Homicide trial ends abruptly when juror faints, another admits knowing defendant’s relative |

Homicide trial ends abruptly when juror faints, another admits knowing defendant’s relative

The homicide trial of three men accused of killing a Slippery Rock University student ended abruptly on Tuesday when one juror passed out after seeing blood in a crime scene photo and another said she knew a relative of one of the defendants.

Devele Reid, 24, of Hazelwood and Brandon Lind, 19, and Jon Lee, 17, both of Swissvale, are charged with fatally shooting Jordan Coyner, 20, at his parents’ Kennedy home on June 18, 2012.

Police said the shooting was the result of a drug deal gone bad.

Assistant District Attorney Michael Berquist had just called his first witness in the trial before Common Pleas Judge Philip Ignelzi and was showing the jury a photograph of the crime scene when juror No. 10 passed out when she saw droplets of blood on a linoleum floor. Paramedics transported her to a local hospital.

During the melee, juror No. 3 told a member of Ignelzi’s staff that she needed to talk to the judge and later told him she knew the uncle of one of the defendants. She said several other jurors saw the two interacting at lunch.

Ignelzi dismissed the entire jury pool soon after the revelation and instructed attorneys to pick another jury on Wednesday morning. The trial is expected to last three or four days.

Police said the men went to Coyner’s home to steal cash and drugs. Coyner’s father, Richard, called 911 after he heard one gunshot and found his son lying in blood in the basement.

Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.