All things Cynthia Baldwin

[Reader]

I think Spanier also talked to Schultz and Curley directly, so I'm not sure how much spying went on.

Yea, but did he trust them to do what they said? He wanted someone there to remind them, by her presense, what they needed to do....lie.....

 

[Rlaub44]

Yea, but did he trust them to do what they said? He wanted someone there to remind them, by her presense, what they needed to do....lie.....

That certainly fits with Spanier's anger about Paterno retaining his own attorney.

 

[Reader]

APNewsBreak: Lawyer to probe Penn St. grand jury

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-lawyer-probe-penn-st-grand-jury

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania judge has named a special prosecutor to examine whether secrecy rules were violated in relation to the grand jury that investigated Jerry Sandusky and three former Penn State administrators currently facing criminal charges............

Feudale has recently been trying to sort out a legal dispute involving whether former Penn State lawyer Cynthia Baldwin should have been present at a grand jury proceeding, and the order referenced a rule that governs such matters.

James Reeder is the lawyer....

 

[StellarsJay]

Random thoughts: An article on Baldwin's pension says she is now 68, which means that she was Penn State's VP and Counsel while she was 65 to 67. This is older than I thought, and older than Spanier, Erikson, Curley or Schultz. . Either the Board must have thought she served very well as Chair from 2004 to 2007, or perhaps they were very confident that they didn't want an aggressive leader setting the tone for the new position.
http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/3609266-74/state-baldwin-pension#axzz2MvJq9ZIq

 

[Twindad]

http://hosted2.ap.org/CARIE/a4cb5a6...ate-Abuse/id-bd6759c615ba4e5ba33d49467ba945c1

"In hindsight, perhaps I erred in not asking follow up questions about the role of corporate counsel Baldwin," Feudale wrote. "I regret and perhaps committed error in not asking any follow-up questions, but while I am unaware what the response would have been, I fail to discern how such would persuade me at this stage why presentments should be dismissed."

 

[J. J. in Phila]

http://hosted2.ap.org/CARIE/a4cb5a6...ate-Abuse/id-bd6759c615ba4e5ba33d49467ba945c1

"In hindsight, perhaps I erred in not asking follow up questions about the role of corporate counsel Baldwin," Feudale wrote. "I regret and perhaps committed error in not asking any follow-up questions, but while I am unaware what the response would have been, I fail to discern how such would persuade me at this stage why presentments should be dismissed."

Outstanding! The prosecutors are not out of the woods, yet, but this is big.

I thought there was an obligation to inform the court of a criminal act within the grand jury/trial process, but I was not sure.

The judge also said, "It was not a violation of the lawyer-client privilege, but rather was related to her belated awareness of the commission of alleged criminal acts and was in accordance with her responsibilities as an officer of the court." Same source.

 

[Reader]

Thanks Twindad! From your link I like this part:

The defendants argued that Baldwin's actions violated their right to legal counsel, but Feudale said it "strains credulity to infer that they were somehow deluded or misrepresented by attorney Baldwin."

Question: Since Feudale says he no longer has jurisdiction, is this final on this matter or does it have to be reviewed by the judge in charge of the trial also?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks Twindad! From your link I like this part:

The defendants argued that Baldwin's actions violated their right to legal counsel, but Feudale said it "strains credulity to infer that they were somehow deluded or misrepresented by attorney Baldwin."

Question: Since Feudale says he no longer has jurisdiction, is this final on this matter or does it have to be reviewed by the judge in charge of the trial also?

No, this will be ruled on by the trial judge. This was called "dictum," a judge's comments that do not relate to the issue before the court. However, it is exceptionally strongly worded; that should give the defense pause.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There will be a preliminary hearing regarding Baldwin's testimony: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/12/14/3942486/cynthia-baldwin-testimony-likely.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Baldwin's testimony unsealed, but it is redacted. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/documents_show_prosecutors_str.html#baldwin1


Here is Spanier's http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/documents_show_prosecutors_str.html#baldwin1


I have not read it.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

They keep printing up more: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/12/documents_show_prosecutors_str.html#baldwin1

That's the general article.

The only "new" thing was Spanier's increased knowledge of 1998.

I think the 10/13/98 meeting will loom large.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Baldwin's transcript: http://www.scribd.com/doc/192201126/Cynthia-Baldwin-grand-jury-transcript-from-October-26-2012

 

[Twindad]

If she was acting on behalf of the university, did they provide her legal counsel Charles DeMonaco and Jana Volanta for the GJ or did she retain them? She does call them her counsel.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If she was acting on behalf of the university, did they provide her legal counsel Charles DeMonaco and Jana Volanta for the GJ or did she retain them? She does call them her counsel.

I think Baldwin retained them, though she is indemnified.

 

[Twindad]

Just watching the local news and they aired documents showing Baldwin told the judge she was acting for PSU, not Curley, Shultz or Spanier. She surely should have been escorted out.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Just watching the local news and they aired documents showing Baldwin told the judge she was acting for PSU, not Curley, Shultz or Spanier. She surely should have been escorted out.

The judge was aware of that, and did not order it. I would call it harmless error, especially since the PSU 3 requested it.

I think it was the poster Rlaub (not sure of the spelling) that made the good point if the PSU 3 had a reasonable belief that they were being represented by Baldwin, the attorney-client relationship did exist. I think his/her point is a good one.

However, even there was a privileged relationship the PSU 3, Baldwin still had an obligation under the canons of legal ethics to report a crime committed by her clients.



Though not the full act, the PA ethics requirement is:

(c) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:


(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify the consequences of a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer’s services are being or had been used; or

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/pa/code/PA_CODE.HTM#Rule_1.6(c)(1)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And Spanier, via his attorney, strikes back with a press release: http://www.centredaily.com/2013/12/22/3953883/graham-spaniers-lawyer-accuses.html

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Defense has 30 days to file arguments on why Baldwin's testimony violates attorney client privilege. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/in...tate_administrato_8.html#incart_river_default

The court orders are quite short.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I just wanted to point out that Baldwin's "proffer" and her full testimony are in Spanier's filing.

http://media.centredaily.com/smedia/2014/03/31/12/50/zTYZS.So.42.pdf#storylink=relast

 

[Reader]

Thank you, J. J., for keeping us up to date on these filings.