[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The new University President is in full damage control mode after getting quite a few dates and sequence of events badly mixed up in statements to reporters…
He is talking about “honoring” Paterno because the alums with deep pockets (make NO mistake, this, just like everything else in life is about the CASH) just like the current students, think JoPa got the screw job…and he needs the money and support of the powerful alumni to move Penn State forward, badly.
Paterno was never fired, to the best of my knowledge he was asked to resign with full salary and benefits so I guess he would be covered by the university in a criminal case. But does that extend to civil litigation as well? I don’t know that.
And correct me if I am wrong, but in civil litigation…does it only take a majority of jurors to be convinced by a lawyer that Paterno was asleep at the wheel during at least some of the alleged molestation? For him to be financially culpable?[/quote]
Paterno was dismissed/terminated. He received a phone call wherein he was told “your services are no longer required” or something along those lines. It was brief and unceremonious and it was by phone. That is a fact. He did not resign. He “resigned” prior to being fired by announcing the past season would be his last. He was shortly thereafter terminated.
As for the alumni, I agree there is political concerns there, but do you think a group of educated adults are just blindly loyal to PSU? Or do you think Paterno might have gotten unfairly railroaded? There is a mini-revolt occurring among the alumni to the extent the held their own “alumni meetings”. Not only are they unhappy with how the whole affair has been handled, but they are almost uniform in their belief that Paterno was scapegoated. And its pretty extraordinary for a University in full damage control mode to backpedal even an inch and soften its position on Paterno. In fact, it’s remarkable given that they fired him, ostensibly in connection with this scandal.
There is no criminal case against Paterno. Hence, no criminal defense necessary. He will likely be named a party in forthcoming civil suits as will ANY employee of PSU that had any knowledge of situation, limited or otherwise - and they will all be defended by PSU.
Believe it or not, Sandusky may even be afforded a civil defense b/c he has not yet been convicted of any crime. That’s a pretty sensitive legal analysis but it’s possible.
At the time of the alleged negligence, Paterno would have been an employee of PSU and hence covered under their policy. He likely faces no personal exposure unless he was criminally negligent, grossly negligent or if a verdict was rendered in excess of the coverages afforded PSU (the answer to the first two is no and no. The third is a bit more complicated analysis but unlikely inasmuch as PSU likely has high limits with plenty of excess coverage).
The standard in a civil case is “preponderance of evidence” meaning roughly more likely than not. How many jurors are required for a verdict varies from State to State. “Asleep behind the wheel” will depend, as I’ve stated before, “what he knew and when”. Moreover, Paterno had no supervisory responsibilities or privileges concerning Sandusky so your “asleep at the wheel” analogy is a non-starter. Paterno was simply not the decision-maker that so many would like him to be in this regard. If Paterno was his supervisor, that’s another matter. But imbuing him with imaginary powers as head of the football program will not cut it legally - it only cuts it to sell newspapers, and inflame the public. At the end of the day, Paterno did EXACTLY what was required of him. The likely exposure for PSU lies in those above Paterno.
If his knowledge is limited to what McQueary reported to him and he was not involved thereafter his exposure is pretty damn limited. Of course, I’m spit-balling this based on the limited information we have now. But there is simply no indication he was informed of anything after his initial report or, that he was party to any further deliberation on the matter.
Trust me, Paterno is not the target civilly. He’s just a big fish name, and he’s an employee in the chain of events. I’m guessing there will be no verdicts, just settlements although the party represented by Klein & Specter (Arlen’s son) might be problematic - they are a high profile firm and they like to swing for the fence.