HARRISBURG, Pa.—A television network obtained clearance Wednesday from the judge presiding over Jerry Sandusky's criminal case for access to photos used as exhibits during the former Penn State assistant coach's trial this summer.

Judge John Cleland's order gave ABC the right to get copies of 15 photographs related to Aaron Fisher, described as Victim 1 in court records.

ABC had sought the photos last month, as it was preparing to report on Fisher's book about his experience, "Silent No More."

Cleland's order noted that prosecutors and Sandusky's lawyer were not opposed to the release, and that Fisher and his mother supported it. The judge said he would consider future requests on their own merits, and included instructions and a request form along with the order. The cost is $10 per exhibit.

Sandusky, 68, is serving a 30- to 60-year prison sentence for abuse of Fisher and nine other boys. He maintains he was wrongfully convicted and is pursuing appeals.

In a development related to the parallel criminal case against Penn State administrators for how they handled complaints about Sandusky showering on campus with boys in 1998 and 2001, a new defense filing by two of the men take aim at actions by Cynthia Baldwin last year, as she was involved in their appearances before an investigative grand jury.

The lawyers for Tim Curley and Gary Schultz say Baldwin, then the school's chief counsel, should not be allowed to testify next month about what they told her regarding the child molestation scandal.

Curley, on paid leave as athletic director while his contract winds down, and retired vice president Schultz want a judge in Harrisburg to prohibit testimony by Baldwin—about what they describe as "privileged communications"—when the men face a preliminary hearing Dec. 13.

Baldwin's role was also the focus of pretrial motions filed three weeks ago by Curley and Schultz, shortly before prosecutors added new charges, as well as criminal allegations, against their onetime boss, former Penn State President Graham Spanier.

At issue is whether Baldwin was acting as their lawyer when the three men met with prosecutors, and then testified before the grand jury.

Lawyers for Curley and Schultz wrote, in the document filed Tuesday in Dauphin County court, that state law requires the judge "to exclude the testimony of Ms. Baldwin in criminal proceedings against her former clients, Curley and Schultz. In the absence of a waiver by the client, an attorney is barred from testifying, in a criminal matter, regarding statements that the client made to the attorney in confidence."

In a prosecution filing last week, the attorney general's office said it was not aware of any conflict of interest on Baldwin's part and therefore had no reason to raise the issue before the judge who supervised the secret grand jury. Prosecutors argued that representing multiple clients does not necessarily mean a lawyer has a conflict of interest.

"Based on their interviews prior to testifying, it appeared that the defendants intended to cooperate in the investigation," prosecutors wrote on Nov. 14. "Such action would not conflict with the interests of the other witnesses represented by attorney Baldwin, who also were cooperating. That the defendants actually intended to mislead the grand jury and the commonwealth would not alter the fact that, at the time they were represented by attorney Baldwin, there was no conflict of interest."

A spokesman for the attorney general's office declined to comment further Wednesday.

Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice, has been replaced as the school's chief counsel. Her lawyer, Charles De Monaco, issued a statement this summer that stated she "at all times fulfilled her obligations to the university and its agents." De Monaco said Wednesday he had not seen the motion to preclude her testimony.

Curley and Schultz are seeking to delay their January trial on charges of perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse. The December preliminary hearing will be about the additional charges they face of conspiracy, obstruction and endangering a child's welfare.


Information from: The Patriot-News, http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews