Prosecution, defense spar over police reports in Michael Rosfeld case |

Prosecution, defense spar over police reports in Michael Rosfeld case

Megan Guza
Michael Rosfeld

Common Pleas Judge Alexander Bicket chastised prosecutors in the homicide case against Michael Rosfeld on Tuesday for the length of time it took them to hand over certain evidence to defense attorneys.

The hearing came one week before jury selection is scheduled to begin in Dauphin County. Rosfeld is charged in connection with the June 2018 killing of Antwon Rose II in East Pittsburgh.

Rose, of Rankin, was a passenger in a vehicle suspected in a drive-by shooting minutes earlier in nearby North Braddock. Rosfeld opened fire on 17-year-old Rose and another passenger, Zaijuan Hester, as they ran from a subsequent traffic stop in East Pittsburgh.

Defense attorney Patrick Thomassey requested Tuesday’s hearing.

He complained that prosecutors – Chief Trial Deputy Daniel Fitzsimmons and Assistant District Attorney Jonathan Fodi – lagged in turning over two police reports, one from Allegheny County Police and one from a state police trooper. Both reports contained statements from William Ross, the man shot in the North Braddock drive-by.

In a July 19 interview with county police, Ross said he was near Fa’s Market during the North Braddock shooting. He said a gold car pulled near the market, and he noticed Rose in the front passenger seat. He said he heard someone say, “Is that him?” followed by shooting from the back passenger window, according to the paperwork.

He did not identify a shooter, but said he saw Rose in the front seat and the shots came from the back passenger window. Hester was later arrested.

Months later, Ross apparently told a state trooper that Rose had shot him, according to the police report. Ross was allegedly involved in a high-speed police chase in Greene County on Jan. 16 during which he was seriously injured. State Trooper James Monkelis was assigned to his hospital room and reported that Ross made remarks about having a bullet in his leg, and he’d been shot by Rose. According to that police report, the trooper phoned the information to Allegheny County police, who said they were aware of the information.

Thomassey complained that he didn’t receive that Jan. 16 report until Feb. 27.

“What’s the hold up?” Bicket asked.

Fitzsimmons disputed the wording of the report, indicating that from what Inspector Andrew Schurman has told him, the trooper did not mention that Ross declared Rose was the one who shot him. He said the first time either he or Fodi heard of the Monkelis report was in mid-February when Thomassey requested it. From there, he said, there was only vague information to go on, and prosecutors thought at first the incident happened in West Virginia.

Fitzsimmons said the trooper told them they’d have to subpoena his report, but some wrangling got them the report Feb. 26. They turned it over to Thomassey then.

Bicket said he was concerned by the fact that Allegheny County Police apparently did not inform prosecutors about the call from Monkelis. Fitzsimmons again said the content of the phone call was in dispute, and Monkelis only said Ross mentioned he’d been shot in an incident in which Rose was involved.

Jury selection in the case is set to begin March 12 in Dauphin County. The trial is scheduled for March 19 back in Allegheny County, and Bicket noted his intent to work 10-hour days and, if necessary, through the weekend.

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 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.