Feds slam Pittsburgh synagogue shooter's push for new trial

Federal prosecutors say the man who killed 11 people at a Squirrel Hill synagogue five years ago should not get a new trial and doesn’t even deserve a hearing on his request.

In a 124-page response to a motion seeking a new trial filed by Robert Bowers in November, the government said the verdict in the case was “rational and supported by overwhelming evidence.”

Among the many claims raised by Bowers, he said his motivation to kill the victims was not because they were Jewish but because one of the congregations there supported an organization that works with immigrants coming to the United States.

“The jury considered the defendant’s argument at the close of the guilt phase and squarely rejected it,” prosecutors wrote in the response filed late Tuesday.

Bowers, 51, is challenging his conviction on 63 counts stemming from the Oct. 27, 2018, attack at the Tree of Life synagogue at Wilkins and Shady avenues.

Killed were Rose Mallinger, 97; 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; and Richard Gottfried, 65. They were members of the Tree of Life-Or L’Simcha, Dor Hadash and New Light congregations.

Several Pittsburgh police officers were wounded responding to the attack.

A jury found Bowers guilty of all counts in June. Then, in August, the panel dismissed the defendant’s claims he was schizophrenic and voted unanimously in favor of a death sentence.

Bowers was moved to death row at the U.S. Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Ind., a few weeks later.

In November, his defense attorneys filed post-trial motions asserting several claims. Among them, he claimed jurors received improper instruction on the case and that the hate crimes act for which he was convicted should not apply in his case.

But, in its response, the government said Bowers’ motion either recycled old arguments that have no merit or raised new issues improperly.

“The defendant — who has repeatedly flouted this court’s deadlines throughout this litigation … provides no justification for waiting until after the close of evidence, after the final charge conference, after the jury returned three separate verdicts against the defendant, after the jury was dismissed, and after the defendant has been sentenced, to raise these additional arguments for the first time,” the prosecution wrote.

In his motion, Bowers alleged the government improperly struck jurors of color from the panel. The government struck all four Black prospective jurors who qualified for the panel, as well as the lone Latino juror and the lone Jewish juror, the defense said.

Bowers asked for a hearing on that issue.

But, in its response, the prosecution said he is not entitled to one.

“The instant motion — filed without leave of court — openly defies this court’s orders and provides no explanation why the defendant waited five months — until after trial, conviction, and sentencing — to file any additional arguments to support his (jury) challenge,” the government said.