Legal opinions vary on significance of testimony about Rosfeld’s emotions | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Legal opinions vary on significance of testimony about Rosfeld’s emotions

Paul Guggenheimer
910581_web1_MRosfeldD-031319
Former East Pittsburgh police officer Michael Rosfeld, charged with homicide in the shooting death of Antwon Rose II, walks to the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg on Tuesday, March 12, 2019, at the start of jury selection.

It’s unclear whether the prosecution or defense will benefit from Wednesday’s testimony about the emotional state of former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld after he shot Antwon Rose II, based on analysis from two legal experts.

East Pittsburgh resident John Leach, a witness called by prosecutors, testified Wednesday that after the June 19 shooting, he could hear Rosfeld repeating, “I don’t know why I shot. I don’t know why I fired.”

Later, Leach said he saw Rosfeld leaning against a building, crying and hyperventilating.

“It undercuts malice. You certainly couldn’t get anything like a first-degree murder conviction or, I think, even a third-degree murder conviction if that’s the definitive testimony,” Duquesne University law professor Wes Oliver said.

“It’s one thing if he said afterward, ‘Yeah, I hated to have to do that, but I was afraid the guy with the gun was going to shoot somebody else,’” Oliver said. “Then that would mean it was a deliberate choice, a hard choice that he made in a split second.”

Oliver said Leach’s testimony seemed to indicate Rosfeld was regretting the decision and that he acted impulsively.

“Is that something that could be regarded as involuntary manslaughter? Yeah, it’s possible,” Oliver said. “It certainly goes against any of the most serious charges, first-degree or third-degree murder. But it still could be consistent with him acting unreasonably and impulsively, which potentially could be involuntary manslaughter.”

Bruce Antkowiak, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at Saint Vincent College, disagreed.

“It’s very difficult in a case where there’s three shots (fired) to argue that this was accidental; this was impulsive; this was something that didn’t occur without some thought being made,” Antkowiak said.

“You have a trained officer who pointed the gun, fired three shots. I don’t know that the defense was going to argue that this was an unfortunate action based upon an impulse,” Antkowiak said. “You have an intentional use of a firearm on a person.”

Paul Guggenheimer is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-226-7706 or [email protected].

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.