A jury returned a verdict of guilty of first degree murder against Dawud M. Rogers, finding him responsible for the Dec. 30, 2016 shooting death of William Michael “Micky” Blackwell, following a two-day trial before Lycoming County Judge William Carlucci.

The shooting took place when Rogers and the victim arrived at an auto repair shop in the 500 block of Arch Street in the city’s Newberry section independent of each other.

The prosecution contends the killing was revenge for an assault that the victim carried out against Rogers a week prior.

The conclusion of the trial was left in doubt when the jury announced they were deadlocked on a verdict, however they returned the guilty verdict less than an hour later.

Rogers’ first trial, in September 2025, ended in a hung jury, necessitating the retrial.

The second day of the trial picked up with the cross examination of retired city police Detective Edward Lucas by defense attorney Robert Hoffa.

During his testimony Wednesday, Lucas acknowledged that police were never able to positively identify the owner of the BMW from which the shooter exited.

Additionally, a BMW key was never recovered from Rogers, he said.

Further, only a witness Rogers was with leading up to the shooting identified him as being the front seat passenger.

State trooper Brian Siebert, a Cellular Analysis Technician, who testified that cell phone data from Rogers’ provider showed Rogers’ phone in the vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the shooting, and then drew a clear path from that scene along Route 15 South, from Interstate 80 to the Interstate 180 exchange to Interstate 467 South, with tower signals indicating its presence consistent with an area near his mother’s house, the trooper testified.

Under cross examination by defense co-counsel Matthew Deimer, Siebert acknowledged that the information used to track Rogers’ phone was not created specifically for law enforcement purposes, and can provide only an “approximate” estimate or “general geo location” of where a device might be, and not a specific place or address.

It could also not be definitely proven that Rogers’ phone was in the car seen leaving the scene of the shooting, Deimer stressed.

During closing arguments, Hoffa urges the jury to use common sense in determining the guilt or innocence of his client.

“If you find the witness’ testimony that is sufficient to convict, “Hoffa said before taking on the witnesses presented by the Commonwealth one by one, stressing that none of them were able to I.D. Rogers as the shooter or corroborate the witness’ story of events.

“They had one opportunity to link Dawud to the crime, and it didn’t happen,” Hoffa said, stressing that casings left behind were not tested for fingerprints or DNA.

Hoffa reiterated that not only was the suspect vehicle never found, but there were no toll records submitted in relation to Rogers’ alleged travels to Philadelphia in the aftermath of the shooting.

Much of the focus of Hoffa’s closing centered on the credibility of the witness with Rogers leading up to the shooting.

“You saw his attitude. You saw him plead the fifth when I asked him about his pending drug charges,” Hoffa said to the jury.

“How did he know the victim was going to be at the auto repair shop,” he asked.

“He said he was driving because Dawud didn’t have a driver’s license, yet he testified that Dawud had picked him up earlier that day,” the defense attorney said.

If in fact Rogers’ keys had been taken in the aftermath of the Dec. 23 assault, how was he driving around the following week, Hoffa asked.

Looking at the date of the shooting, Hoffa questioned why he refused to speak with police at the scene and told his mother he would be in need of a lawyer, speculating that those actions were out of consciousness of guilt.

The defense attorney again brought attention to the fact that days after an initial “off the record” police interview, the witness was charged with drug offenses that were later dropped, after he agreed to cooperate with the investigation, Hoffa contended.

“That was the first benefit,” Hoffa said.

“Do you think he did this out of the kindness of his heart, and not for a benefit,” he asked, also calling into question the age of the case.

“The witness’ first interview was in August 2017, then District Attorney Linhardt sat in on the interview, the leading agent retired in 2020, yet charges weren’t brought in the case until 2024. What took so long if they had the interviews and they had the videos,” Hoffa said to the jury.

“If you believe the witness is lying about one thing, you can believe he’s lying about everything,” he said, adding, ” there is nothing to say Dawud was the passenger in that car or the shooter, other than the witness’ testimony.

Hoffa likened the prosecution’s many witnesses to boards on a bridge, characterizing the key witness as a broken, unstable, unsafe board.

The defense attorney also reminded the jury that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocent, merely that the Commonwealth did not meet their burden.

“This is a case that never should have happened. It should have ended in the hospital,” First Assistant District Attorney Martin Wade told the jury in his closing argument.

“Mr. Rogers came in bleeding, his face swollen. He was in rough shape. The police were right down the hall. If he had been honest, the victim would’ve been taken out in handcuffs instead of walking home,” the ADA said.

“Instead, the defendant decided to take the law into his own hands,” Wade said.

“Maybe he was embarrassed. He had injuries to his face. Everywhere he went, people would be asking what happened. It’s a constant reminder,” he told the jury.

“There’s also humiliation there, he was on the ground with people gathered around, laughing at him. That’s enough to make anyone angry,” Wade said, calling the incident the foundation of a strong motive.

“You can’t fake text messages. They’re set in stone,” he said, reminding the jury of a text message in which the victim stated that he hoped that Rogers would not turn him in.

The witness at the center of the defense case was not some big mystery, Wade said.

“He knows who got in the passenger seat with him,” the ADA said.

“He identified Mr. Rogers as his passenger as far back as 2017. When he was asked to positively identify the shooter, he said that he could not due to the individual wearing a mask,” Wade said.

“He’s darned if he does and he’s darned if he doesn’t,” Wade said, of defense questioning of the two accounts.

A witness to the shooting also described the shooter as being similar in build to Rogers, Wade reminded the jury.

“There are two theories at play here, one of guilt and the defense theory of not guilty,” Wade said, painting the defense theory as “not reasonable.”

The witness would “need a good reason to do evil, and incriminate an innocent man. Why would a friend frame a friend,” the ADA said.

Further, if the witness was going to pick Rogers’ name out of a hat to blame, how did he happen to pick the one person that would be fleeing the area immediately following a fatal shooting, Wade posited to the jury.

He also just happened to pick someone who had recently been assaulted by the victim, Wade said.

“And if he was not fleeing due to the shooting, why was he fleeing to begin with? There would be no reason to do so unless he did something wrong,” he said.

“And in fleeing, he left his friend stranded,” the ADA said.

“This witness is not a mastermind,” he said, adding that he shares family ties with Rogers.

“This was a spur of the moment killing when Rogers found himself in the same place as the victim,” Wade said.

“I want you to focus on the flight. It’s a natural response when you’ve committed a crime. Mr. Rogers left the area with the gun and the car,” the ADA said, again stressing that a witness had placed Rogers as the passenger in the vehicle from which the shooter was seen exiting from, and then leaving the scene in.

“Taken all together, this evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt,” Wade said.