BELLEFONTE, CENTRE COUNTY - Jerry Sandusky was back in Bellefonte Thursday morning. His attorneys requested this hearing to show evidence that he didn't get a fair trial.
WTAJ News talked to legal experts who think that Sandusky's shot of a new trial, may have taken a step back.
A thinner Jerry Sandusky walked into the Centre County Courthouse Thursday. He was hoping to start off on the right foot for a new trial.
Norris Gelman's game plan was simple. As Sandusky's new Defense Attorney, he had to prove that they didn't have enough time to prepare a proper defense at his trial in June.
"You can't take 64, 65 hundred pages and give them to a lawyer and say okay, now start the trial and we'll see. You can't force a lawyer to trial when he's flying blind..."
But the prosecution says they followed protocol. Frank Fina, Pennsylvania's Deputy Attorney General says Sandusky's defense team dropped the ball.
"The law is not what someone's opinion is of whether or not they've looked at every document, thoroughly. The law is whether or not they can point to, what they failed to do in the actual trial that affected the adversarial process."
Sandusky's Attorney, Joe Amendola told WTAJ, they had a sick paralegal, and a broken copier, which set them back. But Thursday morning he admitted on the stand that the files wouldn't have helped his defensive strategy. His critics' say that was a major mistake. Now Gelman is doing
his best to put a positive spin on the hearing.
"I thought it went as well as it could go. We have a couple of things which are stronger than other things..."
Gelman says he's confident that they've got a shot at a new hearing.
"I'm going to use a basketball analogy. Back in college, this would be a long three point shot for me. I'm not throwing the ball across the court, I'm not throwing it from half court, and it's a long three pointer. Some of those go in..."
But WTAJ Legal Analyst Tony DeBoef doesn't see it that way.
"I think it may be a half court shot... I would be surprised if Judge Cleland reversed his ruling today, based on nothing new, that's come up since he heard the original arguments last spring."
DeBoef says it's usually a 30-60 day waiting period before a ruling's made after this type of hearing. And for the time being, Sandusky will continue to serve his 30-60 year sentence.
DeBoef adds that the only way he sees Sandusky's defense getting him a new trial now, is if new evidence comes up that would drastically change their strategy.