Jordan Miles gets second chance to convince jury that officers used excessive force
A Homewood man will get a second chance to convince a federal jury that three Pittsburgh police officers falsely arrested him and used excessive force in a 2010 incident.
Jordan Miles won't get a second trial on his malicious prosecution claim, lawyers said on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster scheduled the second trial in Miles' lawsuit for July 8, said Pittsburgh solicitor Dan Regan.
Miles, 21, claims that Officers Michael Saldutte, David Sisak and Richard Ewing lacked probable cause to arrest him during a confrontation Jan. 12, 2010, on Tioga Street in Homewood. Miles also claims the officers used excessive force when they subdued and handcuffed him after he ran from them.
Miles sued the city and the three officers, but the city settled his claims for $75,000. The city would pay any damages a jury awards if it rules against the officers.
Miles contends he suffered injuries from being beaten as he lay on the ground. The officers contend his injuries were the result of his violent struggle to escape. Miles injured Sisak during the arrest by kicking him in the knee, the officers say.
A federal jury in August found in favor of the officers on Miles' claim that they maliciously prosecuted him by charging him. The jury deadlocked on the other two claims.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301or 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.
- Starkey: Pederson had to go at Pitt
- Developer reveals Buncher plans for 400 Strip District apartments, townhomes
- Pederson’s 2nd tenure as the athletic director at Pitt comes to abrupt end
- Steelers, young and old, thirst for opportunity to reach the postseason
- Chryst returns home, named football coach at Wisconsin
- Armstrong man dies in single-vehicle crash
- Toast of the Town: Explore Lawrenceville’s many watering holes
- QB Smith is chief concern for Steelers’ defense
- Judge dismisses littering charge against City Council president Bruce Kraus
- Steelers notebook: Brown leads WRs in Pro Bowl voting, Bell 2nd at RB
- With 3 more players possibly affected, Pens’ mumps fight escalates