CENTRE COUNTY — A judge granted an evidentiary hearing to explore claims that a man wants to recant allegations of sexual abuse against Jerry Sandusky. The proceeding is scheduled for September 8, 2026, in Centre County, Pennsylvania.

Senior Judge Maureen A. Skerda set the evidentiary hearing for September 8, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in the Annex Courtroom of the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. An accuser identified in court documents as R.R. stated in an affidavit that he was coached extensively by authorities during the original investigation.

"I was told – both directly and indirectly – that trauma may have fragmented my memory, and that I could safely affirm details I did not fully recall. I was assured this was common and even expected," R.R. said in an affidavit filed by Sandusky’s attorneys. Sandusky's attorneys stated in a court filing that R.R.'s allegations were based on suggestive leading questioning, prosecutorial coercion and influence, confirmatory bias, and memory manipulation.

R.R. recanted his testimony in June 2025, according to court documents released on August 27. The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General stated that R.R.'s recantation is highly suspect. State prosecutors also said Sandusky’s petition is untimely.

R.R. his estranged wife, the Sandusky family investigator, and a former state prosecutor are expected to testify at the upcoming evidentiary hearing. Sandusky's defense team said in a motion seeking a new trial that Victim 10’s now-estranged wife would testify that she concluded Victim 10 was not sexually abused as a child by Sandusky. Prosecutors with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office said in their response to the defense motion that the woman's opinion is irrelevant and inadmissible.

Sandusky is 82 years old and is serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence. He was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse in 2012 after eight young men testified against him at his trial. Sandusky has repeatedly lost efforts to get a new trial since his conviction.

Sandusky served as an assistant coach at Penn State University for 30 years, coaching the defense under head coach Joe Paterno. Sandusky retired from coaching at Penn State in 1999. The scandal led to Paterno’s firing on November 9, 2011. Paterno died of lung cancer less than three months after being fired, on January 22, 2012.

Penn State paid more than $100 million to people who said they had been abused by Sandusky. Former Penn State President Graham Spanier was previously convicted of child endangerment for failing to report Sandusky’s abuse in 2001. Sandusky maintains his innocence through various public statements and legal filings.

"I apologize that I’m unable to admit remorse for this because it’s something that I didn’t do," Sandusky said during a 2019 court appearance. "I never ever in my life ever thought about molesting anybody," Sandusky said in a 2024 interview from Laurel Highlands State Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania.

Why It Matters

The evidentiary hearing represents a rare procedural development in a case that resulted in one of the most high-profile convictions in college sports history. The potential recantation by R.R. whose testimony was central to the 2012 verdict, involves questions about the reliability of witness testimony obtained through specific investigative techniques. The defense argues that coercive methods influenced the original accounts, while prosecutors maintain the recantation is suspect and the legal window for such challenges has closed.

The broader implications extend to the institutional responses at Penn State University, which paid more than $100 million in settlements to individuals claiming abuse. The case also prompted academic and legal scrutiny of mandatory reporting laws, as seen in studies published in 2014 regarding the evolution of state laws in Pennsylvania. The outcome of this hearing could influence how courts evaluate post-conviction recantations in complex sexual abuse cases involving multiple accusers and long timelines.

Timeline

In 1997, R.R. originally testified that he met Sandusky at The Second Mile Charity, which is when the alleged abuse began. In 1998, R.R. testified that he was 11 years old when Sandusky performed oral sex on him in the coach’s basement. That same year, R.R. testified that Sandusky told him that if he told anybody he would never see his family again, and that Sandusky later apologized and said he loved him. R.R. was in foster care at the time of the alleged abuse in 1998.

What's New

Additional reporting indicates that Senior Judge Maureen A. Skerda set an evidentiary hearing for September 8, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in the Annex Courtroom of the Centre County Courthouse. Further context includes a study titled The Sandusky Effect: Child Abuse Reporting Laws Should No Longer Be “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” published in 2014 in University of Pittsburgh Law Review. Another study titled "Mandatory Reporting of Abuse: A Historical Perspective on the Evolution of States’ Current Mandatory Reporting Laws with a Review of the Laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" was published in 2014 in Villanova law review.

Recent statements from Sandusky include comments made in a 2024 interview. "I was accused of heinous crimes, which I’ve never committed," Sandusky said in a 2024 interview.

"My wife was my only partner in sex, and that was after marriage," Sandusky said in a 2024 interview. Additional legislative context involves Pennsylvania SB 120, an act providing for cannabis regulation, though its direct relevance to the hearing is not specified in the immediate legal filings.

How Sources Differ

There is a discrepancy in how certain aspects of Sandusky's legal status are framed across documents. The Centre County Court order states that a judge granted an evidentiary hearing to explore claims that a man wants to recant allegations of sexual abuse against Sandusky. In contrast, the Centre County Court judgment records that Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse in 2012. These documents reflect different stages of the legal process, with the order addressing current procedural motions and the judgment reflecting the final verdict of the original trial.