Sandusky punks out and does not testify

Jerry Sandusky
Photo from  CBS via AP

I could not stomach keeping up with all the details of the Jerry Sandusky trial. The young men were threatened with their identities being revealed and that hurt me. I feel they have gone through too much as it is, especially with the gory details of the case.  Thankfully the media did not go that route, despite the judge's ruling.

Apparently Pennsylvania does not allow expert testimony on the side of the prosecutor in cases like this, but because Sandusky's attorney called an expert to make a claim of histrionic personality disorder. From Montgomery News.com:

The defense expert, Elliot Atkins, testified that Sandusky suffered from histrionic personality disorder, an affliction marked by attention seeking, excessive emotionality and sexually seductive behavior.

The prosecution expert had something different to say about Sandusky:

O’Brien said Atkins’ diagnosis was, in short, nonsense. He said test results indicate that Sandusky was deceptive while being examined, always trying to put himself in the best light, which, the doctor said, considering the circumstances, was understandable.

The traits Atkins identified, O’Brien said, also fit another diagnosis.

That one is called psycho-sexual disorder indicating a predilection for adolescents.

The prosecution rested their case earlier this week, and CBS initially reported that Sandusky would likely testify in his defense. When the Defense laid their case they called Sandusky's wife, Dottie, who said she never heard one of the victims scream for help when he was allegedly being raped by Sandusky in their basement.

Sandusky did not take the stand, and the Defense rested today. To me he punked out. I am just disgusted by him, because I believe he actually committed the crimes. I won't lie and say I'm unbiased. I'm very biased, as I am gravely concerned about a child's well-being. Defendants do not have to testify in trials, it is their choice...and typically a smart one.

The case will soon be in the hand of the jurors, many of whom are closely connected with Penn State.  A number of people have made hay about this being the case, but who else would be jurors in that jurisdiction?

Oftentimes jurors may have some tangential connection to persons in a case, but the standard is whether or not they will allow that connection to prejudice them in the case. Attorneys try to eliminate jurors with their challenges, but you get but so many.

What are your thoughts on the case?