Fina wrote that the prosecution agreed with Sandusky’s request to have prospective jurors questioned individually and to sequester them at trial.

In Sandusky’s omnibus pretrial motion last week, defense lawyer Joe Amendola argued some allegations were not sufficiently specific, others lacked evidence and the statute of limitations may have run out in some cases.

Amendola released a statement saying that he’s had only about two months to review “volumes of discovery materials’’ that he received from prosecutors in mid-January.

“We don’t know if we will have all the information we need and are entitled to receive prior to the new trial date, but we will do our very best to be ready to proceed to trial on June 5th,’’ he said in an email late Thursday.

Fina noted that Sandusky waived a preliminary hearing that would have allowed him to test some of the evidence against him.

“He cannot now be heard to complain the information is insufficient, having conceded the ability of the commonwealth to prove each count if submitted to a fact-finder,’’ Fina wrote.

Fina told the judge that prosecutors expect to disclose additional information to the defense as the investigation continues. He asked the judge to allow Amendola to amend the omnibus pretrial motion two weeks after that additional information is received.

The prosecution filing said that a search of Sandusky’s home in June was authorized by a valid warrant and that investigators legally intercepted conversations between Sandusky and two boys, identified as Victim 1 and Victim 9 in court records. They include a seven-minute conversation with Victim 1 in June 2009 and a conversation with Victim 9 about four days after Sandusky was arrested in early November.

“It is denied that the interceptions were in any way illegal or improper,’’ Fina said. “It is absolutely admitted that the defendant `was unaware of and did not consent to the interceptions.’’’

––