BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- The Jerry Sandusky appeals hearing might not be over just yet.
While Tuesday morning marked the end of what was originally slated as a three-day hearing, Sandusky's attorneys said they'd still like to question some witnesses -- saying it's "not off the table" to call to the stand the likes of Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sara Ganim, whom the defense claimed also used leaked grand-jury information.
"I think there will be an order coming out," Sandusky attorney Al Lindsay said outside the Centre County Courthouse. "And I don't want to speak to orders that aren't out, but we have certain legal arguments to make that would deal with matters we think should come up in the court.
"The matter's going to go on."
Sandusky was convicted in the same courthouse in 2012 on 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse. He is currently serving a 30- to 60-year sentence in Greene State Prison, where he has been largely segregated from the prison's general population out of concerns for his safety.
He again remained silent Tuesday, smiling at points and mouthing words to his family and supporters in the front row. Sandusky testified only on the first day and proclaimed his innocence.
On Tuesday, Sandusky's defense team again tried to focus on alleged grand jury leaks and the conflicting statements of the man who self-identified as Victim 2. Lindsay argued there were inconsistencies in all of the victims' testimony, although he focused only on Victim 2 since that was included in his petition.
Former state prosecutor Frank Fina, who was called to the stand Tuesday, disagreed.
"I don't think you can draw any comparisons between the consistencies in [Victim 2's] statements and those perhaps in [Victim 1's] statements," Fina testified. "I don't see any parallel."
Fina also disagreed with the notion that there was definitely a grand-jury leak to begin with. While a leak from the prosecution would violate the law, information could've also been gleaned by speaking to the grand-jury witnesses -- many of whom were allowed to share their testimony.
Lindsay did not believe that was likely.
"Our argument is that if we can establish that there were leaks made by government agents, it could result in the dismissal of the case as opposed to a new trial," he said after the hearing.
Tuesday's hearing lasted just about two hours and ended before noon. The tensest part of the day came when Lindsay questioned an agitated Joe McGettigan, the lead prosecutor in the 2012 Sandusky trial. Lindsay asked whether McGettigan wouldn't mind answering the questions.
"And if I do?" McGettigan retorted.
Judge John Cleland was forced to interject, saying, "Wait, wait. Just take it easy here. You ask the questions; you answer the questions."
McGettigan said after the hearing Tuesday that he believed Sandusky's attempt at a new trial or having his charges thrown out "has no merit and will be unsuccessful." He was also asked for his response to the defense questioning the veracity of the eight witnesses who testified that Sandusky molested them.
"Well, I live in the real world," he said. "A jury of 12 persons convicted him in a full and fair hearing. And I stand by the trial we tried."
Sandusky previously lost direct appeals to the state's Supreme and Superior courts. The Tuesday hearing falls under the state's Post-Conviction Relief Act and is confined to newly discovered evidence, constitutional violations and ineffective lawyering.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.