Share This Page

Jordan Miles attorneys oppose jury award reduction

| Tuesday, June 3, 2014, 12:13 a.m.
Guy Wathen | Tribune-Review
Jordan Miles is surrounded by supporters as he addresses the media following a verdict in his civil trial on Monday, March 31, 2014, at the Federal Courthouse.

Lawyers for Jordan Miles filed paperwork Monday opposing a request from the attorneys for three officers seeking to reduce the jury's $119,016 damages award.

A federal jury made the award March 31 after a trial in which it found in Miles' favor on a wrongful arrest claim but found in the three officers' favor on an excessive force claim.

The city and Pittsburgh police Officers David Sisak and Michael Saldutte and McCandless police Officer Richard Ewing, who was a Pittsburgh officer at the time of the incident in January 2010 in Homewood, want a federal judge to reduce the jury's award to reflect an earlier settlement with the city and the amount Miles, 22, paid in medical bills.

Separately, Miles' attorneys want a judge to reverse the jury verdict on the force claim and hold a hearing on damages. The officers' attorneys oppose that request.

Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

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.