WILKES-BARRE – Jerry Sandusky's attorneys took their best shot at a getting a new trial for the man who has become Pennsylvania's most notorious child molester Tuesday.

But it appears to be a steep uphill climb.

At several turns during Tuesday’s half-hour argument, Superior Court Judges Jack Panella and William Platt raised questions suggesting their three-judge panel must not only be satisfied Sandusky’s case is right on the merits, but that it even belonged before the court in the first place.

Even if Sandusky wins this round, it doesn’t get him out of jail. The one-time defensive coordinator to legendary Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno would simply win the right to a new trial.

Sandusky’s appeal – played out in a Luzerne County courtroom packed with interested observers, a small knot of Penn State Willkes-Barre students, reporters and Sandusky’s wife, Dottie - hinged primarily on three arguments:

• That Sandusky’s trial attorneys Joe Amendola and Karl Rominger were rushed to trial in June 2012 and did not have adequate time to review thousands of pages of documents turned over by prosecutors in the weeks before the trial. “During the trial he was flying blind,” appellate attorney Norris Gelman said of Amendola. “Bad way to try a case.”

• That trial prosecutor Joseph P. McGettigan made prejudicial remarks in his own closing arguments about the once-revered Sandusky’s decision not to testify in his own defense.

• That presiding Judge John M. Cleland erred in failing to specifically instruct jurors to consider the long time lapses between the alleged abuses and initial reports to law enforcement as they weighed their credibility. In one case, Gelman noted, 16 years passed between the alleged abuses and the victim’s initial report to any law enforcement.

Sandusky lost on similar arguments in post-trial motions argued before Cleland earlier this year.

Prosecutors systematically attacked each point Tuesday.

Chief Deputy Attorney General James Barker countered the defense received all evidence pertinent to the sex abuse case months in advance, and that the only late documents they got were papers they had insisted on, but weren’t of relevance to the case.

Barker also noted Amendola testified in the post-trial proceedings before Cleland that he found nothing in his post-trial reviews that would have changed his defense strategy at trial.

But Gelman argued that forcing any attorney to trial before they’ve had a chance to review all evidence is a “structural defect” that cripples the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Panella then quizzed Gelman on whether the issue regarding McGettigan’s comments was legitimately before the court since the defense did not seek a mistrial over the issue at the time.

McGettigan, in his closing, had noted to jurors that Sandusky gave a nationally broadcast interview to NBC television personality Bob Costas, but wouldn't explain himself during the trial.

All defendants have a protected right not to take the stand, and to not have that choice held against them.

Barker argued Tuesday that even if the issue was properly before the appellate court, a careful reading of McGettigan’s argument will show that he was only trying to illustrate that Sandusky’s responses in the Costas interview didn’t explain away the actions he was accused of.

On the final point, Gelman again found himself arguing at times against the both prosecutors and the court.

When Gelman argued that an instruction regarding victims’ failure to make a prompt report was a standard jury charge, Platt interjected that the instruction does not automatically apply when the victims are children.

All of Sandusky’s victims, Platt noted, were children when the incidents occurred.

Barker, meanwhile, noted Amendola and Rominger never raised an objection to Cleland’s charge when the judge concluded it at trial. Gelman contended that was only because the defense attorneys believed the issue had been adequately raised in the judge’s chambers before the session of the court.

In addition, Barker noted Amendola argued extensively as part of the defense case that the delays between the alleged incidents and the reports to law enforcement smacked of a scam to profiteer from Penn State’s deep pockets.

“All of the concepts that needed to be conveyed to this jury (by the defense) were conveyed to them,” Barker concluded.

Panella and Platt were joined on the Superior Court panel Tuesday by Judge Sally Mundy. The judges gave no indication from the bench when they would make their ruling.

After the arguments, Gelman told reporters that he thought the judges were “concerned, and I think the court was interested, and your chances are much better when the court is concerned and interested.”

He said he will tell Sandusky, “We’re in the race.”

Barker, meanwhile, said he was confident the trial verdict would stand.

“This is a solid conviction. Prosecutors McGettigan and Fina did a fine job at trial and we don’t think there’s any basis for overturning this verdict,” Barker said.

Dottie Sandusky, accompanied by two of the attorneys working on her family's appeal to save Jerry Sandusky's state pension, declined a request from PennLive to take some questions.