Advertisement

Sandusky prosecutors oppose perjury motion

Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky arrives at Centre County Court for his preliminary hearing in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania on December 13, 2011. Sandusky is at the center of a sex scandal that caused the firing of many Penn State University officials, including late coach Joe Paterno. Sandusky waived his right to a hearing, which means the case proceeds to trial. UPI/George Powers
Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky arrives at Centre County Court for his preliminary hearing in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania on December 13, 2011. Sandusky is at the center of a sex scandal that caused the firing of many Penn State University officials, including late coach Joe Paterno. Sandusky waived his right to a hearing, which means the case proceeds to trial. UPI/George Powers | License Photo

STATE COLLEGE, Pa., March 31 (UPI) -- Lawyers for two Penn State officials in the Jerry Sandusky case say they will review the prosecution's response to a motion to have perjury charges dismissed.

Gary Schultz and Tim Curley have asked a Dauphin County judge to toss out charges they lied to the grand jury in the investigation into child-molestation allegations against Sandusky, a former Nittany Lions assistant football coach.

Advertisement

Prosecutors submitted their response opposing the dismissal this week.

"We have received the prosecution's filings and look forward to reviewing their responses," the defense said in a written statement Friday.

Schultz, who retired as a Penn State administrator, and Curley, who is on leave from his post as athletic director, maintain they had few details of an alleged shower room incident involving Sandusky and a young boy and did not mislead the grand jury.

But the prosecution said in its response that their star witness, assistant coach Mike McQueary, did indeed pass on alarming details of what he saw to the defendants, and his account was corroborated for the grand jury by late head coach Joe Paterno, said the Centre Daily Times in State College, Pa.

Advertisement

The prosecutors alleged in their filings that Curley and Schultz were taking advantage of Paterno's death in January to firm up their own recollections of the incident. However, the prosecutors said Paterno's testimony was part of the record and was considered evidence in the case.

Latest Headlines