BELLEFONTE, Pa. _ Knowing the criminal case they were building against Jerry Sandusky was likely to shake Pennsylvania State University to its core, the Attorney General's Office went to extraordinary lengths in 2011 to keep the investigation secret, the case prosecutors said Tuesday.
They drafted a fake subpoena _ one listing a prominent person's name _ to see if anyone in the office might leak it to the press. No one took the bait.
And later, when details of the sex-abuse case were posted on a state-run court website days before they had planned to announce the charges, they dispatched investigators to determine if a Centre County magistrate judge had purposefully filed them early in public view.
Then-Attorney General Linda Kelly "was extremely upset, and she wanted to take profound action," former deputy attorney general Frank Fina told a judge here.
Testimony from Fina and fellow Sandusky trial prosecutors Jonelle Eshbach and Joseph McGettigan came on the third day of hearings in Sandusky's bid to overturn his child sexual abuse conviction.
Senior Judge John M. Cleland, who presided over the 2012 trial, adjourned the proceeding Tuesday without issuing a ruling, but said more hearings may occur at a later date.
The issue of leaks from the grand jury that investigated Sandusky from 2009 to 2011 is central to Sandusky's appeal.
His lawyer, Al Lindsay, has argued that the former Penn State assistant football coach deserves a new trial because a series of 2011 articles that appeared in the Patriot-News newspaper detailed key aspects of investigation before Sandusky was charged _ and are evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
In his testimony Tuesday, Fina offered an alternative explanation: The witnesses called before the secret grand jury early in 2011 weren't barred from discussing their testimony publicly _ and may have become sources for the newspaper.
"A lot of these times when things get in the newspapers, it always alarms us as the Commonwealth," he said. "But our ability to control or stop it is somewhat limited."
Fina's post-Sandusky career has been dominated by accusations and denials of grand jury leaks.
His yearslong feud with former Attorney General Kathleen Kane stemmed from her belief that Fina leaked information to the Philadelphia Inquirer about a sting operation she shut down that had caught six Philadelphia public officials accepting cash or gifts.
Kane was convicted this month of lying about grand jury material she leaked in an unrelated case in an attempt to strike back at Fina.
He never addressed Kane in his testimony Tuesday, but Fina acknowledged the awkwardness of once again addressing the topic of leaking.
"One of the great misrepresentations about grand juries, is this idea that grand-jury leaks happen all the time and they're all illegal leaks," he said with a smile. "That is a truth that has resulted in a lot of unwarranted concern and hysteria _ perhaps not in this case, but in other cases."
McGettigan, his co-counsel in the Sandusky case, was in far less of a jovial mood when he followed Fina on the witness stand, and traded several pointed exchanges with Sandusky's lawyer.
Sandusky has claimed as part of his appeal that McGettigan lied to jurors when he said the identity of one victim of the coach's abuse was "known only to God."
Lindsay has argued that McGettigan purposefully ignored the claims of a 29-year-old who had come forward at the time claiming to be the boy described in court filings as Victim 2 _ whose 2001 sexual assault in a Penn State locker room shower was detailed at trial by graduate assistant Mike McQueary _ out of fear the man's inconsistent statements would damage the prosecution against Sandusky.
But when asked Tuesday whether he believed the accuser's shower-assault claim, McGettigan responded flatly: "I did not then. I do not now."
Sandusky is also contending his defense lawyers provided him an inadequate representation at trial and were hamstrung from the start by a lack of experience and the time to prepare for such a major case.
The Attorney General's Office has rejected the arguments, and notes that Sandusky's previous appeal efforts have failed.
Cleland offered no indication Tuesday on when he intends to rule.
Sandusky is serving his 30- to 60-year prison sentence in Greene County.
