ShareThis Page
Juror says former West Mifflin cop threatened him |

Juror says former West Mifflin cop threatened him

| Monday, October 20, 2008 12:00 p.m

A juror on the panel that convicted former West Mifflin police Officer Noel Missig of corruption testified this morning that Missig threatened him after the case ended.

Jeffrey Perozich of Clairton served on the jury that convicted Missig, 40, on July 24 of charges he assaulted a juvenile suspect and lied about the seizure of video poker machines from a borough business. The jury acquitted the West Mifflin man of charges he planted drugs on a suspect.

Perozich said he met after the trial with private investigator Joe Rice, who works for Missig’s attorney Steve Greenberg. Perozich said Rice wanted him to sign a document saying he received a call the night before the verdict was announced stating: “You better change your vote to guilty or you’re (expletive) dead.”

In court for Missig’s sentencing hearing this morning, Perozich denied he ever received the phone call and refused to sign the document. Perozich testified he was approached at his home by Missig a few weeks later. Missig’s sister, who lives near him, also asked him about the case.

“(Missig) said if I didn’t sign it, I’d be subpoenaed. He talked for a while about losing his pension, benefits and he told me how he’d never be able to go back into law enforcement,” Perozich said. “In the end, he told me, ‘My career, my life and family are in your hands.’ He told me, ‘Remember we never spoke. I was never here.’ And then he said, ‘You have a (commercial driver’s license) and I know a lot of police officers.'”

Perozich is a school bus driver.

Testimony will resume this afternoon. Missig faces a maximum of 10 years in prison for his five convictions of false swearing, tampering with public records, unsworn falsification to authorities, simple assault and official oppression.

Categories: News
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.