Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky being found guilty on 45 of 48 sex abuse counts really should not shock people given the fact that the jury wasn't out very long and there was overwhelming evidence of guilt in the case.
The evidence of eight young men emotionally and tearfully looking the jury in the eyes and saying, "That man molested me" -- without a response by Sandusky -- led to the conviction.
Sandusky's defense could point to the fact that no physical evidence of molestation was presented, no independent objective witnesses came forward who really had no bias, and some of the witnesses changed their stories and were talking about filing lawsuits.
The defense appeared to be buoyed by such changing testimony as this case wound its tawdry way to trial.
But that really didn't matter to the jury. The jury clearly felt the evidence was that this man was a serial molester.
Perhaps Sandusky's chances would have been better if he'd been able to take the stand in his own defense.
Defense attorney Joe Amendola said that didn't happen because the prosecution planned to rebut Sandusky with testimony from Sandusky's adopted son, Matt Sandusky, who told prosecutors late in the trial that he was another victim of his adopted father. But there was no guarantee that the son wouldn't come forward in the rebuttal case of the prosecution, anyway.
It was a huge mistake not to give Sandusky a chance to look the jury in the eye and declare his innocence.
There most likely will be an appeal. The defense may argue it was rushed into the decision to have an early trial and also that there were jury instructions that were errors. All of these things will be trooped out for the court of appeal.
However, given the tsunami of evidence against Sandusky, it's unlikely that he'll find a receptive court at the appellate level.
Amendola's performance outside the courthouse after the trial likely won't help. Amendola said he expected the outcome from the jury because of the overwhelming amount of evidence against Sandusky. He said he had no problem with the jury's verdict. He said the judge was fair and firm and reasonable.
This was the same man who has been spending the last year arguing that Jerry Sandusky is factually innocent, totally framed or the prosecution failed to prove its case.
I wouldn't want to have to explain his conflicting remarks to the lawyers who will handle Sandusky's appeal.
Sandusky never again is going to breathe free air. He faces a potential 442 years behind bars and is going to die in prison.
Royal Oakes is a legal analyst for ABC News.