Since the news broke that Jerry Sandusky likes to shower with children, his lawyer, Joe Amendola, has been a non-stop source of important examples of things lawyers shouldn’t do and amusement. The only thing preventing commentary about why Joe’s a bonehead is that Joe did something new, something else, that drew attention away from his prior gaffe.
Former District Attorney Amendola, disproving yet again that prosecutorial experience is inherently transferable to criminal defense. made a curious decision to waive the preliminary hearing to which his client was due. As Jeff Gamso describes it:
Had Sandusky and Amendola not put the media on speed dial, the waiver would have been nothing more than a tactical choice between competing options. It becomes harder to explain when Sandusky, with Amendola just off camera, chooses to explain why he likes showing with little boys.A prelim would provide discovery. It would trap in transcript today’s version of the stories told by the witnesses. It would provide material for cross-examination. That’s no small thing.On the other hand, those salivating reporters would splash every detail of those stories over the tabloids, over tabloid television, and even over the mostly-staid media like the Times. And of course there would be the twitterers and the texters and the e-mailers and (yes) the bloggers. All of which taint the judgment of those 6 potential jurors who haven’t already concluded that Sandusky is at best an incredible sleazeball. So avoiding that hearing might be wise.
But then, the next shoe falls, with Amendola announcing, because some bone in his media-challenged head makes him believe that he’s doing such a great job defending Sandusky’s honor in the media that he should keep it going. Again, Gamso explains:
What interests me is what his lawyer, Joseph Amendola, said. Not the part about how a prelim would serve no real purpose because he wouldn’t be allowed to challenge the credibility of the witnesses or about how this is a fight to the death. I’m interested in this statement Amendola made to the press.The problem Gamso raises is that this face-saving explanation came at the expense of his client, eliminating any potential for a subsequent argument that Sandusky was not provided effective assistance of counsel. If a decision is “tactical,” even if it’s dead wrong, then it’s got about as much chance of meeting the Strickland prongs as Sandusky has of getting a job babysitting.Today’s decision was a tactical measure.Well, sure. I mean, we all know that. But, and here’s the thing, it was inexcusable to say it.
But the day is long, as Amendola wasn’t done. The Daily News writes that Jokin’ Joe just kept on going.
If the impregnation of a teen client wasn’t enough to make Jerry Sandusky think twice about his choice of lawyer, this might: After Sandusky waived his right to a pretrial hearing yesterday, Joe Amendola told reporters that anybody who believes Mike McQueary witnessed his client raping a boy and university administrators failed to act “should call 1-800-REALITY.” That number is actually a gay sex line that offers “bulging, bursting pleasure with horny gay, bi, and bi-curious studs,” Deadspin finds.It almost seems impossible, though when confronted with microphones in one’s face, there’s a knee-jerk tendency to rely on familiar things. Like the number to a gay sex porn phone. And as he’s inclined to do, Joe explains his gaffe of the hour.
Amendola later said that “1-800-REALITY” is something he says “when people have said things that make no sense,” the AP reports. “It’s analogous to ‘get a life,'” he said. “I had no idea that was a real number, let alone what it actually is. I will not be using that line in the future!”There are some lawyers who handle the media exceptionally well, whether because of experience or innate good judgment in how to fashion a statement that doesn’t make people either laugh or vomit. There just aren’t many. Joe Amendola may be a fabulous source of amusement, which will endear him to the media which is always looking for something to fill the air time between commercials, but he hasn’t done much to defend his client’s “honor” in the court of public opinion.
Some cases, particularly those involving sex and children, are never going to play well in the media. The best tactic is stay the hell out of the media to the extent humanly possible. The second best tactic is to offer criminal defense lawyer respond number 3, “We deny all charges and look forward to the trial, where I fully expect my client will be acquitted.” Sure, it’s nonsense, but it’s boring and no one will remember you ever said it.
It’s not that being critical of Joe Amendola is the sort of thing any criminal defense lawyer wants to do. It’s just that it can’t be helped. Which brings up the real question here, can a lawyer’s tactical decision-making be so utterly irrational, incompetent, just plain awful, that it suffices to meet the requirements of ineffective assistance of counsel?
Not even the most shameless prosecutor would engage in such a flagrant effort to pollute the jury pool. And with Amendola representing the defendant, he wouldn’t need to. Want to bet they’re sitting in the office, reading the papers, and laughing their butts off?
No case is ever won in the court of public opinion. But they can surely be lost, as no acquittal will overcome the image of Jerry Sandusky talking about how he likes to shower with little boys. It would stretch credulity to contend that Joe Amendola, faced with an insurmountable case against his client, decided to throw himself on the sword, play the fool before every TV camera and make a conviction of Sandusky so tainted by his lawyer’s antics that it can’t be sustained. It would be brilliant, assuming Amendola was willing to sacrifice his career for Sandusky. Too brilliant. And too much of a stretch.
At this point, however, the only tactical move that might salvage the defense is for Joe Amendola to put on a red, round nose and some face paint, maybe do a nifty dance and give the cameras something truly special to capture, For all those readers who dream of the day they get a gig that captures national media attention, their day to shine and make their name a household word, start taking dancing lessons now. You never know when a good quick step will come in handy.
As for Joe Amendola, he’s a complete disaster, a laughingstock, at crisis management and media relations. He may have gotten more attention than he ever dreamed possible for a hick, but unless he ends up having a talent that will get him on the X Factor, he’s doomed himself and his client by his constant missteps.
Yet, he continues. If Amendola thinks that just one more statement to the media is going to undo the damage already done, save his client’s dignity, persuade the country that Jerry Sandusky’s desire to shower with little boys is meant in only the most innocent and natural of ways, he needs to call 1-800- REALITY. If he hasn’t already done so.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Entirely so. I cannot believe that in a child sex case this guy is talking to anybody in the media. The usual platitudes might be ok, but this guy is on a campaign to max his client out. A train wreck for sure.
At least he is laying to rest the canard, “There’s no such thing as bad press.”
Of course, here are two things to consider:
1. This is a child sex case.
2. This case was already receiving an inordinate amount of media attention.
In other words, a lot of serious lawyers wanted no part of this case. So Sandusky’s pool of lawyers was limited to, basically, lawyers who wanted their own face all over the media.
I keep trying to figure out how this happens; how, for example, Mark Gerragos represents so many big-name clients in spite of the fact that (from best I can tell) he’s no better a lawyer than a random, solid, experienced California criminal defense lawyer. Or how so many defendants whose cases are all over the news wind up hiring lawyers who will make sure their cases stay all over the news. Is this just a coincidence?
That’s a good question. I know some who desperately court publicity, and will call a press conference if their client farts. For others, it’s a matter of making friends with a producer, getting your mug on TV regularly enough to make a dent. And still others, being sufficiently adept at self-promotion that their name is positively recognized (so that people with high profile cases tend to know it or find it) even though their skills don’t warrant it.
As my old mason’s union t-shirt said, “we’ll lay anything.” Ahem.
As a hick, I am offended at your tying this clown to my people.
You’re a southern hick. He’s a northern hick. Entirely different.
And here I thought lawyers had both an ethical obligation to act in the best interest of their client…
“Sorry you got convicted, and that a lot of the statements made in the press were used against you in court… but look how much publicity I got! My phone won’t stop ringing! I bet I’ll even get a book deal from this! Oh, and here is my bill, please pay it ASAP. Also, hope jail is okay. Feel free to write me, though it will be a .2 for every letter, and I reserve the right to put your letters in my book. Ciao!”
Dumb question– if there was an indictment, why is there a preliminary hearing? Or does “preliminary hearing” mean besides “probable cause hearing” in Pennsylvania?
Excellent question. Not being a PA lawyer, I have no clue, but it seems that there shouldn’t be a need for a prelim since given there’s an indictment. Any PA lawyers, explanation?
Here via Google–I had been wondering if those with a professional’s knowledge of law found Amendola’s statements as utterly perplexing as the average Law & Order SVU-watching layman.
Who on earth would retain him after this? How does this profit him personally? Profiting via a book or interviews from statements he, presumably, advised his client on making seems like a serious breach of ethics. Is he seeking to draw the trial out indefinitely by poisoning every potential juror in PA? Is he hoping for a permanent job with NAMBLA?
Perhaps Mr. Amendola is simply drinking his own Kool-Aid; knocking up your 16-year-old intern doesn’t smack of smarts or ethics, either.