A big week ahead for Jerry Sandusky trial preparations. Among the outstanding issues: the trial start date and will any of the criminal charges be dismissed. Judge John Cleland's rulings on those two motions from defense counsel are expected any day. He's been adamant about, if it's possible, to get the trial started with jury selection, on June 5.  

Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola, claims there are still outstanding issues of not having all the evidence from prosecutors, plus he wants testimony from Tim Curley and Gary Schultz --  the two former Penn state administrators also charged in this case -- to be included in a Sandusky trial. But Curley and Schultz, if they do go to trial, probably wouldn't have their cases wrapped up by this fall, at the earliest. Doubt if Judge Cleland is going to grant that kind of delay, although that portion of the trial surrounding the case of alleged Victim# 2 could be separated and heard at a later date. That's the case involving Mike McQueary's testimony, where the evidence presented has changed since the original indictment back in November. Those changes include the date of the allegation when McQueary says he saw Sandusky with a 10-year-old in a Penn State shower. More than one court observer has commented, while changing the years the incident reportedly happened, what challenges the credibility of the allegation even more is changing the time of year, which prosecutors also did. Will those kind of changes lead to dismissing those charges? Then what's the story from Penn State, where the trustees let Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier go based solely on the Accuser #2 allegations, where prosecutors admit they don't know the identity of the alleged victim.

As for the unresolved discovery requests from Amendola, judging from the stack of paperwork he left the courthouse with and after meeting with prosecutors and judge last Wednesday, he received at least some of the evidence, documents he's been seeking. That closed door meeting by the way, went for 2 1/2 hours, just about longer than all the pre-trial hearings combined. So what could they be talking about? The discovery issue and trial schedule has long been discussed. Where to park for the trial?? Or the seating chart in Courtroom 1? Or did they go off-agenda to discuss how to get the case resolved before testimony would begin???