- A?8ght?y(m?ydyli? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF VS. MICHAEL ROSFELD CRIMINAL DIVISION MOTION IN LIMINE Judge Alexander P. Bicket Filed on Behalf of the Commonwealth of Counsel of Record for the Commonwealth of STEPHEN A. JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY BY Daniel E, Fitzsimmons Chief Trial Deputy Pa. I.D. NOB 36474 Jonathan P. Fodi Assistant District Attorney Pa. I.D, NO. 209271 Office of the District Attorney of Allegheny County 401 Courthouse Pittsburgh; l?fli (412) 350w4?07 MOTION IN LIMINE TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: AND NOW, comes the Commonwealth of by its District Attorney of attorneys, STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JR., Allegheny County, DANIEL E. FITZSIMMONS, Chief Trial Deputy, and JONATHAN P. FODI, Assistant District Attorney, and respectfully represents the following: 1. The defendant is charged with one count of Criminal Homicide in violation of 18 ?2501; 2. The Court has set jury selection for February 2019, and trial for March 4, 2019; 3. At trial, the Commonwealth intends to prove that defendant killed .Antwon. Rose during a traffic stop that defendant initiated on June 19, 2018; 4. It is imperative that the evidence admitted. by the Court be strictly limited to testimony or other evidence tending to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it. would be without such evidence; 5. Stated another way, it is necessary that the evidente admitted be limited to that evidence which helps the fact finder determine what actions the defendant took or v?grlm: that Information that was not known by the defendant at the time . i. . .. if}: killed Rose has absolutely no relevance and should not be admitted as evidence; On June 19, 2018, the defendant, a police officer in the borough of East Pittsburgh, shot and killed Antwon Rose during a traffic stop on Grandview Avenue in the borough of East Pittsburgh? According tn) the defendant?s statement he gave to police, the reason the defendant had stopped the Chevrolet Cruze in which Rose was a passenger was that it matched the description put out over police dispatch radio of a vehicle that had just been involved in shooting incident in the nearby neighborhood (NE North Braddock. 'When he initiated the traffic stop, the defendant noted that there were multiple occupants in the Chevrolet Cruze. The defendant told investigators that he began the stop by ordering the driver to throw his keys from the vehicle and then ordering the driver to eXit the vehicle. The defendant then ordered the driver to lay prone on the ground in front of the defendant. The driver complied with these commands. A resident of East Pittsburgh, Lashaun. Livingston, witnessed the traffic stOp and recorded a portion of the events on her cell phone. The recording begins after the driver of the Cruze is already prone on the ground in front of the defendant. The audio and video recording made by Idvingston shows, inter alia, Rose exit from the front passenger~side door of the vehicle and run into a vacant lot. As Rose entered the lot, the defendant fired three shots at Shim. All three shots struck Rose, who ultimately succumbed to his wounds. Just as the shooting? began, a second. person, later identified. as Zaijnan Hester, emerged from the back seat of the Cruze and ran in the same direction of and past Rose. Dr. Abdulrezak Shakir of the Allegheny County Medic Examiner?s Office issued an autopsy report that indicated Rose died as 51 result of gunshot wounds to the head and trunk, and that the manner of death was Homicide. Detectives from the Allegheny County Police Department immediately' took: over? the investigation. 131 addition in) the evidence already noted above, the investigation revealed that: LJ The two firearms in the Chevrolet Cruse were teporbwi as stolen or lost by their respective owners. The 9mm Glock model 26 pistol was reported as lost to 6. is evidence that is i defendant could not hav killed Rose. None of that i consequence more or less likely to th 7. information INN: probative, the fact finder or unfairly impugn the character Such material may pla 2018. The reported as Monroeville Police Department on June 20, .40 caliber Glock model 22 pistol was stolen to the Lower Burrell Police Department in Scientists from the Allegheny County Office of the Medical Examiner compared shell casings from the North Braddock: drive~by' shooting to the .40 caliber? Glock model 22 pistol and identified it as the weapon used in the drive?by shooting. C1 Rose had a magazine in his pocket that would fit Glock model 22 9mm pistol. drive?by shooting Multiple video cameras captured the that the in North Braddock. The recordings showed back?seat passenger of the Chevrolet Cruze fired a weapon 13 times. The recordings also showed the Cruz speed away as a man wearing a red shirt returned fire at the Cruze. Examiner?s 5? 16m of the Allegheny County Medica firearms found in the Cruze, vehicle itself, various items of clothing, and other evidence gathered. Testing was performed for, among other things, latent prints, gunshot residue, and DNA. Members Office examined th The evidence described in paragraphs 5(a) through Sie} rrelevant and inadmissible at trial. The known any of that information when he nformation would make any fact of fact finder; The Commonwealth asserts that not only is the but ii: could cn?gr serve in? confuse 0i time Victirm to emotions and judgments in the court of in a court of iaw within public opinion, but it has no place Commonwealth; 8. The Court. can. protect the integrity7 of the case iby setting parameters around the evidence tx: be presented and cm argument by counsel; 9. While the defendant may present evidence or make argument that 1mg was aware of t?ua drive~by shooting 311 North Braddock and that he believed he was engaged in a traffic stop with the suspect vehicle, any reference to the victim's character or alleged prior bad acts must be strictly forbidden; 10. Our courts have made clear that, in cases where the justification defense of self?defense is proffered, evidence of a victim's alleged violent character may be introduced only to (1) corroborate the defendant?s alleged knowledge of the victim?s character and/or (2) prove the allegedly violent propensities of the victim to show the victhn was in fact the initial aggressor. Commonwealth v. Dillon, 528 Pa. 417, 598 A.2d 963, 964 (Pa.l991). Prior arrests of the victim may be used to corroborate the. defendant?s alleged. knowledge of the 'victim character. Prior arrests may'ru?: be used tx> prove an: alleged violent character of the victim in an effort to prove the victim was the initial aggressor. commonwealth v. Smith, 490 Pa. 3st. 416 A.2d 986_989 (Pa.1980); ll. In. this case, where the defendant knowledge about the victhn is limited t1) what the defendant saw enul heard on June 19, 2018, the defendant may not attempt to introduce character evidence about the victim; 12. Further, where, as here, the victim had no prior arrests or convictions, the issue raised by the Court in Smith is moot. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Honorable Court convene a hearing on the within. motion, and thereafter issue an. Order prohibiting counsel for time defendant, t?m: defendant anui any witnesses called on behalf of the defendant from bringing to the attention (If the jln?f the information described ill paragraphs 5(a) through 5(e) (If the within motion, as well as any other information not known by the defendant at the time he killed Antwon Rose, during the pretrial or trial stages of the above? captioned case. In the alternative, based upon the foregoing, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Honorable Court convene a hearing on the within motion, and thereafter issue an Order prohibiting counsel for the defendant, the defendant and any witnesses called on behalf of the defendant from bringing to deserit ed in the attention of the jury the information paragraphs 5(a) through 5(e) caf the within motion, as well as any other information not known by the defendant at the time no killed Antwan Rose, until such time as the Court has rendered a der151on as to the admissibility of that information. By: Respectfully submitted, STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY (O o?L/ Z, 3 N- DANIEL E.IFITZSIMMONS CHIEF TRIAL DEPUTY