Lawsuit Filed Against Penn State
COOPER: Tonight the child sex abuse scandal that has shaken Penn State University brought former students and school teachers -- school leaders together at a town-hall forum held on campus, a chance to talk candidly and ask questions. Hours earlier the first lawsuit was filed against former defensive football coach Jerry Sandusky, who is charged with sexually abusing eight boys, charges he denies. Penn State's also named in the lawsuit, along with the charity Sandusky founded for underprivileged kids. Now, the suit was filed on behalf of someone listed as John Doe. The 29-year-old man, who says he was 10 years old when he first met Sandusky. And this man is a new accuser, not mentioned, actually, in that grand jury report. His attorneys claim Sandusky sexually abused their client more than 100 times and threatened to harm him and his family if he told anyone. As for Sandusky, his attorney says he's working with a private investigator to prove his innocence. In an interview today with CNN contributor Sara Ganim, Amendola said he's talked to one of the alleged victims described in that extremely graphic grand jury report that led to Sandusky's arrest. Listen.</s>JOE AMENDOLA, ATTORNEY FOR SANDUSKY: What I'm saying is that the young man was in my office several weeks ago following the initiation of the charges against Jerry, and he sat here with his mother and his brother and said that he was not a victim, that he was the young man, he believed, in the shower the night that McQueary said that he went in and saw Jerry engaging in some sort of sexual act. The young man said that he was the boy in the shower, as far as he knew, but he was not involved in any sexual acts with Jerry.</s>COOPER: Sara Ganim, who is also a reporter at the "Patriot- News," joins me now. Sara, there was a new lawsuit filed today from this victim, not part of the grand jury. What have you learned about -- about the victim, about the lawsuits?</s>SARA GANIM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, what we know is he's about 29 years old. He -- he's coming forward alleging 100 -- that he was sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky more than 100 times, but he's not one of those eight victims outlined in that grand jury presentment. So what we believe from the attorney general's office ongoing investigation is that he might be talking to police at this point. But so far, he is not -- he is not one of the eight victims with charges against Jerry Sandusky. Only -- only the civil suit is being brought forward.</s>COOPER: Has the Second Mile responded? Has the Second Mile group responded to the lawsuit?</s>GANIM: The Second Mile did respond, and they're saying only that they're going to respond appropriately to any lawsuit, any litigation that's brought against them and that they -- their thoughts remain with the victims and their families. But they're not specifically responding to the claims in that lawsuit, which are that they should have known that they should have done something. And the same thing with Penn State, that Penn State, being Jerry Sandusky's employer, should have done something to -- to prevent him from having alone time with children.</s>COOPER: I want to play some more of your interview with Jerry Sandusky's attorney today. The attorney claims that the alleged victim told him nothing -- nothing sexual happened. Let's watch.</s>AMENDOLA: He said he had turned all the shower faucets on. As you know, they're big showers in Penn State -- Penn State football complex. He turned all the shower heads on, and water was running on the floor. He said he was surfing. He'd run from one end to the other and slide across the shower floor, and he said nothing sexual occurred.</s>COOPER: I mean, this is obviously in complete contradiction to what this Coach McQueary, who was then a graduate assistant, says he saw and has testified to seeing. What does -- what does the attorney say the victim told the attorney about what Coach McQueary testified he saw?</s>GANIM: Well, contrary to what the grant jury presentment said, which is that Coach McQueary was seen by Sandusky and by the boy, according to Joe Amendola, the boy who says he's victim -- now the man -- who says he's victim 2 says that he didn't know there was a witness to anything that was going on in that shower at the time. But two days later, something happened that made that instance memorable, and that was that Jerry Sandusky called him up and said, "Hey, listen, Penn State officials say that somebody felt uncomfortable about what was going on in that shower, you know, two days ago, and I gave them your name. I gave them your number. And they might be calling to ask you if something happened. Just tell them what happened." And you know from the grand jury presentment, we know that it's been alleged that no one from Penn State ever reached out to that child. So it's very interesting that Joe Amendola is saying that he -- that Penn State officials did know who that boy was, they knew his identity and didn't contact him.</s>COOPER: All right. Sara Ganim, appreciate it. Thanks very much. I want to bring in our legal panel: criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos; senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Mark, I want to play another clip from the interview that reporter Sara Ganim did with Sandusky's attorney today. Take a look.</s>GANIM: What is the point where you say, "Maybe we should talk about a plea deal"? And are you already having those conversations with the A.G.'s office?</s>AMENDOLA: No, we haven't. And as a matter of fact, even from your experience, people who maintain their innocence sometimes plead guilty just because of the overwhelming evidence against them. And there have been many people who had gone to trial who were convicted of serious crimes, including homicides, and executed, and it later turned out that they were innocent. So there's a lot of reasons why people decide to do certain things. But at this point, Jerry has maintained his innocence in regard to the allegations he knows about.</s>COOPER: What do you make of that answer? I mean, does it sound like they're considering a plea deal, and he's sort of setting the table for that? Or was he just sort of hypothetically talking?</s>MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Sounds like the door is open. I don't know how else to put it. I mean, it's a true statement. People all the time take plea deals because it's in their best interests. There's a U.S. Supreme Court case that's right on point, California case that's right on point, that you can take a plea deal. And, yes, it's true, people go to trial, get convicted unjustly. There's discussion about whether or not people have been executed because of that. All of that is accurate. Why do you put that out there? It sounds to me like you're telegraphing the fact that the door's open, and there's some communication going on.</s>COOPER: Jeff, do you agree with that?</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I agree, though it's important to remember, we're really early in this process.</s>COOPER: Right.</s>TOOBIN: I mean, there is an investigation that's very much ongoing. When you have a big case like this, the first indictment is almost always superceded by further indictments that are either broader, as is usually the case, or narrower. So I just think it's premature at this point.</s>COOPER: But if what this attorney, Amendola, is saying is true about what this alleged victim has told him or told Sandusky or is willing to say to authorities, it completely contradicts what is in a grand jury report, what McQueary has told the grand jury.</s>TOOBIN: It does. And it's possible that there's simply contradictory evidence out in the world. It's possible that witnesses told two different stories. But this is what trial prep is all about, learning what the witnesses say and see how strong your case is. It's only at that point you decide whether a plea is really the right thing to do, after you've looked at the evidence.</s>COOPER: Mark, this lawsuit by this new victim, who has -- or alleged victim who's come forward names the university everybody also Sandusky, also the charity. How does that work? Would they all face trial together? I mean, how would -- would they merge some sort of their defense? In a civil suit?</s>GERAGOS: It's interesting. It's interesting how those are usually handled. If somebody is named as a defendant -- and here you've got three defendants -- and one of them is facing criminal prosecution or investigation, they can move to have the civil suit stayed, which means, "Hey, judge, we don't want to go forward with this right now. Put it aside until we finish with the criminal." That -- whether the judge does that for one defendant, all defendants, or whether the judge says, "No, you can have what's called third party discovery," meaning that they can take the deposition of McQueary, that's really up in the air. Judges craft that all the time. And it's actually a very common issue, any time you have these kinds of investigations where you're got the civil lawsuits that are getting in the middle of there. And remember, in this case, you've got so many agencies investigating or, at least kind of like moths to a flame here, to throw civil lawsuits into it, as well, really kind of mucks up the whole thing.</s>COOPER: Mark, is there -- is there a statute of limitations in a civil case like this?</s>GERAGOS: Sure. Yes, there absolutely is a statute of limitations, and I'll tell you. The criminal case, I think, is going to have to deal with some of these statute of limitations issues, although it's more expansive or it can be read more expansively, although the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in, at least on the California statute that has applicability nationally that you can't revive a case after the fact, if it's already -- if the statute's already run and the crime can't be prosecuted.</s>TOOBIN: Pennsylvania just changed its law in 2002 to expand the statute of limitations for minors in sexual abuse cases until they are 30 years old. John Doe was 29. Did you notice that in that story? It's very significant that he's 29, because by filing it now, he gets in under the statute of limitations. If he'd waited a few months longer, he might not.</s>COOPER: The other thing, though, that's interesting, Jeff, that the attorney, Amendola, is saying is that four of these alleged victims outlined in the report have had in recent years congenial -- what he described as congenial relationships with Sandusky, even going to his home and visiting his wife.</s>TOOBIN: That may be significant. It may be evidence that no abuse took place. There is also a pattern in sexual abuse cases of people having continuing relationships. These are very weird and unfortunate and difficult relationships. But that alone doesn't prove that sexual abuse did not take place.</s>COOPER: Mark Geragos, Jeff Toobin, thanks very much. Interesting discussion. Up next, new developments in the Syracuse sex abuse case. We're learning more about the recorded phone call between Bernie Fine's wife, one of his accusers, and the role a local newspaper played in setting that up. We'll be right back.