• With: Karl Rominger, Jerry Sandusky's Attorney

    This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," August 9, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

    Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET!

    BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: And in the "Impact" segment tonight, as you may know, a former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse. He is expected to get life in prison when is he sentenced in September.

    However, his attorneys say they will appeal and are also asking for a new trial. That despite what one of Sandusky's lawyers said right after the jury verdict.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    JOE AMENDOLA, JERRY SANDUSKY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The judge in this case was marvelous. Judge Cleland was the ultimate jurist, he was fair. He was firm. He was reasonable with everything we asked for. I believe the jury acted on the evidence that was presented to it. And I don't dispute or have any problem with the jury's verdict.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    O'REILLY: That was Sandusky's co-counsel Joe Amendola.

    And joining us now from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Karl Rominger, the other co-counsel and partner of Joe Amendola in this case. So it seems to me that you are appealing or going to appeal but your guy or your partner is saying, look, everybody did the right thing. So what are you basing your appeal on?

    KARL ROMINGER, JERRY SANDUSKY'S ATTORNEY: Well, if you listen carefully he said based on the evidence they had in front of them. Partly we weren't able to present everything we wanted to. Secondly, we weren't given enough time to prepare which was a major issue. I think...

    O'REILLY: Seven months wasn't enough time?

    ROMINGER: No, it wasn't. We were given most of the documents within days of trial -- literally thousands the month before. It was just the two of us expected to read through cross-reference.

    O'REILLY: All right, so I want to be very -- I want to be very precise here. So even though you had seven months to prepare for the trial, the prosecution, which is required to hand over documents to you did it how long before the actual trial began? When did you get the final stuff?

    ROMINGER: The final belt of documents literally days before.

    O'REILLY: Look. a week? Two weeks?

    ROMINGER: A thousand of pages, it's not an exaggeration within two weeks.

    O'REILLY: Within two weeks.

    ROMINGER: Bill, within two weeks of trial we received thousands of pages.

    O'REILLY: Ok so you say that that wasn't enough time for you to go over these, prepare the defense that your client is entitled to?

    ROMINGER: Correct.

    O'REILLY: What else? Is there anything else that you want a new trial? Why would you want a new trial?

    ROMINGER: Well, first of all the governor just signed a bill here in Pennsylvania which will allow for the use of psychological testimony in sexual cases. We believe that we could have presented a psychologist who would have been able to explain certain aspects of the case but couldn't because Pennsylvania law doesn't allow that but will allow it in a few days.

    (CROSSTALK)

    O'REILLY: I don't -- I don't really know where you're going --

    (CROSSTALK)

    ROMINGER: Had the trial not been rushed --

    O'REILLY: -- yes, I don't really know where you're going here because there is so much testimony against your client. So many people have stepped forward and then you have the witnesses and the shower and you have all of this stuff.

    Now I understand a robust defense is part of the Constitution and we all get that but I'm not sure it looks to me and correct me if I am wrong, you're trying to use technicalities to get a guy off who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It looks like you're trying to use the system somehow say well, we could have had this expert say.

    Look. The overwhelming evidence says the guy did it. The guy did it.

    ROMINGER: The -- the answer there is anybody can argue that any lawyer is trying to quote "use the system". The government used the system to exclude certain evidence. The government used the rules of discovery that give us stuff --

    (CROSSTALK)

    O'REILLY: But the bottom -- the bottom line on any appeal is this. Did the guy do it? And I think that your co-counsel was pretty clear in his statements after the trial that he didn't have any beef with what was presented and the way it was presented. And he thought the judge and everybody else did the job that they are required to do?

    ROMINGER: And we have appellate courts because one out of five times judges make the wrong decisions in the course of their employment. It doesn't mean they are a bad judge or a poor jurist, it's just simply a wrong judgment call at the wrong moment. That's what we're going to explore on appeal.

    O'REILLY: Let me ask you one more question, you sound like a stand-up guy, and I have to -- and that's a compliment. You are coming on in here.

    ROMINGER: Thank you.

    O'REILLY: And you're answering the questions straightforwardly and that's what we like here. Would you really feel comfortable if this -- if you get this guy Sandusky off on a technicality? Would you really have him walking around? Would you feel personally comfortable with that?

    ROMINGER: You know, years ago I got a guy off on a technicality and the district attorney came out to me and said I hope you are happy. And I looked at the district attorney and sad if you had just done A, B, and C you could have admitted that evidence. So really the only reason he's free is because you didn't your job adequately.

    O'REILLY: Ok but you're dodging the question now. I'm not -- you might be perfectly right that the prosecution didn't do what they were supposed to do. But you as a human being would you feel comfortable having this guy walking around the streets of America?