ShareThis Page
Juror in Michael Rosfeld case excused for illness, alternate will fill spot | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Juror in Michael Rosfeld case excused for illness, alternate will fill spot

887129_web1_MRosfeldA-031319
AP
Former East Pittsburgh police officer Michael Rosfeld, charged with homicide in the shooting death of Antwon Rose II, arrives at the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg on Tuesday, March 12, 2019.

A juror in the upcoming homicide trial against former police officer Michael Rosfeld has been excused from jury duty, officials said.

Juror No. 1, a 66-year-old white man, has been excused because of an illness, according to Stacey Witalec, communications director for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.

The man was a retired railroad worker who now rents out his home as an Airbnb.

He will be replaced by the first alternate juror, a 45-year-old white man who works in distribution.

The first alternate told attorneys at jury selection in Dauphin County on Wednesday that he’d never had a bad experience with a police officer.



Jurors will be bused in to Pittsburgh on Monday, and the trial is set to begin Tuesday morning. Jurors will be sequestered, meaning they will stay in Pittsburgh for the duration of the trial. They are not to read or watch any news regarding the case.

Rosfeld, a former East Pittsburgh officer, is charged in the June 19 killing of 17-year-old Antwon Rose as he fled a felony traffic stop in East Pittsburgh. Rose was black and unarmed. Rosfeld is white.

Despite the change, the jury makeup remains the same: Six men and six women, and three of the 12 are African-American.

Legal experts believe the demographics of the jury will be less important than perhaps thought.

“This is an unusual case — it’s a case in which I think you can throw a lot of demographics out the window,” said Bruce Antkowiak, chair of the criminology department at Saint Vincent College.

Rather than demographics, he said, a verdict will depend upon each juror’s background.

“This is really a case where the individual juror’s own background, their capacity to say, ‘I’m going to look at this case without any preconceived disposition’ comes into play,” he said.

Daniel Herbert, a police officer-turned attorney, represented former Chicago officer Jason Van Dyke, who was eventually convicted of second-degree murder in the case of Laquan McDonald. McDonald was armed with a folding knife and was walking away from police when Van Dyke shot the 17-year-old 16 times.

He said it’s “virtually impossible” to find a truly fair and impartial jury in police shootings.

“The biggest thing we were trying to get: Somebody that was a leader and that we felt could stand up to some pressure and rule based on evidence and not what happened outside the courtroom,” Herbert said.

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.