Jerry Sandusky’s case follows a series of incidents which span more than 15 years where prosecutors state that he was a pedophile who preyed on at least ten young boys. He claims that the allegations are false and that the allegations were started by a troubled teen who was supported by the police to build a baseless case which is dependent on greedy accusers twisting his goodwill and additional circumstantial evidence. The case against him lacks adequate strong evidence to present a judgement against him.
The reason for granting Sandusky a motion for a new criminal trial is that the source of the case is not reliable since the child is said to have had a mental condition which could have resulted in the case against him being built. There is a need for the court to carry out tests and evaluations on the accusers to determine that their mental health state. If the source of the case is determined to be mentally unstable, then the case against him could be possibly dismissed. The reason against giving him a new criminal trial is that the evidence presented is adequate proof of the accusations being true against him. The witnesses who have come out in relation to his case have sworn that they told the truth about the matters as they occurred under oath, therefore, making their testimonies believable and reliable. However, if determined that their mental state was in doubt then the testimonies are dismissible and could be deemed as falsified.
John based on the circumstances his child has been through would present an unfair advantage in the case where he would support a decision against Sandusky due to the past experience which would possibly cloud his judgment since he would be seeking vengeance and punishment for perpetrators of similar crimes. Jurors in cases should be evaluated so that if they are found to have been through events which might shape their perceptions negatively or result in bias to be eliminated from the jury to allow for a fair judgment to be made against the accused. The case against Sandusky would be negatively biased against him with John in the jury.