Share This Page

Jordan Miles seeks new trial against police officers

| Thursday, Oct. 25, 2012, 5:24 p.m.

A Homewood man on Thursday asked a federal judge for a new trial on his claim that three Pittsburgh police officers maliciously prosecuted him.

A federal jury in August acquitted Officers Michael Saldutte, David Sisak and Richard Ewing on the claim that they maliciously prosecuted Jordan Miles, 20, to cover up their actions during a Jan. 12, 2010, arrest on Tioga Street in Homewood.

The jury deadlocked on Miles' claims that the officers falsely arrested him and used excessive force. J. Kerrington Lewis, one of Miles' attorneys, said Miles will automatically get a second chance to prove those claims, so the motion filed Thursday only deals with seeking a new trial on the malicious prosecution.

The motion argues that U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster gave the jury the wrong instruction on how to reach a verdict on the malicious prosecution charge and excluded evidence that would have proven the officers had a motive for pursuing charges against Miles, he said.

Robert Leight, one of the attorneys representing the officers, declined comment. The other two attorneys, James Wymard and Bryan Campbell, couldn't be reached.

Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or bbowling@tribweb.com.

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.