<p>“If I was writing a mandatory reporting law, it might not occur to me to include coaches/administrators/etc at a college/university reporting the abuse of a minor child.”</p>
<p>There are also some minors at colleges you know, can be as young as 15 and 16 attending classes.</p>
<p>
Well, am I defending you or prosecuting you for failing to report? When it’s a gray area, it will depend on the specific facts. Interpretation of the law is always required at the borders.</p>
<p>“He also says that the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution of failure to report is 10 years, so Curley and Shultz are not on the hook (criminally) for the 2001 incident. Is that right?”</p>
<p>But, hasn’t the investigation been going on now for 2 or 3 years? Curley, Shultz and Spanier should not get off the hook due to statute of limitations just because the investigation has taken so friging long.</p>
<p>OhioMom3000, yes I know. Some minors attend college. A fairly large number attend programs on college campuses. </p>
<p>In this case, it’s minors who are not attending the college/enrolled in a summer program/regular classes/etc. This is a completely crazy situation. Some ex-employee was bringing minors to the campus in his role as a private citizen. Who would write a child abuse law that covers that situation? If I were a legislator, before this happened, I don’t know that would write a law that included such situations…mostly because I don’t know that I would think such situations would occur. I don’t understand why no one at Penn State collected the keys or changed the locks.</p>
<p>Again, I think everyone involved had a moral obligation to call Child Services or the police department (not the campus police, the city/town/county police). The fact that they didn’t is stunning, and sad. No football program is more important than saving a child from abuse.</p>
<p>Hunt: You are neither defending or prosecuting just showing that many factors/situations etc can be involved when determining whom, by law, must be a required reporter. Where do you draw the line? Again, the coaching scenario… take it further, I’m a teacher, my son is playing soccer, the coach on the other team is physically abusing a player???<br>
Morally I firmly believe we should all report but what does the law say and does the law, as others have mentioned, create a loophole?</p>
<p>
The law says you have to report if the child “comes before you” in your professional capacity. If I’m the prosecution, I say that the kid with Sandusky “came before” Schultz et al. in their professional capacity because he was on PSU property with an individual who was authorized to be there. If I’m the defense, I say that the child wasn’t a student, wasn’t there for any PSU program, was with a person who wasn’t a PSU employee but rather a visitor, and that neither Schultz nor Curley ever saw the child or even knew who he was. If I’m the judge, I have to see whether the defense or the prosecution makes the most persuasive argument. If I’m a Pennsylvania legislator trying to revise the law, I have to decide just how widely I want to impose criminal liability for failure to report.</p>
<p>As I’ve suggested before, based on the facts as they seem to be and on the law as I read it, if I were the judge I’d have to dismiss the failure to report charge against Schultz and Curley, because I don’t think this child came before them in their professional capacities. I don’t know about the statute of limitations.</p>
<p>In my post earlier it states;
ANOTHER standard frequently used is when the
reporter has KNOWLEDGE of, or observes a child being subjected
to, conditions that would reasonably result in harm to the child. </p>
<p>just wondering if you’re an attorney Hunt?</p>
<p>Yes, I’m both an attorney and a dyed-in-the-wool civil libertarian, which sometimes makes me unpopular when everybody is convinced that somebody is guilty and should be strung up without wasting time on a trial. If the Pennsylvania statute had used the words you quote, my opinion might be different, but the statute uses the “coming before” language.</p>
<p>It’s my opinion that Curley and Schultz were charged in order to pressure them to cooperate in the case against Sandusky. I’ll be interested to see if the charges against them ever actually go to trial.</p>
<p>I understand your perspective…</p>
<p>it seems the failure to report does not carry a significant consequence.</p>
<p>is there any obstruction of justice type charge that could be made?</p>
<p>So you are saying, even if they are convinced that it was a rape of a young boy, the law says they don’t have to report it since the boy is not a student and the man is not currently employed by the school. Is that really the exact intent and correct interpretation of the law? (Note I am not a lawyer.) I think I like the we are not sure it rises to the level of sexual crime defence better. Or maybe they can argue both.</p>
<p>Shultz was also the head of PSU police, wouldn’t his professional capacity include responsibility for all crimes on campus?</p>
<p>Before this gets to heated, I would just like to thank you, Hunt, for taking the time to explain the law and the charges to us.</p>
<p>[Tim</a> Curley, Gary Schulz Trial: After New Developments CaseAgainst Administrators Gets Complicated](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>
<p>“State prosecutors said in a recent Curley-Schultz case filing that they had obtained emails among Schultz, Curley and others “that contradict their testimony before the grand jury,” and that they recently obtained a file that Schultz kept relating to Sandusky.”</p>
<p>“based on the facts as they seem to be and on the law as I read it, if I were the judge I’d have to dismiss the failure to report charge against Schultz and Curley, because I don’t think this child came before them in their professional capacities.”</p>
<p>I think you may be right. I’d want to read some Pennsylvania case law on the topic. I don’t think the answer is in the text of the statute/regulations.</p>
<p>What if the lawyers told them that they don’t need to report based on Hunt argument or any other valid argument. Would Curley and Shulz still be criminally liable even if their action is found to be aganst the law? Do you need intent to be found guilty of not reporting? From the article above, the lawyers might have told them what Hunt is suggesting given that the defence is asking for the lawyers record.</p>
<p>At the very least, there are many inconsistent and misleading statements in the grand jury by both Curley and Shulz. In the end, the lying and cover up of the original potential crime might be the only thing they are guilty of.</p>
<p>Wonder if Curley and Schultz could be charged with obstruction of justice as well as perjury because it appears they lied during the grand jury investigation.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that in all our comments here and in articles elsewhere the unstated assumption is that Curley and Schultz will fight this tooth and nail. </p>
<p>That they might come clean and say, yes, we’re sorry, we knew what was happening but didn’t report and let it continue, throw themselves on the mercy of the court–nobody considers that a possibility. Everyone just assumes they’ll continue to lie to try to square the inconsistencies of their statements, hide behind legal technicalities, blame Paterno, etc. etc.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what that means, about them, or about people who comment on the case.</p>
<p>Schultz’s attorney, for one, has made statements indicating Schultz will fight the charges.</p>
<p>Just my opinion, but I think there is almost zero chance they would come clean and admit they were lying all throughout the grand jury testimonies and purposely did not report knowing what was going on. If you read the testimonies, it is one sentence after another that they don’t know anything and McQueary was wishy washy and was never very specific about anything.</p>
<p>^^ Plus, if they admitted perjury before the grand jury, wouldn’t that open them up to all kinds of lawsuits? Not that those aren’t coming in any case…</p>
<p>The fact that they stayed quiet for ten years to cover their own a$$es tells us what kind of people they are.</p>