In cases like Sandusky's with multiple victims, do the prosecutors ever split off victims in case the first trial doesn'

[Dennis S]

Do they try not to put all their eggs in one basket in case they need to try again?

[cbelt3]

I expect that the strategy depends on a case by case and prosecutor by prosecutor basis.

In 'ol ShortEyes case, I would assume that they intend to use the large number of victims to provide an overwhelming story of extended depraved abuse and exploitation of young children, whose sheer numbers will outweigh any legal maneuvering and arguments about definitions and whatnot.

[Dennis S]

I guess it also depends how how much of a slam dunk they think they have. Yeah, in this case, they want lots of victims.

[RgrF]

They'd also have to consider issues of double jeopardy, for that reason alone a judge might order them to include all similar cases involving a named defendant.

[rjmacs]

There's also the matter of the use of public funds to prosecute someone. A good prosecutor shouldn't need 'backup' cases to get a conviction if the case is strong. Keeping victims 'in reserve' in case of legal screwup would also mean spending beaucoup public bucks. It's also ethically problematic to tell some victims, "you don't get justice for your crimes now, but justice will be served for you by proxy, and if we need another trial, you'll get your chance."