June 5...The Sandusky trial date grows closer, or as the presiding judge in the case, John Cleland, said last week, "The trial is imminent." It would be nearly seven months to the date since Jerry Sandusky was taken into a district judge's office to hear the original set of criminal charges against him. There is another pending request from Sandusky's legal team for another trial delay, but the judge has been adamant, to this point, about wanting to get jury selection underway on June 5. So were definitely headed for trial??? Maybe.

Both sides, the prosecutors and defense attorneys, will repeatedly tell you a plea bargain in this case, is out of the question. Prosecutors saying Sandusky's age, combined with the severity of the charges, likely means any type of plea, would put him in jail for the rest of his life. Prosecutors are also saying they have a solid, straightforward case and want to go to trial with the accusers. That they look forward to the day when the accusers can face Sandusky and tell their stories from the witness stand. You rarely hear that in child abuse cases. Many times, the victims are shielded from as many court appearances as possible. But this case has been out of the norm for so long and options opposite from what you hear in court draw more discussion.

Up until a few days before Sandusky's preliminary hearing date in December, his attorney Joe Amendola said they were looking forward to confronting and questioning the accusers in court. But the preliminary hearing lasts two minutes. Even police escorting the accusers to the courthouse are surprised, as Sandusky waives the hearing. Again during another court session in early April, there was a chance to face testimony from accusers. And again, it was bypassed by Sandusky's legal team, during a shortened hearing. During that first court appearance in November, Sandusky repeatedly asked his attorney, "What do they know? What's in there?" while pointing to the grand jury indictment in front of him...and since then, during the court sessions, Sandusky appears reluctant to publicly face the accusers and their allegations.

Prosecutors won't admit it, but there's probably some concern about trying the case in Centre County. They asked the judge for an out-of-county jury. All it takes is one juror to end up with a hung jury. Prosecutors have some bargaining chips in trying to force a plea bargain. We've known for awhile about other possible accusers and more possible charges. That's without the Penn State Board of Trustees being told at their meeting this month that another alleged victim has contacted the university and charges are expected to be filed. No one connected with the case has said a thing about that report.  Yeah, I know, like Gov. Corbett keeps saying, there's a gag order. Then there's reports about prosecutors having the option of filing charges against somebody close to Sandusky whose name is mentioned in the accusers stories. Would that be a bargaining tool in plea bargain talks?

Who else doesn't want a trial? Centre County government administrators don't sound too thrilled about it. The county has already made provisions to move some court office functions to Penn State's law school, due to the added traffic expected at the courthouse in Bellefonte. Despite the assurance it won't cost county taxpayers anything, don't count on it. When a state court function was recently held at the law school that involved Centre County, the county reportedly got a bill from Penn State for bottled water served. We keep asking, "Why not just hold the Sandusky trial at the law school courtroom?" But you know Penn State doesn't want Sandusky anywhere near campus, especially with Beaver Stadium nearby, and the visual opportunities that might provide.

So the question remains: Are we headed to trial?...Stay tuned...