Opinion ID: 4508714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grand Jury Subpoenas to the Clients

Text: On December 28, 2010, Respondent received a telephone call from the OAG regarding a grand jury investigation of multiple claims of child abuse against Sandusky. N.T. 5/23/18, at 366. The OAG asked Respondent to accept service of four subpoenas (which she later did), one for documents directed to Penn State and three for testimony from Curley, Schultz, and Paterno. Id. at 367. The subpoena duces tecum was directed to Penn State and requested any and all records pertaining to Jerry Sandusky and incidents reported to have occurred on or about March 2002, and any other information concerning Jerry Sandusky and inappropriate contact with underage males both on and off University property. Response shall include any and all correspondence directed to [J-63-2019] - 6 or regarding Jerry Sandusky. Subpoena No. 1179, Attachment. The subpoenas to Curley, Schultz and Paterno6 were directed to them personally, without reference to Penn State or their employment titles. Subpoena No. 1176 (Curley); Subpoena No. 1178 (Schultz); Subpoena No. 1177 (Paterno). These three subpoenas indicated that the witnesses were to appear to testify before the grand jury on January 12, 2011, just nine days later. Id. Curley and Schultz were not served with a subpoena duces tecum. Respondent first met with Curley in connection with his grand jury testimony in Spanier’s office. N.T. 5/23/18, at 371. Respondent later testified that: I explained to them [Curley and Spanier] about the grand jury, how it was, that it wasn't like a regular courtroom, how many people were on, that there would be thirty-some people on it, and what they were doing, that it was an investigating grand jury because they really didn't know what a grand jury was, and I – I did explain that [Curley] could have a personal attorney to go with him to the grand jury, and that, you know, he shouldn't be nervous, just tell the truth, that's what all of this is about... Id. at 371. Respondent further testified that Spanier, in Curley’s presence, instructed Respondent to go with Curley to the grand jury; that she told them she was general counsel and could not be Curley's personal attorney; that nothing Curley said would be confidential; and that Curley could retain a personal attorney. According to Respondent, Curley said that he did not know any lawyers. Id. at 372. Respondent and Curley then met privately in Respondent’s office. Respondent later indicated that they discussed what she had explained to him at the meeting in Spanier’s office and reviewed his recollection of events involving Sandusky. Id. at 373- 6 Paterno retained independent counsel to represent him during the grand jury proceedings. [J-63-2019] - 7 74. With respect to the 2001 incident, Respondent said that basically he told me yes, he knew about this incident, and it had been described as horseplay. Id. Respondent’s sole private conversation with Schultz before his grand jury testimony followed, and by Respondent’s account, Schultz’s recollections were in line with Curley’s. Id. at 375. Respondent indicated that “[Schultz] told me the same thing that [Curley] told me, that it had been described as horseplay.” Id. Respondent testified that neither Curley nor Schultz told her that a sex act had taken place between Sandusky and the boy in the shower, id. at 376, but the record does not reflect whether or not she specifically asked either of them whether one had occurred. During these meetings with Curley and Schultz, there was no discussion regarding the 1998 incident, as Respondent had no knowledge at that time that any such event had taken place.7 Both Curley and Schultz denied having any documents relating to Sandusky’s activities. Id. at 377. Based on these meetings, Respondent determined that their stories were consistent, as they told me the same thing. Id. at 375. She further decided that the interests of Curley and Schultz were consistent with Penn State's interests. Accordingly, she made the judgment that she could represent them both before the investigating grand jury during their questioning. Id. at 378. On the morning of January 12, 2011, Respondent accompanied Curley and Schultz to interviews with an OAG representative. Report and Recommendations of the Hearing Committee Report (“Hearing Committee Report”), Exhibit D (interview notes). Later that day, she then accompanied each of them to their appearances before the 7 These meetings took place on January 3, 2011 and Respondent did not learn about the 1998 incident until the next day, at which time she obtained a copy of the police report. Freeh Report at 83. [J-63-2019] - 8 investigating grand jury. In his grand jury testimony, Curley testified that in 2001, Paterno contacted him (and Schultz) and requested an immediate meeting regarding an incident reported to him by McQueary. N.T. (grand jury), 1/12/2011 (Curley testifying), at 4–5. Paterno informed them that McQueary had seen Sandusky in the shower with a child and was “uncomfortable” with what he had observed. Id. at 5. According to Curley, when he and Schultz later met with McQueary, McQueary told them that Sandusky and the boy “were horsing around, that they were playful, and that it just did not feel appropriate.” Id. at 7. Curley insisted that neither McQueary nor Paterno told them, in any form, that there was any sexual conduct involved, including anal intercourse. Id. Curley testified that he did not inform campus police of the incident because he did not think that what had been reported was a crime. Id. at 12. Curley testified that he promptly advised Spanier regarding the incident. Id. at 8. He stated that he reported the incident to the executive director of the Second Mile Foundation and instructed Sandusky to refrain from bringing young people into the athletic facilities at Penn State. Id. at 10–11. Curley acknowledged that there was no follow up investigation into the 2001 report by McQueary. Id. at 13. He denied having any knowledge of the 1998 incident involving Sandusky. Id. at 13–14. Also accompanied by Respondent, Schultz testified before the grand jury that he attended a meeting with Paterno and Curley regarding the 2001 incident. Schultz indicated that Paterno had been informed by a graduate student of disturbing and inappropriate behavior by Sandusky in the shower. N.T. (grand jury), 1/12/2011 (Schultz testifying), at 5. Schultz also stated that he and Curley met with McQueary. Id. at 9-10. [J-63-2019] - 9 Unlike Curley, Schultz maintained that after talking to both Paterno and McQueary, he was of the view that what had occurred was sexual in nature. He told the grand jury: Q. Did you, nevertheless, form an impression about what type of conduct this might have been that occurred in the locker room? A. Well, I had the impression that it was inappropriate. Telling you what kind of thing I had in my mind without being clear, without him telling me, but, you know. I had the feeling that there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and maybe [Sandusky] might have grabbed the young boy’s genitals or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had. Q. Would you consider that to be inappropriate sexual conduct? A. Oh, absolutely. Well, I don’t know the definition of sexual, but that’s certainly inappropriate for somebody to do.