Tuesday, February 25, 2025, 7:12AM |  43°
MENU
Advertisement
Edward Borkowski in a photo submitted in 2015.
1
MORE

Judge reopens jury selection to public in Wilkinsburg massacre case

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas

Judge reopens jury selection to public in Wilkinsburg massacre case

The judge who closed jury selection to the public in the case involving two men charged with killing five people in Wilkinsburg reversed course on Wednesday and reopened the process.

By the end of the day Wednesday, a total of six jurors had been seated, including three men and three women. A total of 16 will be chosen, 12 jurors and four alternates.

Selection in the capital case against Cheron Shelton and Robert Thomas began on Monday, when the first two jurors were selected.

Advertisement

However, the next morning, Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Edward J. Borkowski abruptly closed jury selection to the public, citing as reasons that the media had published identifying information about the first two panelists chosen.

That identifying information included race, age, educational background and the jurors’ professions.

In deciding to close the process, Judge Borkowski said that one of the jurors contacted his tipstaff late Monday and said that they had been inundated with calls from friends, family members and co-workers asking if they had been seated in the case involving the mass shooting in Wilkinsburg.

The juror said they felt terrified and intimidated and would not have agreed to participate if they had known their information would have become public.

Advertisement

To ensure the defendants got a fair trial, Judge Borkowski said he believed he was compelled to close jury selection to the public.

However, attorneys for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Tribune-Review filed motions with the court seeking to have the process reopened based on the First Amendment and the presumption that court proceedings are to be open to the public.

On Wednesday morning, Judge Borkowski heard argument from the attorneys.

Adam Tragone, who represented the Tribune-Review, told the court there was “no compelling interest that vitiates the right of access.”

Mr. Tragone explained that jury selection has always been a public process and that openness “promotes ultimate fairness in the proceedings which remains essential to the public confidence in the justice system.”

Mr. Tragone also argued that, although the juror felt intimidated, there was no actual threat made to the juror or the juror’s safety.

“It seems to be a perception,” he said. “This is a very important civic duty on behalf of our citizenry.”

“There is no objective threat on this juror’s life that should be outweighed by the First Amendment.”

Judge Borkowski explained that he believes that sitting on a capital case as a juror — or participating in one through the court system — is an awesome responsibility.

“It has to be experienced,” the judge said. “Unless you go through it, you really don’t know.”

Mr. Tragone acknowledged that the potential ramifications of participating in a death penalty case as a juror are endless, but that doesn’t mean the public should be prohibited from participating.

Deputy District Attorney Mike Streily agreed.

“You know, in your heart, they’re going to be exposed,” he said. But, he continued, “one juror’s uncomfortableness,” cannot block the entirety of the public from a case.

“This is her personal feeling,” Mr. Streily said. “One juror’s subjective beliefs cannot keep the public out of these proceedings.”

At the conclusion of the argument, Judge Borkowski said that he would reopen the proceedings and later issued an order that prohibits media from reporting “the name, address, telephone number, place of employment, or school/educational institution of any prospective or empaneled juror, or such information that would lead to the identification of the aforementioned, until the jury is discharged.”

The judge added, however, in reaching his decision, “You would think common sense would find a home in journalists’ expressions or writings that were broadcast.

“The court was somewhat disappointed in the type of information that was broadcast.”

It is typical, however, in media coverage of jury selection proceedings, that a juror’s age, race, education, profession and family background is included.

Reporters were permitted to return to jury selection Wednesday after lunch and observed the questioning of four potential panelists — all women.

One was excused because it would have been a financial hardship for her to miss work for the length of the trial, and another was struck for cause after she said she could not support a death verdict.

The final two women questioned became jurors No. 5 and 6 on the panel. One of them is a retired educator, and the other works in professional development.

Two men were seated on the jury while the public was precluded from the process. No additional information about them was provided by the court.

During Wednesday's hearing regarding the media, Judge Borkowski left outstanding the issue of whether a Post-Gazette photographer, or the newspaper itself, would be held in contempt for taking two photographs on Monday inside the courthouse.

The photographs show Shelton and Thomas being led to the courtroom that afternoon by sheriff's deputies. Although the images were captured from inside the designated space in the courthouse where cameras are permitted to be used, Judge Borkowski said that he believes they violate a 2007 order.

Post-Gazette attorney Brandon Verdream argued that the pictures were taken from a non-restricted area.

"Our position is those pictures were in compliance with the local rule and state Rule 112," he said.

Mr. Verdream, who called the local rule "ambiguous," interprets it to mean that a photographer cannot wait outside a courtroom door and snap a picture.

Judge Borkowski said he was wrong.

"It's clear to me he was in a designated area that's unrestricted," he said. "But he took photographs of prohibited activity in the hallway. I don't see how you can advance that otherwise.

"Your interpretation makes no sense."

Judge Borkowski said he would not end the contempt proceedings and instead wants to find out the origins of the photographer's conduct "to prevent it in the future, vindicate the authority of the court and deter any future conduct of this sort.

"There's nothing vindictive or aggressive about my position here."

He told photographer Andrew Rush he should not fear possible incarceration as a result of the contempt, but that, "at a minimum, you are a witness to civil contempt proceedings against the Post-Gazette itself, as to whether they made you aware of existing law and the existing rule that I believe was violated based on this order."

The judge said he would recess the matter to allow Mr. Rush to obtain separate counsel.

A hearing is scheduled for Friday morning.

First Published: January 8, 2020, 5:51 p.m.

RELATED
Comments Disabled For This Story
Partners
Advertisement
Agents took Rachel Marie Powell, 40, of Sandy Lake, into custody in New Castle on Feb. 4, 2021.
1
news
Pardoned for Jan. 6, 'Pink Hat Lady' came home to a new reality in Western Pa.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, shown delivering his budget address in early February, said on Monday that a federal freeze of money intended for Pennsylvania is over.
2
news
Gov. Shapiro says federal freeze and blockages of $2.1 billion for Pa. are now over
The Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg, where state Acting Secretary of Education Carrie Rowe on Monday answered budget questions from lawmakers.
3
news
Pa. acting education secretary 'exceptionally concerned' after report on cyber charter school funding
Law enforcement respond to the scene of a shooting at UPMC Memorial Hospital in York, Pa. on Saturday, Feb. 22, 2025.
4
news
Gunman in UPMC mass shooting battled lifelong mental health issues, says ex-girlfriend
The Downtown Pittsburgh skyline, with the view from Station Square on Thursday, May 30, 2024.
5
news
DHS director says Allegheny County could face reduction in millions of dollars for Medicaid, other services
Edward Borkowski in a photo submitted in 2015.  (Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas)
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
Advertisement
LATEST news
Advertisement
TOP
Email a Story