ShareThis Page
Judge agrees to outside jury for cop accused of killing Antwon Rose | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Judge agrees to outside jury for cop accused of killing Antwon Rose

Megan Guza
637077_web1_Michael-Rosfeld1
Michael Rosfeld

Jurors from outside Allegheny County will hear the homicide case against a former East Pittsburgh police officer accused of killing an unarmed teen in 2018, a judge decided Monday.

Patrick Thomassey, an attorney for former officer Michael Rosfeld, argued in a Dec. 20 hearing that the extensive media coverage surrounding the June 19 shooting of Antwon Rose II during a traffic stop had made it impossible for his client to receive a fair trial.

The state Supreme Court will decide where the jury will be selected from.

Thomassey said that weeks of protests following Rose’s killing could create fear for potential jurors in Allegheny County.

Prosecutors argued against both a change of venue – moving the trial and local jury to another county – and a change of venire, which means bringing in an outside jury. Common Pleas Judge Alexander Bicket, however, ruled that a change of venire was in the interest of Rosfeld’s right to a speedy trial and impartial jury.

“This isn’t an entirely unknown procedure,” said University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris. “We saw this in reverse even in our own county a few years ago with Bill Cosby’s first trial in Philadelphia in which a jury was drawn from Allegheny County.”

Harris said prosecutors in the Rosfeld case shouldn’t be surprised, as there has been an immense amount of media coverage.

Bicket wrote that the outside jury could help the prosecution, saying that “the multitude of protests in the streets of Downtown Pittsburgh and elsewhere in Allegheny County may be a basis for potential juror bias that would and should concern the Commonwealth and its case as well.”

The judge also cited a poll of potential jurors he conducted over three days in December. Bicket asked those who showed up for jury duty whether they had heard, seen or read coverage of the case. Bicket said that out of 224 potential jurors polled, 81 percent said they were aware of the shooting.

Of those who had heard of the case, 40 percent said they had a fixed opinion. About half of those with a fixed opinion said they could set their feelings aside and fairly consider the evidence.

Other evidence cited by the defense included more than 300 pages of media coverage, including articles “in which several high-ranking public officials in Allegheny County commented about the incident publicly, often critical of the defendant and his actions in relation to the shooting,” Bicket wrote in his decision.

Rose was a passenger in a car suspected in a drive-by shooting in North Braddock minutes before the deadly shooting in East Pittsburgh.

As Rosfeld ordered the driver to the ground, Rose and backseat passenger, Zaijuan Hester, ran from the car. Rosfeld opened fire, authorities said.

The homicide charge was filed a week later.


Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.


Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.