Two found not guilty of shooting officer
Clairton police Officer James Kuzak sat silently through nearly every minute of the grueling four-week trial of two men accused of shooting him during a violent home invasion last year.
Inside an elevator on Thursday on the fifth floor of the Allegheny County Courthouse, minutes after a jury found the two men not guilty in his shooting, Kuzak — with his father standing over him — broke his silence with tears.
“We're hurt as a family with the verdict,” Kuzak said later. “I'm sure we're all going to take some time together. We'll all recover from it.”
The jury cleared Marcus Andrejco, 19, of Rankin of all charges. Jurors found Emilio Rivera, 27, of McKees Rocks guilty of burglary and multiple counts of robbery, unlawful restraint and recklessly endangering another person in the home invasion.
Both had more than a dozen charges, including attempted homicide and attempted rape, in connection with the April 4, 2011, incident on Miller Avenue. Kuzak was paralyzed from the waist down when he was shot five times by a fleeing assailant as he approached the home. He uses a wheelchair.
Rivera's defense attorney Paul Gettleman called the verdict “a little bizarre” because Rivera was found guilty of charges related to the home invasion but not the shooting.
“And nobody knows who shot the police officer, and that's the saddest thing of all because that's the question we were all here to answer,” he said.
That sentiment echoed throughout the county as police officers questioned their faith in the criminal justice system.
“Jimmy didn't receive the justice he was due,” said Bethel Park police Officer Drew Volchko, who sits on the executive board of the Western Pennsylvania Police Benevolent Foundation. “We put our faith in the system; we put our lives on the line for the system. Days like this make it extremely difficult.”
Jurors delivered the verdict after four weeks of testimony before Common Pleas Judge Edward J. Borkowski. Jurors heard from more than 35 witnesses over 15 days, about two-thirds from the prosecution.
Defense attorneys claimed police bungled the investigation, failing to collect evidence and letting two men identified by a witness go free when they presented an alibi.
Deputy District Attorney Dan Fitzsimmons leaned on Andrejco's confession to police officers and Rivera's confession to a confidential informant who was wearing a recording device.
“They worked with what they've got, and that's not always what you need,” Kuzak said.
Defense attorney Ralph Karsh said Andrejco confessed because he had been under intense scrutiny from police while he was in custody from 6 p.m. to 4:30 a.m.
“It's clear to me there was pressure put upon him, and he was told that if he would admit to this, it would go easier for him. And unfortunately an 18-year-old kid cracked after 12 hours in custody,” he said.
Police arrested Rivera in October.
County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said he plans to request the maximum sentence for Rivera — 69 to 138 years in prison — at his sentencing hearing on Nov. 15. Gettleman said he plans to appeal the conviction.
Andrejco's mother, Jaime Andrejco, said she wants to hug her son as soon as he is released from the county jail. She expressed condolences to Kuzak and his family.
“I hope eventually justice will prevail,” she said.
Adam Brandolph and Michael DiVittorio are staff writers for Trib Total Media. Brandolph can be reached at 412-391-0927 or email@example.com. DiVittorio can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1965, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.