Opinion ID: 4508714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grand Jury Presentment

Text: The facts underlying the ODC’s Petition for Discipline against the Respondent are ultimately intertwined with Presentment No. 29, issued by the Thirty-Third Statewide Investigating Grand Jury on October 26, 2012 (hereinafter, the “Grand Jury Presentment”). We provide this summary of facts to provide context for our discussion and analysis of these disciplinary proceedings. In 2009, the Office of Attorney General (“OAG”) presented allegations of Sandusky’s repeated sexual abuse of children to a statewide investigating grand jury. Of relevance here, the ensuing investigation uncovered two instances of abuse that took place on the Penn State campus, one in 1998 and a second in 2001. The 1998 incident involved an eleven-year-old boy. Grand Jury Presentment at 6. Sandusky took the victim to the East Area Locker Room on Penn State’s campus, where they wrestled and then used exercise machines. Id. Sandusky then insisted that they shower together. Id. Sandusky put his arms around the victim and squeezed him, making the boy very uncomfortable. Id. When Sandusky took the victim home, his mother asked why his hair was wet and became concerned upon learning of the joint shower. Id. The next morning, she filed a report with the University Police Department. Id. Centre County Children and Youth Services were also notified, but it referred the case to the (…continued) 4 The “Freeh Report” refers to the lengthy report prepared by Freeh, Sporkin and Sullivan, LLP, a firm engaged by the Special Investigations Task Force on behalf of the Penn State Board of Trustees as “special investigative counsel” on November 21, 2011. Special investigative counsel was tasked with, inter alia, investigating the alleged failure of Penn State personnel to respond to, and report to the appropriate authorities, the sexual abuse of children by former Penn State football coach Sandusky. [J-63-2019] - 4 Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, citing a conflict of interest due to its involvement with the Second Mile Foundation, a charity established by Sandusky in the 1970’s that focused on assisting boys between the ages of eight and eighteen. Id. at 7. Tom Harmon was the Chief of Police of the University Police Department in 1998.5 As his department’s investigation proceeded, Chief Harmon kept Schultz, who oversaw the University Police Department as part of his administrative position at Penn State, updated on its progress. Id. at 8. Schultz, in turn, kept Curley and Spanier apprised of the investigation’s progress, primarily through email messages. Id. at 9. On June 9, 1998, Schultz sent Curley an email, on which Spanier was copied, informing him that the Centre County District Attorney had decided not to pursue criminal charges against Sandusky. Id. at 10. The police report of the investigation was not filed in the usual location. Instead, it was assigned an administrative number, which made it difficult, if not impossible, to access the report without that number. Id. at 11. The Grand Jury Presentment also reported that in 2001, Michael McQueary, then a graduate assistant for the football team, witnessed Sandusky with a young boy in a locker room shower on the University’s main campus. Id. at 12. McQueary reported this incident to head football coach Joseph V. Paterno, id. at 13, who testified to the grand jury that McQueary described Sandusky as fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy in the shower. Id. Paterno further testified that in turn he relayed this information to Schultz and Curley. Id. at 14. Seven to ten days later, Schultz and Curley 5 Chief Harmon and the lead detective on the case, Ronald Schreffler, both provided testimony to the grand jury. [J-63-2019] - 5 met with McQueary. Id. at 16. McQueary told the grand jury that he described to Schultz and Curley the sexual nature of what he had witnessed. Id. Schultz then decided upon a plan that involved three parts. First, Curley would meet with Sandusky, tell him that they were aware of the 1998 incident, advise him to seek professional help, and prohibit him from ever again bringing boys into campus facilities. Id. at 15-16. Second, the chair of Second Mile would be notified. Id. And third, the matter would again be reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare for investigation, as had been done in 1998. Id. Curley responded that he would prefer not to report the matter to the public welfare department so long as Sandusky was cooperative with their efforts. Id. at 16-17. Spanier was advised of the modified approach and agreed with the decision not to report the matter to an outside agency. Id. at 17-18. Curley then executed the revised two-part plan, conducting separate meetings with Sandusky and a Second Mile representative. Id. at 18-19.