“Other than the right to a speedy trial, there is no rule [in the Constitution] on when an arrest takes place and the date of the trial,” says Alan Kaufman, a former federal prosecutor and a defense lawyer at Kelley Drye & Warren, a New York-based law firm. “Some judges are much stricter on scheduling, and others are more flexible.”
Mr. Kaufman, who sometimes defends white-collar criminals accused of insider trading, says the evidence in those cases can include hundreds or even thousands of hours of tape-recorded information. “There can be 100,000 pages of discovery, and I know judges are usually receptive if you need adequate time to prepare.”
Sandusky, in a rambling statement released by PSUComMedia.com on Monday, the day before sentencing, also alluded to the relatively quick trial. “First, I looked at myself. Over and over, I asked why? Why didn’t we have a fair opportunity to prepare for trial?”
In the statement, Sandusky blamed almost everyone else for his plight. First, he claimed that a “young man who is dramatic, a veteran accuser, and always sought attention started everything,” he said. "He was joined by a well-orchestrated effort of the media, investigators, the system, Penn State, psychologists, civil attorneys, and other accusers."
Amendola said Tuesday he would have liked to have had time to see if there had been any corroboration between any of the victims.
He says it would have taken months to comb through phone records of all 10 victims. “All we were looking for was information,” he said. “The information was coming in as we were selecting a jury. We ran out of time.”
However, other defense lawyers wonder what Amendola might have uncovered.
“It is a classic fishing expedition,” says James Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University Law School in New York. “What would the phone records have shown? Probably not a lot.”