In other words, the series of events, as described by Baldwin through Davis, played out like this:
• December 2010: Baldwin tells Curley and Schultz she “represents the university” and they can get their own attorneys.
• January 2011: Baldwin drives them to the grand jury. On the trip, the three apparently do not discuss the investigation or who will represent the two men.
• In the judge’s chambers: After Baldwin announces she is representing Penn State, she is simply allowed to walk into the grand jury room to listen to the testimony of Curley and Schultz even though she has not said she represents them.
• In the grand jury room: Baldwin doesn’t remember hearing Curley and Schultz identify her as counsel. Baldwin skips Paterno’s testimony.
• On the drive home: The subject of representation doesn’t come up.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/penn_state_legal_counsel_cynth.html
Baldwin actually did state she was representing the administrators in the grand jury room, but she has since clarified that her primary duty was to Penn State.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/11/post_473.html
What?????
Joe was the only smart one that didn’t trust her, and got his own attorney. Seems the others were told - “Don’t worry about it...no big deal...we’ve got your back”.
We’ve seen how that’s worked out, haven’t we?
Question is - who told them they were ok? Baldwin? Surma? Garban? Corbett?