Too much evidence and not enough time is what doomed the defense of Jerry Sandusky, his attorney Joe Amendola said during an interview with HLN affiliate WHP-TV.
“All of this was flooding into us, which we were trying to decipher, to come up with other ways to show that these accusers might well be lying, which was what Jerry was saying and we were cut off the pass.”
Amendola also cited Judge John Cleland's denials to continue the trial as a contributing factor to Sandusky's case. The former Penn State assistant football coach was sentenced to at least 30 years for molesting 10 boys over 15 years.
When asked if there were anything he would have done differently, Amendola got testy.
“Well gee, he was convicted of 45 counts of terrible crimes, of course there were things we would have did, I would have to be an idiot to say no, but hindsight is always 20/20 and you’re dealt the hand you’re dealt with,” Amendola said.
Reflecting on how the saga played out in the media, Amendola said he regrets not preparing Sandusky better for Bob Costas’ NBC’s "Rock Center" interview.
“Obviously, Monday morning quarterbacking is great,” Amendola stated. “I think I would've said to Bob Costas, look, here's what we’re going to do, we’re gonna ask, here’s are the questions that you are permitted to ask Jerry, and Jerry would've known the answer because the answer was simple, “I'm innocent!”
Amendola said he did all he could do with the small team he had, presented the best case possible in spite of the circumstances and believed in his client’s innocence.
“I think based upon what I know, if I had been a juror, I would have had a reasonable doubt,” concluded Amendola.
Although Amendola may not have doubt on Sandusky’s innocence, he did have doubts on whether he was the right man for the job.
“The longer I stayed in, the harder it got for me to say, maybe I want to get out,” Amendola stated. “I kept thinking somebody else would jump in, maybe some nationally high-profile attorney.”
Amendola has not given up on Sandusky, who still proclaims he's innocent.
Last month, Sandusky’s attorneys filed motions asking for a new trial based on arguing that the evidence that convicted him was insufficient and did not rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sandusky’s attorneys also argue that Cleland made several mistakes by allowing the jury to hear improper hearsay evidence.
A December 10 hearing is scheduled to hear those arguments.
READ MORE: HLNtv.com Jerry Sandusky coverage