Judge Orders Sandusky Hearing to Proceed After Motion to Cancel

A judge has denied Jerry Sandusky’s request to cancel an upcoming hearing for a claim that one of his accusers is recanting his allegations of sexual abuse by the former Penn State football assistant coach.

Specially-presiding Judge Maureen Skerda ordered the Sept. 8 evidentiary hearing in Centre County Court to proceed as scheduled following a status conference Friday afternoon.

Sandusky, who asked to cancel the hearing because he wants to pursue his appeal to federal court, will appear at the hearing remotely. He previously had been scheduled to appear in person in court for the first time in seven years.

Skerda wrote in an order that Sandusky is permitted to attend remotely for a colloquy, or formal discussion, “to determine his understanding of the withdrawal of his claim.” Counsel may also give arguments for discovery, according to the order.

Attorneys for the 82-year-old filed his latest post-conviction relief petition last fall and Skerda rejected most of the claims earlier this year. The judge, however, ordered a hearing on the basis of a signed affidavit by the man identified as Victim 10 during Sandusky’s 2012 trial and in court documents as “R.R.” He said in the affidavit that he was extensively coached by investigators and prosecutors to make accusations that were “not willfully false, but induced under extreme psychological and institutional pressure.”

The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office called the recantation “highly suspect.”

On Thursday, Sandusky’s attorneys filed a motion to withdraw the claim and waive the hearing. Frank Parlato Jr., an investigator for Sandusky, told ESPN that the 82-year-old has instructed his attorneys to take his ongoing search for a new trial to federal court.

In an audio recording provided to ESPN and posted on X by commentator John Zeigler, who for years has investigated and reported on the case, Sandusky said he has given up hope that he could get a far hearing in county or state courts.

“Over the years I have brought 15 serious issues before Pennsylvania’s courts, each one showing I deserve a new trial,” Sandusky said. “Every one was swatted down. I have no faith this one would be treated differently, no matter how compelling the evidence. In federal court, every one of those issues can be heard together by judges who have not already made up their minds about me… I need to get there as fast as possible.

“I am 82 years old. I am innocent. I intend to be alive when the truth is heard.”

Sandusky was arrested in November 2011 and convicted in June 2012 on 45 counts related to child sexual abuse.

R.R. was among the men who testified at trial. He said that Sandusky molested him in a swimming pool when he was about 11-years-old in 1997 after meeting him through the Second Mile charity for at-risk youth, but over time his accusations grew to include refusing to perform a sex act Sandusky requested in a car. At trial he testified about additional instances of abuse that had not been previously been disclosed, according to Sandusky’s post-conviction relief petition.

In his 2025 affidavit, however, R.R. says he was pressured by investigators and state prosecutors to make accusations about events he was unsure had occurred.

“I was approached by state investigators who told me that my role was critical to stopping a predator,” he said. “They emphasized that other alleged victims were reluctant to come forward and repeatedly encouraged me to believe that Mr. Sandusky had molested me–despite my lack of clear or certain memory of any such conduct.”

Investigators, he said, told him trauma likely fragmented his memory, that he “could safely affirm details” he couldn’t fully recall, and that he was “assured this was common and
even expected.”

He was repeatedly asked to “revisit and reframe” his account, according to the affidavit, and said his testimony was “shaped by systemic influences, not personal experiences.” He added that he was “repeatedly misled” by prosecutors and said he regrets what he has come to see as a “deeply flawed prosecution.”

“I was led to believe that failing to testify in the manner prosecutors expected would allow a dangerous man to escape justice,” he said. “I internalized their version of events to the point of confusion between memory, suggestion, and expectation.”

Sandusky’s post-conviction attorneys have long argued, among other claims for relief, that Sandusky’s accusers were heavily coached or subjected to largely discredited repressed memory therapy. Requests for a new trial have been repeatedly denied.

R.R. said in the affidavit that he did not participate in formal memory-recovery sessions.

He received a $5.5 million civil settlement from Penn State, with about 40% going to his attorneys.

Sandusky was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in state prison, which he is serving at SCI Laurel Highlands in Somerset County.