Accused Tree of Life synagogue shooter wants trial moved out of Western Pa.

Accused synagogue gunman Robert Bowers and his attorneys want his trial moved out of Western Pennsylvania, alleging years of publicity have left him with no chance of a fair trial.

Defense attorneys filed a nearly 3,900-page change-of-venue motion Monday in federal court.

In their argument against a Pittsburgh-area trial, attorneys claim the 2018 shooting was perceived as an attack on “the center of Jewish life in Pittsburgh,” after which came “an outpouring of support for Squirrel Hill” that is “ongoing and highly visible.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office had not filed a response as of Tuesday afternoon.

Bowers is awaiting trial on dozens of charges stemming from the Oct. 27, 2018 attack on synagogue, which was home to the congregations Tree of Life-Or L’Simcha, Dor Hadash and New Light.

Eleven congregants were killed inside the Wilkins Avenue synagogue and several others were wounded, including two congregants and multiple police officers.

Related:

• Capital case against Robert Bowers
• Pittsburgh rabbis react to Texas synagogue standoff
• EDITORIAL: Big cases defy change of venue

The motion cited everything from the “Stronger than Hate” rallying cry born out of the shooting to the fact that the son of Holocaust survivors is the architect for a renewed multipurpose building at the site.

The defense team — made up of public defenders Michael Novara and Elisa Long and California-based attorneys Judy Clarke and Michael Burt — hired consultant Bryan Edelman, co-founder of Trial Innovations, a jury research firm that does pre- and post-trial analysis of criminal and civil cases.

According to court records, Edelman assessed more than 1,200 print media stories from the day of the shooting through Oct. 23, 2021.

He concluded that, in his opinion, “the presumption of innocence has been threatened and a presumption of death has been established” and “a change of venue would be an appropriate prophylactic measure to protect the defendant’s fair trial rights.”

Pennsylvania is divided into three federal court districts — Western, Middle and Eastern. Each district is split into divisions made up of several counties.

The Pittsburgh Division of the Western District includes Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Clarion, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Jefferson, Lawrence, Mercer, Washington and Westmoreland counties.

Of 400 people surveyed in the Pittsburgh Division, 92% of those who indicated they were familiar with the case said they believe Bowers is guilty, according to the motion, with 66% believing he is “definitely” guilty.

About 82% who were familiar with the case said Bowers would have a hard time convincing them he is not guilty of murder, according to the motion. About 82% said they would start the trial with a fixed opinion about Bowers’ potential sentence, including 54% of whom said they would favor the death penalty, the motion said.

More than a quarter of the 400 respondents identified their residence as Pittsburgh.

“Despite the passage of time and the size of the Pittsburgh Division, this mass shooting remains seared in the public’s consciousness,” Edelman wrote in his report.

Respondents in other districts — 250 each in Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Washington, D.C. — had opinions Edelman concluded were not as strong as those in Pittsburgh. About 51% of respondents in Philadelphia said they felt Bowers is “definitely guilty,” compared with 53% in Harrisburg and 39% in Washington, the report said.

Edelman’s full report breaks down the responses of all 1,150 survey respondents. Comments from the Pittsburgh Division included:

• “(Bowers) is the worst type of criminal. I would not show him any mercy. The victims. It’s heartbreaking. The victims that died left a huge void in the community and he is the worst ever.”

• “Personally, I feel that (Bowers) should be tortured and hung by his toenails.”

• Feel bad for the victims and could care less about the guy that killed them.”

The defense attorneys argued the findings show the jury pool is prejudiced and would prevent a fair and impartial trial and penalty phase in the Western District.

“Given these widespread, strong dispositions in favor of the prosecution, it will be virtually impossible for prospective jurors to give meaningful consideration to any trial defense and mitigating factors presented by the defense,” the attorneys wrote.