There were two interesting bits in the Jerry Sandusky trial.
First, the police asked leading and manipulative questions to witnesses. The police said “X said that Sandusky did Y to him. Did Sandusky do Y to you?” When you manipulate witnesses like that, it’s very easy to get a bunch a witnesses telling similar stories. However, in this instance, it’s an example of “Framing someone who is actually guilty.”
Second, the judge dismissed 3 counts, before the jury started deliberating. What kind of message does that send to the jury? Superficially, the judge is saying “These 3 counts have insufficient evidence.” There’s also a hidden meaning. The judge is implicitly saying “I think there’s enough evidence for the remaining counts.”
By dismissing some counts, but not all of them, the judge sends a hint to the jury that he thinks there’s enough evidence for the remaining counts. The judge should wait until after the jury deliberates, and then overturn if the jury made excessive convictions.
That’s two interesting points. First, the police can manipulate witnesses to testifying in a certain way. If enough people repeat a lie, you can fabricate memories. Second, the judge can manipulate a jury into voting guilty, by dismissing some, but not all, of the charges.