Michael Roseboro wants a new trial.

Or, his attorneys asked a Lancaster County judge on Monday, acquit him of murder.

At the very least, Roseboro's attorneys want two members of the jury brought back into court to see if they were influenced by others, specifically their "Facebook Friends."

The "Facebook Friends" communications came to light shortly after the jury decided Roseboro was guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Jan.

Now, Allan Sodomsky, Roseboro's attorney, has filed a motion in Lancaster County Court claiming "juror misconduct."

Judge James P. Cullen, who presided over the trial, ordered prosecutors to respond within seven days before he makes a decision.

District Attorney Craig Stedman said Monday he was still reviewing the defense attorney's request and will be filing a "detailed response."

But, Stedman said, "I am confident that the jury's swift verdict will be upheld."

"This motion is yet another attempt by this murderer to try and avoid responsibility for cowardly killing his wife," Stedman wrote in an e-mail.

Roseboro, 42, director of a family-owned funeral home in Denver, was convicted of killing his 45-year-old wife in the swimming pool of their Reinholds home on July 22, 2008.

His motive to murder, Stedman repeatedly told the jury, was Roseboro's obsessive relationship with his girlfriend, Angela Funk.


And, prosecutors maintained, Roseboro wanted to marry his girlfriend without jeopardizing his professional reputation or suffering financially from a divorce.

Testimony in the trial lasted three weeks, sparking tremendous public interest and media attention as prosecutors detailed Roseboro's affair and his wife's murder.

After deliberating a little more than four hours, the jury returned with the guilty verdict on the afternoon of July 31.

Later that same day, a reporter for the Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era newspaper trying to interview jurors about their verdict, discovered that two young jurors had communicated via Facebook with friends about the trial.

The jurors' communication, Sodomsky wrote, was in direct violation of the judge's "repeated instructions to the jury not to have any communications with any persons regarding the trial during their service as jurors."

Sodomsky now wants a full hearing in court, including the testimony of the two jurors, Michael Hecker and Nick Keene, and any others who may have had "unauthorized communications."

Hecker made comments that he was "exhausted and annoyed" during jury duty, according to court documents, and told friends to "check out the Commonwealth v. Michael Roseboro."

Keene complained that jury duty "sucks" and that when it was over he would have only two weeks before the start of school.

Sodomsky said the law entitles his client to a hearing to determine whether there were communications between jurors and outsiders about the trial and whether they prejudiced the verdict.

"That prejudice should be presumed in this case," Sodomsky wrote.

"The juror, Hecker, who was clearly disgruntled, bored, and eager to see a speedy end to the trial and to jury deliberations, was advised by a 'friend' (who had reason to know the details of the prosecution's case due to media coverage of the trial) that Hecker 'should just vote guilty and get it over with' and that he should 'fry him.' "

"It is difficult to envision more prejudicial statements at the point of jury deliberation."

Sodomsky also asked the judge to let him examine all cell phones, computers, hard drives, Facebook, e-mail and Internet accounts of the two jurors.

Stedman said, judging from what he had seen, there was "nothing in the alleged Facebook communications which remotely approaches grounds for relief."

"In the copies of the alleged communications we were provided with," Stedman said, "no juror discusses the facts of the case."

Stedman added that Hecker "specifically notes that he cannot wait (for the case to end) so he can discuss the case."

"Jurors are permitted to tell people they are on a jury and can comment on the length of service," Stedman said. 

The prosecutor added that the court can compare the alleged "extraneous influence," to "the mountain of evidence" presented during the lengthy trial and jury's deliberation.

"This office is committed to making sure that this convicted wife killer serves every day of the rest of his life behind bars for his decision to take the life of Jan Roseboro," Stedman said.

Additionally, but on an unrelated issue, Sodomsky "challenged" the weight of evidence given to the testimony of Dr. Wayne Ross, Lancaster County's forensic pathologist.

Ross "testified to the thoughts, actions and intent of (Roseboro) in his contention that (Roseboro) caused the death of the victim," Sodomsky wrote.

"His erroneous and speculative testimony was given far more weight than appropriate," Sodomsky wrote in the motion.