Lancaster man, convicted of killing wife, wants new trial

Michael Roseboro wants a new trial. Or, his attorneys asked a Lancaster County judge on Monday, acquit him of murder.

[NRR]

I think he is guilty but he should have a new trail if there was any kind of misconduct by any juror of any kind.

[keffer]

Bet the Mrs. wants her life back too. no sympathy here.

[David]

The guilty will stop at nothing to be freed and declared innocent. Their attorneys think it is a game to free the guilty. But of course this works only for people who pay their attorneys big.

[shortyrock]

He's guilty but if there was any wrongdoing on the jurors part it should get investigated. just my thought.

[mom from etters]

where is the jury misconduct? saying "i can't wait for the trial to be over so i can talk about it"-isn't that the exact instruction that is given to jurors? that they have to wait until trial is over to talk about it? this is just lawyers getting richer, and loopholes being used to waste time and money.

[BARNEY]

Yeah, but didn't the respondent to the juror's Facebook entry encourage his friend to "just say he is guilty to end the trial quickly", and to "fry him"? Isn't that, in a sense, manipulating a juror? Isn't THAT the big deal here?

[LudaCrazy]

Family & loved ones of "wife killed" wants her back... ALIVE & made whole..

OK... and HE wants a Do Over??? Hell no!!!

[LudaCrazy]

What ever happened to VICTIMS RIGHTS??? The judicial system was created to save the ass of the criminal.. PHOOEY!!!!

[mom from etters]

BARNEY wrote:

Yeah, but didn't the respondent to the juror's Facebook entry encourage his friend to "just say he is guilty to end the trial quickly", and to "fry him"? Isn't that, in a sense, manipulating a juror? Isn't THAT the big deal here?

if that was the case, then the respondant should be arrested for jury tampering, but the juror himself didn't have a part in that. THAT'S the big deal here.

[Rob]

BARNEY wrote:

Yeah, but didn't the respondent to the juror's Facebook entry encourage his friend to "just say he is guilty to end the trial quickly", and to "fry him"? Isn't that, in a sense, manipulating a juror? Isn't THAT the big deal here?

Only if that person held influence over this juror and made him vote that way. Just speaking like that to a person isn't necessarily influential; if that was the case they would have to sequester every jury. Jurors have a responsibility to vote on the evidence they've heard in the case, to do anything else is wrong, however I believe a lot of jurors are already prejudiced before they ever hit the stand. This is more attributable to the media than anything else. As someone else said this is probably more about a defense attorney wanting to score more money or try to improve his winning record.

[Nobody]

I feel the real problem is no repsect for the judges orders not to discuss the case with anyone. I most certainly would charge the jurors who violated the orders, and order a new trial immeadiately! Your not talking about some slush buckets, both Jan & Michael were respected members of the community! Personal feeling will be what they are, but legal proceeding also will be what they have to be.