Share This Page

Jordan Miles asks for second trial on claims that three officers violated his civil rights

| Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012, 10:00 a.m.

A Homewood man on Wednesday asked a federal judge to schedule a second trial on his claims that three Pittsburgh police officers violated his constitutional rights during a Jan. 12, 2010, arrest on Tioga Street.

Jordan Miles, 20, claims that Officers Michael Saldutte, David Sisak and Richard Ewing falsely arrested him and used excessive force during the incident. The officers deny any wrongdoing.

Miles also claimed the officers maliciously prosecuted him on charges that were later dismissed, but a federal jury in August acquitted the officers on that count after a trial where testimony by 25 witnesses stretched over three weeks. The jury deadlocked on the other two counts, and U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster declared a mistrial, which allows Miles to try his case again.

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.