Continued from page 2

The grand jury report that lays out the accusations against the men cites the state’s Child Protective Services Law, which requires immediate reporting by doctors, nurses, school administrators, teachers, day care workers, police and others.

Neither Schultz nor Curley appear to have had direct contact with the boys Sandusky is accused of abusing.

The law “applies only to children under the care and supervision of the organization for which he works, and that’s Penn State, it’s not The Second Mile,” Farrell said of his client. “This child, from what we know, was a Second Mile child.”

Messages left later Sunday seeking comment from Frederiksen with the attorney general’s office, and from Curley’s lawyer, Caroline Roberto, weren’t immediately returned. Farrell said it was accurate to say the allegations against Curley are legally flawed in the same manner.

Farrell said he plans to seek dismissal at the earliest opportunity. “Now, tomorrow is probably not the appropriate time,” Farrell said Sunday. “We’ll bring every legal challenge that is appropriate, and I think quite a few are appropriate.”

As a summary offense, failure to report suspected child abuse carries up to three months in jail and a $200 fine.

“As far as my research shows, there has never been a reported criminal decision under this statute, and the civil decisions go our way,” he said.

Curley and Schultz also are accused of perjury for their testimony to the grand jury that issued a 23-page report on the matter Friday, the day before state prosecutors charged them. Sandusky was arrested Saturday and charged with 40 criminal counts.

Curley denied that the assistant had reported anything of a sexual nature, calling it “merely `horsing around,’” the grand jury report said. But he also testified that he barred Sandusky from bringing children onto campus and that he advised Spanier, the school president, of the matter.

The grand jury said Curley was lying, Kelly said, adding that it also deemed portions of Schultz’s testimony not to be credible.

Schultz told the jurors he also knew of a 1998 investigation involving sexually inappropriate behavior by Sandusky with a boy in the showers the football team used.

But despite his job overseeing campus police, he never reported the 2002 allegations to any authorities, “never sought or received a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002,” the jurors wrote. “No one from the university did so.”

Farrell said Schultz “should have been required only to report it to his supervisor, which he did.”

Schultz reports to Spanier, who testified before the grand jury that Schultz and Curley came to him with a report that a staff member was uncomfortable because he’d seen Sandusky “horsing around” with a boy. Spanier wasn’t charged.

About the perjury charge, Farrell said: “We’re going to have a lot of issues with that, both factual and legal. I think there’s a very strong defense here.”

Story Continues →