All-black jury would have reached same verdict, foreman says

The foreman of the jury that acquitted former East Pittsburgh police Officer Michael Rosfeld in the killing of 17-year-old Antwon Rose II said Monday that jurors based their decision on evidence, testimony and a Pennsylvania law that gives police wide latitude to shoot a person who is believed to be a fleeing felon.

“When I first heard about this whole thing — there have been a lot of shootings, white officers shooting black kids,” foreman Jesse Rawls Sr., who is black, said in a phone interview. “When I went in there, I had to be very open minded. I had to hear the evidence, which we did. I think if you had an all-black jury, you would have come up with the same result.”

The fact that Antwon, who was black, had been in a car during a drive-by shooting in North Braddock a few minutes before the car was stopped by Mr. Rosfeld, who

is white, was critical to the jury’s decision, Mr. Rawls said, even though Antwon did not fire any shots during the drive-by.

“I don’t know what else to say, I know the people in Pittsburgh are very upset, but they have to understand that if he hadn’t been in a drive-by shooting and he hadn’t been in a car, we wouldn’t be in this situation,” he said, adding that Antwon made the decision to run from the car when Mr. Rosfeld pulled it over.

The 72-year-old foreman said the jurors considered each of the four charges for which they could have found Mr. Rosfeld guilty during their deliberations, which lasted less than four hours on Friday. They started with firstdegree murder, he said, and then considered third-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

The jurors did not all agree at first, he said.

“Some people had to change their minds,” he said. “It was a discussion, like, ‘Tell me why he is not guilty.’ And then we went over it on the screen and we came up with the answer, and the person said, ‘OK, I read this the wrong way.’”

The jurors respected each other during the trial and deliberations, Mr. Rawls said. “And we were smart enough to sit there and reason and make sound judgment of what was happening,” he said. “We paid attention, we took great notes. We asked questions and we asked everybody what they thought.”

Under Pennsylvania law, officers are justified in using deadly force when they believe it is necessary to prevent death or serious injury to themselves or others, or if they believes it is necessary to prevent a suspect’s escape. That suspect, the law continues, must have committed or attempted to commit a forcible felony and pose a danger to human life.

Mr. Rosfeld testified that he thought either Antwon or the other teenager who ran from the car pointed a gun at him, and that is why he fired. Antwon was shot three times in the back.

Mr. Rawls said he was surprised when Mr. Rosfeld took the stand to testify in his own defense, but that by the end of the testimony, he believed the former officer shot Antwon out of necessity.

“I felt the guy did what he had to do, but if he had to do it again, he wouldn’t do it,” Mr. Rawls said. “When you’re in the heat of the moment, you’re scared, adrenaline is flowing, you’re on edge. … It’s sad that it happened that way, but that’s what happened.”

Mr. Rawls said he’s confident in the jury’s decision to acquit. “The decision I made, I feel was the best decision.”