18/2016 wo tort aK 8 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION (COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA vs. : OP-44.0R-2421-2014 CP-14-CR-2492-2011 GERALD A. SANDUSKY : ORDER “« e oer an AND NOW, Juno 4 2016, upon consideretion of the Defendant's Secohd ‘Amended Post Conviction Relief Act Peiion and the Commonwealth's Answer anc the Defendant's Response; ard the Court having reviewed the stipulation of counsel regarding which issues they agree require a hoaring to davelop an appropriate factual record; and It appearing tothe Court that certain adiltional sues require @ hearing: therefore Its ordered as follows: 1. That a hearing is scheduled to address the Issues identified In paragraph 2 of this Order in Courtroom #1 at the Centre County Courthouss, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, beginning at 9:30 a.m, on August 12, 22, and 23, 2016. 2, That the following issues, Identitiod by the number by which they are identified In the Defendant's Second Post Conviction Reliof Act Petition, will be addressed on those dates: 4. Tilal counsel were Ineffective in not objecting to prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during the closing statement when the prosecutor falsely stated that the 2001shower victim was unknown 3, Trial counselwas incffective in neglecting to Inform Mr. Sandusky of the agreement between Mr. Amendola and the Commonwealth that nelther * By previous order Ihave ruled this claim merits a hearing, but the focus of the hearing willbe ‘on whether or not Mr. MeGettgan lied tothe jury when he sald the identity of Victim #2 was unknown, For purposes of ruing on this issue, the question Is not whether or not A.M. Is eri. ‘not Victim #2. The question ls what Mr. MeGettigan belleved to be true when he made the statement tothe Jury. asezso05pesansaie wea 10011 pax eLesseT2712 weKAAK £0 uDaEE oHaER woes/205 sido would presentMr. Myers, 6, Trial counsel were inetfectve fof falling to file & motion to quash the grand. Jury presentment and cherges arising therefrom relative to victims 2 through 10 based on governmental misconduct tainting the grandjury process? 12. Trial counselwere ineffective in waiving Mr. Sandusky's preliminary hearing and falling to uss that procooding for both discovery and to cross ‘examine the witnesses who had given numerous priorinconsistent statements. 26. Triel counsel was ineffective in permitting Mr. Sandusky to be interviewed by Bob Costas without adequately advising hlm and preparing him for the Interview and thereby providing the Commonwealth with additional evidence. 27,Trial counsel were inetfectve in falling to present the grandJury testimony of, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier. 29, Trial counsel were Ineffective tn olliting inculpstory evidence against Mr. Sandusky ard opening the door for the Commonwealth to introduce additional rebuttal evidence, {81.Triel counsel were ineffective for not making @motion to preclude Matt ‘Sandusky from tasi'ying as 2 rebuttal witness and faling to advise Mr. Sandusky regarding any stratogy that they would pursue If Mr. Sandusky ‘was permitted te testify efter the Commonwealth indicated itwould call Matt ‘Sandusky, 32, Trial counsel wore ineffective for not calling Mr. Sandusky to testify and Jnadequately advising him regarding testiying after the Commonwealth provided that it would sek to call Matt Sandusky for rebuttal purposes. £33. Trial counsel were inetective in neglecting to object tothe tral court's erroneous gull instruction as part ofits character evidence instruction.® * by previous order | have ruled this clam merits a hearing, but the Defendant wil be expected topresent affirmative proof that there was a leak from the grand jury and that the Commonwealth was the source ofthe leaked grand jury information. Assuming the existence of 4 leak! proven, evidenca thet arguably rules out other possible sources ofthe information will be insufficient to meet the Defendant's burden that the source ofthe loak was the Commonwealth *To address this issue, the Ccurt nitilly wl cll its own witness the Official Court Reporter vvibo was present during the final instructions tothe jury and ask thatthe reporter review the reporters orignal notes and ve prepafed to state under oath whether or not p. 22 of the transoript of June 21, 2012 accurately reflects the cherge-s given tothe jury. Ifthere I tape recording of that part of the charge It, too, shall be produced In Court.ce/1a/20ie xo 10112 eax o1es4812712 woxBAW eo suDGRS oHaKER @ovesens 3., That its anticipated that all remaining issues raised by the Defendant in his ‘Second Amended Post Conviction Relief Act Petition wil be decided without the Necessity of @ hearing, although adaitional briefs may be requested from counse! to address speciticlesues. BY THE COURT: