Share This Page

Officers' lawyers want more evidence allowed in Miles trial

| Monday, Jan. 27, 2014, 2:09 p.m.

The federal judge presiding over a second jury trial in a Homewood man's lawsuit against three police officers should allow evidence that was disallowed in the first trial, lawyers for the officers argue in court documents filed Monday.

Jordan Miles, 22, claims that Pittsburgh officers Michael Saldutte and David Sisak, and then-Officer Richard Ewing, lacked probable cause and used excessive force when they arrested him on Jan. 12, 2010, on Tioga Street.

A jury deadlocked on those claims during the first trial but found for the officers on Miles' claim that they maliciously prosecuted him on charges later dropped. The second trial is scheduled for March 10.

In the first, U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster ruled a neighbor's testimony about a gun magazine, never recovered, and bullets found near the scene of the struggle was inadmissible because nothing linked the magazine or bullets to Miles.

Lancaster cited the fact that police reported a bulge they spotted in Miles' jacket turned out to be a Mountain Dew bottle.

The officers' attorneys want U.S. District Judge David Cercone, who took over the case when Lancaster died, to allow the testimony.

Ewing became a McCandless police officer; Saldutte and Sisak remain on Pittsburgh's force. The officers deny Miles' claims.

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.