusky’s legal team maintains that the defense could not have obtained certain evidence earlier with due diligence and that the new materials could yield a different result on key counts. The petitions are part of ongoing litigation that has drawn attention to the broader Penn State case, the university’s settlements with victims, and the roles played by individuals involved in the prosecution and the trial structure.

According to the new filings, prosecutors Frank Fina and Joe McGettigan are described as having a controlling hand in a trust used to pay a civil settlement to a victim in 2015, a figure tied to a larger $12 million payout. The trust is said to include the victim’s therapist, Lauren Cliggitt, as a member who can move assets. The documents state that no withdrawal over $100,000 can occur without written approval, and that at least two committee members must sign off to terminate the trust. The trust’s structure appears to incorporate hourly compensation for each member plus an annual $5,000 stipend drawn from the victim’s funds. Sandusky’s attorneys argue that the arrangement raises questions about the integrity of the civil claims and the possibility of financial incentives influencing testimony and settlements. The petition notes that the broader civil-claims program associated with Sandusky’s case has led to substantial expenditures by Penn State in dealing with victims, settlements, and related costs, with totals cited as tens of millions of dollars beyond the primary civil payout.

The defense contends that prosecutors coached at least one victim to present false allegations, a claim that is tied to sworn affidavits and other documents included in the petition. One sworn statement, attributed to Marie, the mother of Victim 9, asserts that her son repeatedly told her Sandusky did not molest him, but that after lengthy meetings with McGettigan, his story changed. Marie says prosecutors instructed her to testify that she wished Sandusky had bought her son underwear and suggested that missing underwear indicated abuse. She also alleges prosecutors urged her to work with a civil attorney, Dennis McAndrews, and claims that the son’s testimony about Sandusky’s presence at the house was inconsistent with the number of visits she says occurred. In addition, she asserts that prosecutors told her son that he would not have to work a day in his life. The filing also includes an assertion that the son’s accounts of sexual activity surrounding Sandusky’s basement, including a supposed soundproofed space, were not accurate.

A second Sandusky accuser is described as having been misled during the process, with the claimant saying that psychological manipulation, leading questions, and assurances about trauma-memory fragments influenced testimony. The petition states that the witness later received a settlement—reported as $5.5 million—with a substantial portion allocated to defense attorneys. The filing describes prep sessions in which prosecutors allegedly urged the witness to revisit and reframe details to align with a particular narrative, including assertions that trauma-memory fragments could anchor uncertain recollections.

The petition also highlights Michael Gillum, a therapist involved with Aaron Fisher, who was one of the prosecution’s central witnesses. Gillum is described as having treated Fisher, sat with Attorney General Linda Kelly during the trial, trained investigators on interviewing child witnesses, and aided Fisher’s grand jury testimony. The defense argues that this dual role—therapist and prosecution aide—was never disclosed to the jury, and that Fisher later received a payout via Penn State. Fisher’s case is notable in the broader context of the Sandusky prosecution, in which the families and victims received substantial settlements and the university faced extensive legal costs. The petition states that Fisher ultimately received $7.5 million, with his lawyers taking a portion of the payout.

Sandusky’s legal team contends that the trust, the alleged loan, and the affidavits constitute new evidence that could have altered the outcome of the trial if they had been available earlier. They argue that these materials raise questions about whether the trial was fair and whether the prosecution’s conduct affected the verdict. The petition also references Sandusky’s physical condition, noting claims about atrophied testicles and very low testosterone, a detail first reported by the Daily Mail; the defense argues that this condition was not described by accusers in a way that would support the charged genital-contact claims.

The Commonwealth has not yet filed its response to Sandusky’s post-conviction relief petition. Separately, the defense continues to contest restitution orders tied to the case, with restitution originally set near $98,000 and later reduced to about $44,000. The ongoing filings come as Sandusky remains incarcerated; he retired from coaching in 1999 but remained involved with Penn State and the Second Mile charity prior to the investigation that led to his conviction.

The Daily Mail has reported on the substance of these new filings, and Sandusky has not commented publicly on the case since 2013, aside from a 2024 interview with the Daily Mail in which he described his disbelief about the charges. The present filings mark another chapter in a long, high-profile legal saga surrounding Sandusky, Penn State, and the family of accusers who testified against him. The outcome of the post-conviction relief petition remains uncertain, and the case continues to unfold in Centre County court.