After week of selection, 27 people eligible for jury in Pittsburgh synagogue shooting trial

Questions about feelings on the death penalty continued to dominate the process on the fifth day of jury selection in the case against a man accused of killing 11 people at a Squirrel Hill synagogue in 2018.

Through Friday, the government and defense have interviewed 81 prospective jurors, and, of those, 27 are potentially eligible to be seated on the panel.

No one has been selected yet.

Robert Bowers, 50, of Baldwin could face the death penalty if found guilty. He is charged with 63 federal counts, including that he killed the victims as they worshipped.

The victims were members of three congregations at the synagogue at Wilkins and Shady avenues, Tree of Life-Or L’Simcha, Dor Hadash and New Light.

Killed in the attack were Bernice Simon, 84, and her husband, Sylvan Simon, 86; brothers David Rosenthal, 54, and Cecil Rosenthal, 59; Dan Stein, 71; Irving Younger, 69; Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, 66; Joyce Fienberg, 75; Melvin Wax, 87; Richard Gottfried, 65; and Rose Mallinger, 97.

Two additional congregants were shot and wounded, and five police officers were injured, including four wounded by gunfire.

Jury selection is expected to last at least a few weeks, and the trial likely will run through July.

Although it is typical for jurors to be seated incrementally after they are questioned, U.S. District Judge Robert Colville is following a different process.

Once the prospective juror has been questioned, the defense or government makes a motion to strike for cause, meaning that the person should be excused from serving on the jury. Among the reasons to be struck is having a strongly held belief, such as being for or against the death penalty.

Colville takes those motions under advisement and is not ruling on them until the next morning.

If the motions are granted, those prospective jurors are removed from the potential pool to serve. If they are denied, they become eligible to be seated.

Once the panel is large enough, the two sides will be given the chance to exercise what are called peremptory challenges, meaning they may exclude the person from serving for any reason.

In a federal capital case, each side gets 20 peremptory challenges.

That means, experts said, it is likely that Colville will wait until the potential pool has at least 58 people in it before the government and defense will use their peremptory challenges.

The panel will include 12 jurors and six alternates.

As part of the questionnaire process, prospective jurors were asked to rank their feelings on the death penalty from a 1, strongly against, to 10, strongly in favor.

They also were asked if they would automatically vote for death, or if they could vote for a punishment less than death.

During individual questioning, there were lengthy follow-ups to those written answers.

Throughout questioning, there has been a wide array of viewpoints on the death penalty — from those who believe it should be automatic in a case where a life is taken to those who believe any form of killing is wrong.

On Friday, a Black woman who was interviewed said that her evangelical church teaches that “thou shalt not kill.”

“My views on the death penalty are, I don’t think I believe in the death penalty,” she said.

When asked by Assistant U.S. Attorney Soo Song, “What would move you off of ‘thou shalt not kill?’ ”

The juror answered, “Something heinous? I don’t know.”

She then went on to say that the concept of “an eye for an eye” doesn’t help the people who are hurting.

But then, she added, “There may be something that could change my mind.”

In that woman’s case, the government made a motion to strike, saying the prospective juror would not be able to consider death as a possible sentence.

The defense disagreed.

Her wavering answers were not at all unusual during the first week of questioning as the prospective jurors are faced with having tough, moral, in-depth conversations with people they’ve never met before.

Another man questioned Friday, who studied criminal justice and biblical studies, also cited “eye for an eye,” as a reason for his support of capital punishment.

He ranked himself a 9 on the scale of 1 to 10 in support of the death penalty.

He also told the parties that he did not believe that a person’s childhood is relevant to criminal activity decades later.

“That person made that decision to commit that crime as an adult,” he said.

But that prospective juror also said he could consider mitigating evidence presented by the defense and weigh it against aggravating circumstances presented by the prosecution before choosing a punishment.

The defense objected to him serving, while the government said he should be eligible.

Another man Friday afternoon ranked himself an 8 out of 10 on the death penalty scale.

For him, though, the focus on questioning had little to do with his feelings on capital punishment.

The man, who has two bachelor’s degrees and attended Penn State, wrote on his jury questionnaire that he previously had an interest in America First and alt-right groups “for a little bit, not very long.”

“I’m friends with some people that followed that ideology for a while,” he said.

He also wrote: “A significant portion of hate crimes are hoaxes and unfairly pinned on white people.”

“I think there are cases where people have faked hate crimes for any purpose, sometimes just media attention, sometimes for monetary gain,” he told the court.

The same man said he posted on the Discord online platform and saw jokes about the synagogue attack there.

When acting U.S. Attorney Troy Rivetti asked him, “Do you have feelings about Jewish people?”

The man responded, “Not really. I think I’ve seen on average they have high IQs, somewhat insular and not much else.”

When questioning concluded, Rivetti made a motion to strike for cause, arguing that the man is biased against Jewish people, and that his comments “are tropes that are commonly used in alt-right forums.”

Defense attorney Matthew Rubenstein objected, saying that the prospective juror “hasn’t indicated he endorses” the alt-right.

“I think it’s engaging in speculation he has views that may be offensive to us,” he said. “And even if he does, the First Amendment allows us to have offensive views.”

Throughout the week, Maggie Feinstein, the director of the 10.27 Healing Partnership, observed the process.

“I am impressed with the thoroughness of this process and the delicate care that everybody from the judge to the two sides of the legal teams takes in honoring the dignity of all the potential jurors,” she said Friday. “What we’ve seen is that it’s really difficult in a case of capital murder. There’s a lot of burden for the jurors to think deeply about how they feel about criminal justice, how they feel about the death penalty.”

She praised the prospective jurors for being willing to be vulnerable as they discussed moral decision-making.

Feinstein noted that this was National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. This year’s theme is Survivor Voices: Elevate. Engage. Effect Change.

In her work, she said, she has found that crime victims often are “some of the wisest, kindest” people.

“They form very unique worldviews based on their life experience. So, this week, while we’ve been listening to the jurors and seeing them bravely face this really big challenge, this theme is also important to see them as they open themselves up and make themselves vulnerable in their duty to serve.”