The prosecution of at least two of the defendants in the Penn State University scandal becomes significantly more difficult with Joe Paterno's death, legal experts agree.

Although the state attorney general's sexual abuse case against Jerry Sandusky is unlikely to be affected by Sunday's death of Mr. Paterno, the perjury charges against athletic director Tim Curley and senior vice president of finance Gary Schultz are another story.

Mr. Paterno's testimony before the grand jury differed from what both men said and was likely an important part of the prosecution's case.

But because the longtime football coach was never cross-examined, none of it can now be used.

---

THE SANDUSKY CASE

» See the PG's coverage

---

"Defendants have a constitutional right to confront their accusers," said former Allegheny County prosecutor Stephie-Anna Ramaley. "Anything Joe Paterno said will not be able to come in to evidence."

According to the grand jury presentment, Mr. Paterno testified that then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary went to his home in March 2002 and reported seeing Mr. Sandusky the night before "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy," in the showers of Penn State's Lasch football building.

However, Mr. Curley told the grand jury that Mr. McQueary reported only " 'inappropriate conduct' " and "activity that made him 'uncomfortable.' "

He denied that he was told anything of a sexual nature had occurred, and specifically denied there had been anal sex.

Mr. Schultz testified that Mr. Paterno reported " 'disturbing' and 'inappropriate' conduct" in the shower, that may have included Mr. Sandusky grabbing a young boy's genitals. He conceded, the presentment said, that Mr. McQueary reported "inappropriate sexual conduct."

Without Mr. Paterno's statements, Ms. Ramaley said, "It's really going to come down to McQueary versus them."

Caroline Roberto, who represents Mr. Curley, said in a statement she wouldn't address the issue.

"Since the prosecution is saddled with the burden of proving the charge of perjury against our clients, the question about what impact Mr. Paterno's death has on case strategy should be asked of the prosecution," she said.

The state attorney general's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Under Pennsylvania law, the prosecution "may not sustain its burden of proof [in a perjury charge] by the testimony of one witness alone," according to standard criminal jury instructions.

Instead, it must either offer testimony from a second witness, or other independent evidence.

Karl Rominger, one of the attorneys for Mr. Sandusky, said losing Mr. Paterno's testimony in the Curley and Schultz case "is a huge difference."

"The average juror is going to be left with he-said/he-said."

He guessed that the prosecution may call Mr. McQueary's father to testify that his son called him the night of the alleged assault. But that testimony would likely go more toward defending Mr. McQueary's credibility than to the facts of the case, which the lawyer continued, could be important.

Mr. McQueary's testimony at the preliminary hearing differed from that at the grand jury, Mr. Rominger said, in that the man did not repeat allegations that Mr. Sandusky had anal sex with the boy in the shower.

"He really equivocates on that point," Mr. Rominger said. "He backed off of saying he saw any genitalia.

"McQueary's problem is his stories are all over the map."

Mr. Rominger said the attorney general's office made a "critical error" when it failed to have Mr. Paterno testify at the preliminary hearing for Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley.

Even if the coach's health had prohibited his travel from State College to Harrisburg, the prosecution could have arranged for a deposition to be taken in Centre County, in which sworn testimony and cross-examination could have occurred, preserving the testimony for future use.

"There's no good reason not to have called him to the stand," Mr. Rominger said. "It begs the question: Do they even want Paterno's testimony?

"It was either a critical error or they had reason to believe he was going to say something not helpful to their case."