Penn State trial: unclear if Sandusky will testify as defence takes center stage

After days of harrowing testimony from his alleged victims, former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky will soon get a chance to counter their claims of child sex abuse, but it remains uncertain if he will take the stand. The defence case takes centre stage this week, and as lawyers for the accused man indicated in the trial's opening remarks, they may call their client to give evidence. But such a move could be a risk. Instead, his attorneys may rely more on expert testimony that seeks to explain some of Sandusky's behaviour as being down to a personality disorder. Central to the defence strategy is creating doubt in the minds of jurors over the testimonies of witnesses, inconsistencies in their stories and in earlier statements to the grand jury, police, or child service authorities. Sandusky's lawyers have also sought to show that the alleged victims are motivated by the hope of money in a future civil lawsuit. The defence case will include expert testimony from a psychologist about a psychiatric condition which they say explains the motivation behind letters Sandusky wrote to alleged victims. The prosecution's case so far has been a strong one. The numbers of witnesses alone are stark. Eight men, aged between 18-28, testified that Sandusky had inappropriate contact with them when they were children, progressing from naked hugging and "soap battles" in the showers to anal and oral rape. Some of their stories carried remarkable similarities: the former coach would ply them with gifts and trips, involving Penn State's vaunted football programme. Then, the antics in the shower would turn ugly or the fatherly kiss would progress to rape. Some spoke of being threatened if they spoke out. Two independent witnesses have also testified. Mike McQueary, a graduate assistant football coach, said he saw Sandusky in the shower in an "extremely sexual" position with a boy in 2001, and a janitor also said he saw Sandusky with a boy in the shower. Sandusky faces 52 counts of abusing 10 boys. In his cross-examination of the witnesses, Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, has concentrated on trying to find inconsistencies in their testimonies and earlier statements. He has asked witnesses why dates they have given have altered or why the number of times they said they were abused has changed. One witness was asked why, when he accused Sandusky of forcing him to have oral sex, he hadn't mentioned this to a grand jury. The man said he hadn't wanted to go into detail. He then got the man to acknowledge that he had hired a lawyer and that he knew other alleged victims. At least six said they told incorrect or incomplete stories to police in early contacts and three testified that they only remembered some details recently. In some cased, they said they were embarrassed or did not want to get dragged into the case. Amendola questioned so-called Victim 1, whose case began the wider investigation, about whether he had ever told a neighbour he and his mother would get rich from a civil suit. "No, I have dreamed about living in a big house, I have dreamed about driving nice cars," Victim 1 said. "Doesn't everybody?" The young man described as Victim 7 said his memory of the allegations has improved since he began counselling a year ago. Amendola has tried to paint Sandusky's interactions with children as misunderstood and part of a lifelong effort to help, rather than abuse them. "Jerry, in my opinion, loves kids so much that he does things none of us would ever do," Amendola said at the start of the trial. University of Pittsburgh law professor David A Harris said these were tried and tested tactics for the defence. "This is all standard procedure for building a reasonable doubt defence," said Harris, who has worked as a defence lawyer and prosecutor. "What they don't have here is any way to say, 'OK, these kids have been molested, but somebody else did it.'" Jurors may have made up their minds already about the credibility of the alleged victims, but it doesn't mean they can't be swayed by defence evidence. The judge will caution them to keep an open mind, Harris said. A judge's ruling on Friday allowed Sandusky's defence to enter expert testimony over a condition known as histrionic personality disorder, which they say explains letter he wrote to his alleged victims. But it also paved the way for a prosecution psychologist to examine him, raising the prospect of him being evaluated as a paedophile. Sandusky was expected to be examined by a prosecution psychologist on Sunday, according to CNN. One witness, referred to as Victim 4, told the jury of "creepy love letters" Sandusky had written to him. The prosecution contend they are part of the "grooming" behaviour that sexual predators display towards their subjects. Sandusky's defence lawyers will call a psychologist who "will explain that the words, tones, requests and statements in the letter are consistent with a person who suffers from a histrionic personality disorder". According to the National Institutes of Health, those with histrionic personality disorder "act in a very emotional and dramatic way that draws attention to themselves". "The goal of a person suffering from this disorder in writing those letters would not necessarily be to groom or sexually consummate a relationship in a criminal manner, but rather to satisfy the needs of a psyche belaboured by the needs of such a disorder," according to the motion by Sandusky's defence lawyers. It is unclear whether Sandusky himself will testify or whether the defence will call any witnesses at all. It can be difficult for any defendant to hold up under the questions of a skilled cross-examiner, said Harris, and defence attorneys are normally reluctant to play that card. "If they put him on, that's really a sign that they think they cannot succeed unless they put him on," Harris said. "Because it's a huge risk."