ShareThis Page
Civil lawsuits, federal charges could await Rosfeld after acquittal | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Civil lawsuits, federal charges could await Rosfeld after acquittal

Tom Davidson
924676_web1_20190322nsRosfeld29
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Protesters comfort each other following the not guilty verdict in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld on Friday, March 22, 2019, in East Liberty. Rosfeld was charged in the fatal shooting of Antwon Rose II, who was unarmed as he fled a felony traffic stop.
924676_web1_AP19079658992040
Associated Press
Former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld was acquitted Friday, March 22, 2019, in the death of 17-year-old Antwon Rose II.
924676_web1_20190322nsRosfeld26
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Protesters react to the not guilty verdict in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld on Friday, March 22, 2019, in East Liberty. Rosfeld was charged in the fatal shooting of Antwon Rose II, who was unarmed as he fled a felony traffic stop.
924676_web1_20190322nsRosfeld35
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Bartenders show solidarity with protesters demonstrating inside of Ace Hotel, in East Liberty, while domesticating following the not guilty verdict in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld on Friday, March 22, 2019. Rosfeld was charged in the fatal shooting of Antwon Rose II, who was unarmed, as he fled a felony traffic stop.
924676_web1_20190322nsRosfeld44
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Protesters demonstrate outside the Allegheny County Courthouse following the not guilty verdict in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld on Friday, March 22, 2019. Rosfeld was charged in the fatal shooting of Antwon Rose II, who was unarmed as he fled a felony traffic stop.
924676_web1_20190322nsRosfeld33
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Protesters fill Ace Hotel in East Liberty while demonstrating following the not guilty verdict in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld on Friday, March 22, 2019. Rosfeld was charged in the fatal shooting of Antwon Rose II, who was unarmed as he fled a felony traffic stop.
924676_web1_20190322nsRosfeld30
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Protesters react to the not guilty verdict in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld on Friday, March 22, 2019, in East Liberty. Rosfeld was charged in the fatal shooting of Antwon Rose II, who was unarmed as he fled a felony traffic stop.
924676_web1_20190322nsRosfeld25
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Michelle Kenney, mother of Antwon Rose II, goes through security outside the courtroom after it was announced a verdict had been reached in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh Police Officer Michael Rosfeld on Friday, March 22, 2019.
924676_web1_20190322nsRosfeld22
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
Michelle Kenney, mother of Antwon Rose II, speaks to members of the media following the closing arguments in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh Police Officer Michael Rosfeld on Friday, March 22, 2019.
924676_web1_GTR-trial201-032319
Shane Dunlap | Tribune-Review
A man writes in chalk on the Grant Street median outside the Allegheny County Courthouse as deliberations in the Michael Rosfeld case begin on Friday, March 22, 2019 in Downtown Pittsburgh.

Michael Rosfeld could end up back in court despite a jury’s not guilty verdict.

The former East Pittsburgh police officer was acquitted of state charges Friday in the shooting death of 17-year-old Antwon Rose II. But Rosfeld already faces a civil federal lawsuit brought by Rose’s family and could face federal civil rights charges and additional civil lawsuits.

Bruce Antkowiak, a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, said at minimum, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Pittsburgh will review the evidence used in the state’s case against Rosfeld to determine whether the former officer violated Rose’s civil rights.

“Whether or not they will decide to do anything about it, there’s no way of knowing,” Antkowiak said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Pittsburgh could not be reached Saturday.

Rosfeld shot 17-year-old Rose on June 19 as he ran from a felony traffic stop. Rosfeld had stopped the car in which Rose was a passenger because he thought it matched the description of a car suspected in a drive-by shooting minutes earlier.

It isn’t unheard of for a police officer who’s been cleared by the state court to be convicted on federal civil rights charges of excessive force, Antkowiak said.

It happened in the case involving Rodney King, who was beaten by Los Angeles police in 1991. The four police officers on trial weren’t convicted on state charges but two were found guilty on federal charges.

The FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said this month they will review evidence in the Sacramento police shooting of Stephon Clark after local prosecutors declined to press charges. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for Sacramento said such reviews are standard practice.

Last month, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Pittsburgh decided not to press charges against the undercover Pittsburgh police officers involved in a brawl with members of the Pagans motorcycle club at a South Side bar last year.


MORE COVERAGE

Demonstrators march through Pittsburgh day after Rosfeld found not guilty


Civil lawsuits pending

Rose’s parents — Michelle Kenney and Antwon Rose Sr. — filed a federal civil lawsuit in August against Rosfeld, East Pittsburgh, its police chief and mayor. The lawsuit alleges that Rose’s civil rights were violated, that Rosfeld’s actions were unlawful and unwarranted and that the lack of training and practices at the East Pittsburgh Police Department caused, in part, the teen’s death.

The mayor, council and police chief knew of Rosfeld’s “erratic behavior and lack of training,” the lawsuit alleges, but failed to vet the new officer.

Rosfeld was sworn in as an East Pittsburgh Police officer the same night he shot and killed Rose. He had worked at other area departments before East Pittsburgh, including the University of Pittsburgh Police Department, as a part-time officer for Oakmont from 2011 to 2013 and as a part-timer for Harmar about five years ago.

“Make no mistake, there is nothing reasonable or appropriate about the manner Officer Rosfeld took Antwon’s life, and we will unequivocally prove that in Federal Court,” Fred Rabner, an attorney for Rose’s family, said.

Rabner and his legal team filed a motion Saturday asking the federal court to lift a stay on the civil lawsuit put in place while the criminal case unfolded. Rosfeld’s attorney in the civil lawsuit could not be reached Saturday.

Rose’s parents filed a lawsuit in county court late last year against the University of Pittsburgh, contending the university is partially responsible for their son’s death by not firing Rosfeld when he worked for campus police between 2012 and early 2018. The university has argued it is not responsible.

S. Lee Merritt, a civil rights attorney who was by the Rose family’s side throughout the trial, made it clear after the verdict Friday that family is moving ahead with its civil suit.

“We will also focus our efforts on holding those accountable for Antwon’s death through our civil suit,” Merritt said. “The fight for justice is never easy, but we will make every effort to protect the memory and legacy of Antwon Rose.”

The outcome in civil court could be different than criminal court because the burden of proof is different. In criminal court, juries must find proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, Antkowiak said. In civil court, the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence.

Experts: Juries often side with police

The jury appeared to believe Rosfeld’s testimony that he felt threatened as two teens ran from him, legal experts told the Tribune-Review hours after a jury acquitted the former police officer. Antkowiak called his testimony a “significant factor” in the acquittal.

University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris agreed. In use-of-force cases involving police, a jury is tasked with deciding if Rosfeld has a “reasonable” fear for his safety and his life, Harris said.

“Under the law, he doesn’t have to be correct, only reasonable,” Harris said. “The jury believed Rosfeld’s claim that he was reasonable in fear for his safety and his life.”

Harris said the speed of the verdict indicated the jury didn’t have a problem reaching that conclusion.

“If there was any reason to find him guilty, the debate would have gone on much longer,” Harris said.

The not guilty verdict did not surprise Antkowiak or Harris.

Convictions are not common among cases involving police facing similar charges nationally.

“Juries have a very difficult time putting themselves in a position to second guess a police officer,” Antkowiak said.

Regardless of the verdict, “it’s a no-win situation for anybody,” Antkowiak said.

Rose was one of nearly 1,000 Americans, both black and white, who died last year after being shot by police. Rosfeld was one of just 98 police officers charged with homicide in such deaths over the past 14 years. While charges against officers in such shootings are rare, convictions are even rarer. Of the 98 officers charged, three were convicted of murder; 32 others were found guilty of manslaughter or lesser crimes.

Rose was shot three times as he ran. The shooting was captured on video by witnesses.

Harris, however, said this case is another example of how videos do not tell the whole story.

He cited the 2015 North Charleston, S.C., shooting of Walter Scott, who was running away from a police officer who fired eight times that was also captured on video and resulted in a hung jury.

“The video only tells part of the story,” Harris said. “People need to understand that what they see in a video is not enough to prove a case.”

It also points to weaknesses in the law as it applies to law enforcement officers in these cases.

“The law as it stands is not really adequate to address these sorts of problems,” Harris said. “A jury has to judge the actions of a police officer under a standard of whether his actions were objectively reasonable.”

The jury doesn’t get to use hindsight or personal experience to look at the officer’s actions, Harris said. Instead, they should try to view a case “through the eyes of a reasonably objective police officer.”

With that as the standard and with most juries looking at police as the good guys, “it’s quite rare to see the conviction of a police officer even with good evidence,” Harris said.

Merritt said after the verdict that laws need to be changed and that he and the family would work toward that.

“Although the facts of the case seemed clear cut, namely that Antwon Rose was shot in the back as he ran from officer Rosfeld; the jury’s verdict was heavily influenced by flaws in current Pennsylvania law that contradict protections afforded citizens by the U.S. Constitution,” Merritt said in a statement released after the verdict. “Antwon’s family and I will be working to change those laws in an effort to prevent other families from suffering a similar disappointment.”

Tom Davidson is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tom at 724-226-4715, tdavidson@tribweb.com 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.