Public defenders representing the man charged with beating a Penn State student to death said they have found more evidence proving the existence of "Sweet," an alleged third party in the February homicide.

Andrew Rogers, of 224 Nimitz Ave., is charged with first- and third-degree murder for allegedly beating Youncheol Park to death with a bottle and baseball bat in Rogers' residence last winter. Rogers is claiming self-

defense and has remained loyal to his story that Park, a man called "Sweet" and himself were all engaged in a fight concerning money and drugs.

Assistant Public Defender Casey McClain said witness statements given to the prosecution have helped verify the existence of "Sweet." He said a "handful" of witnesses who knew the victim said they heard Park talk about "Sweet" before he died.

"Witness statements provided to police officers have said 'Sweet' does exist," McClain said.

He said witnesses did not know "Sweet," but they stated that Park talked about "Sweet" as his cocaine provider and was expecting "Sweet" to visit the State College area at about the time of the murder.

Park was found with cocaine in his system at the time of death, according to Centre County Coroner Scott Sayers.

McClain also said unexplainable fingerprints have surfaced in discovery evidence, which will be another burden for the prosecution to disprove the existence of "Sweet."

"It's going to be a major thorn in the [district attorney's] side proving that 'Sweet' does not exist," McClain said.

McClain said it is the prosecution's responsibility to prove that Rogers did not act in self-defense and that "Sweet" was not involved in the homicide.

"There's an overall picture of what Andrew [Rogers] said had happened," McClain said. "There's absolutely nothing to say it didn't happen that way."

Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira said he has not believed Rogers' account of "Sweet" since the case began.

Madeira said any evidence that helps the defense prove reasonable doubt among the jury will hurt the prosecution, but said he thinks the evidence as a whole will support the prosecution.

"The more that 'Sweet' exists the more difficult it will be for us ... Every piece of evidence with a question mark makes it harder to [prove Rogers guilty beyond unreasonable doubt,]" Madeira said. "But I believe we can overcome that."

McClain said he has been collecting this evidence from the prosecution since May, which makes it difficult to understand why Madeira does not believe in "Sweet's" existence. He said witnesses have nothing to gain by testifying to "Sweet's" existence.

However, McClain said some of the witnesses may be drug users themselves, making it difficult to obtain their cooperation.

He said he has not contacted any of the witnesses yet, but he hopes they will be able to testify at Rogers' trial -- scheduled to begin March 5, 2007.