Jerry Sandusky back in Centre County for hearing

Jerry Sandusky, seen here leaving the Centre County Courthouse after an appeal hearing on his 2012 child-sex abuse convictions, Oct. 29, 2015, could get a chance to testify in his own defense Friday. Mark Pynes | mpynes@pennlive.com

(Mark Pynes | mpynes@pennlive.com)

Friday may bring something new in the Jerry Sandusky case: Sandusky, testifying in open court, about the culture-shaking, sexual molestation charges he was convicted of in June 2012.

Barring a last-minute change or successful objection from prosecutors, the 72-year-old one-time Penn State football luminary is expected to take the stand in the first day of his post-conviction relief act hearing in Centre County Court.

It's an opportunity Sandusky passed on when he waived his preliminary hearing in December 2011, and again when he opted not to take the stand in his own defense at his jury trial.

Both of those decisions, are among various issues Sandusky's appelate lawyers are raising now as part of a larger case that trial attorney Joseph Amendola was ineffective to the point where Sandusky was effectively denied a fair trial.

Judge John Cleland has given Sandusky's team a chance to make their case in three days of evidentiary hearings this month.

The proceedings are scheduled to start Friday and defense attorney Alexander Lindsay, in a court filing earlier this month, has stated that he intends to let Sandusky open with testimony about:

* A near-impromptu, nationally televised interview with NBC broadcaster Bob Costas in which many felt Sandusky, while trying to maintain his innocence, came oddly close to conceding boundary issues with boys.

Sandusky alleges Amendola did not prepare him "in any manner" for the Costas interview, which occurred in the days following his November 2011 arrest.

Amendola had travelled to New York for a series of television appearances, the defense is claiming. While there, he urged Sandusky to speak via telephone with Costas only shortly before their taping.

Sandusky will note that he was never told the contents of that interview could later be used against him at trial.

* That he was not fully-informed by Amendola about the potential consequences of waiving his preliminary hearing - a point in any case in which many defense lawyers take advantage of chances to get a first hearing of accusers' claims.

The decision not to take a preliminary hearing loomed larger as the case progressed, the defense may argue, given Amendola's assertions that he ran out of time to completely prepare for the trial.

* That he had provided his lawyers with the name of a person that he believed to be the boy, identified at trial as "Victim 2," that then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary had seen in a Penn State shower with Sandusky.

Sandusky claimed he never molested the boy, and expected that that man - who made varying statements to investigators but at times appeared to have backed Sandusky's story up - would take the stand in his defense.

Amendola, who did not return a call from PennLive Thursday but is also listed as a potential witness Friday, never called the man to the stand.

One of the issues Cleland is permitting testimony on is whether is whether state prosecutors' also believed that the man Sandusky had identified was in fact "Victim 2" at the time of Sandusky's trial, when they told the jurors that the identity of Victim 2 was unknown.

* Sandusky's appelate lawyers have also put forth that Sandusky was prepared, and denied the chance because of Amendola's advice, to present rebuttal testimony to each of his accusers in the June 2012 trial.

Amendola has said previously that he was worried about opening the door to new, potentially-damaging testimony from one of Sandusky's adopted sons, Matt Sandusky.

Once a potential defense witness, Matt Sandusky told prosecutors during the trial week that he had also been abused by Jerry Sandusky. Jerry contends he could have rebutted Matt's testimony, too.

Sandusky was convicted of nearly all charges in the 2012 trial, and is currently serving a 30-year minimum prison term at a state prison in Greene County.

Earlier appeals tied to alleged legal errors at the trial dismissed.

But Lindsay, in the new petition, asserts that the alleged tactical errors committed by Amendola and others at the trial are so great that, had they been handled differently, the jury might have reached a different verdict.

If successful in this appeal, the convictions would be overturned and Sandusky could be granted a new trial.

A spokesman for Attorney General Kathleen Kane said Thursday that her office will "vigorously" defend the prosecution in court.

"We have argued throughout this proceeding that the claims laid out in the PCRA petition are meritless," spokesman Jeffrey Johnson said. "We continue to have a strong belief in that position, and we intend to vigorously challenge those claims in court."

Besides Jerry Sandusky and Amendola, other witnesses that could be called if time allows Friday are Karl Rominger, the since-disbarred Carlisle attorney who served as Amendola's co-counsel in the 2012 trial.

The hearing will continue later this month, when Lindsay's team could call members of the Sandusky prosecution team, former case investigators, several psychological experts and others to the stand.