Excuse me while I extract my foot from my mouth

What on earth was Joe Amendola thinking? Why would he consent to having his client, Jerry Sandusky, be interviewed by Bob Costas on NBC?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The best advice to give a client after they've been arrested is to keep their mouths shut about the incident and talk to no one but their attorney. The worst thing a client can do is talk to the press on the record.

Of course he's going to proclaim his innocence. That's a given. And, if that's where it had stopped, Mr. Sandusky might have been okay. But what Mr. Sandusky did was dig himself a deeper hole. After Mr. Costas asked him if he was guilty of the allegations against him:

“I have done some of those things,” Sandusky said. “I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their leg without intent of sexual contact.” 

Then came a back and forth after Costas asked him there was anything he now wishes he had not done. 

Sandusky: Well, in retrospect, I shouldn’t have showered with those kids. And, so … 

Costas: That’s it? 

Sandusky: Yeah, that’s what hits me the most. 

Costas: Are you a pedophile? 

Sandusky: No. 

Costas: Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to under age boys? 

Sandusky: Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?
(There was a nearly two-second pause) 

Sandusky: Sexually attracted, no, I, I enjoy young people. I, I love to be around them. I, I, but no I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.

His admissions to "horsing around," showering with and touching young boys on their legs are damning in a case in which he is charged with sexually abusing children. The pregnant pause after Mr. Costas asked if he was attracted to young boys will surely come back to haunt Mr. Sandusky in the future.

I understand that he didn't have much choice but to admit showering with young boys since that's what was reported by then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary. But why was he answering any of these questions in the first place? Every one of those answers is a statement that can later be used at trial

Mr. Sandusky doesn't come across very well. The interview did nothing to enhance his image in the media.

All Mr. Sandusky did was box himself into a story. His admissions are damaging. Mr. Sandusky would have been much better served had his attorney prepared a written statement for Mr. Sandusky to read to the media. A written statement that contained no admissions of questionable conduct. A written statement that Mr. Sandusky would have no more to say until trial. A written statement that all questions were to be referred to Mr. Amendola.

Now Mr. Sandusky, and Mr. Amendola, have to live with what was said.