A jury convicted Andrew A. Rogers of the third-degree murder of a Penn State student after about nine and a half hours of deliberation that concluded at 1:43 a.m. today.

Rogers stared at the ground and sat down slowly after the verdict was read while his mother wept quietly.

Rogers was found not guilty of first-degree murder, but he still faces 6 to 20 years in prison, said Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira. His sentencing is scheduled for 9 a.m. May 10. He was also found guilty of theft and receiving stolen property.

"Of course I'm pleased with the verdict," Madeira said. "I'm pleased because the jury went through all this difficult, and sometimes conflicting, evidence and came to a decision."

Defense attorney Deborah Lux left the courthouse before she could be asked about the verdict. Assistant defense attorney Casey McClain declined to comment.

Rogers was charged with the first- and third-degree murder of Youngcheol Park at Rogers' Nimitz Avenue house on Feb. 23, 2006. Park was found four days later beaten to death with a rolling pin, baseball bat and a beer bottle in Rogers' kitchen.

Several witnesses testified that Park was a known drug dealer, and Rogers said that he and Park had done cocaine together the night of the murder. He said the two had met as poker buddies.

Juror David Colameco (junior-nuclear engineering), 27, said he began the trial sure that Rogers was innocent of all charges, but at one point, after consulting the evidence, even went as far as considering first-degree murder.

Colameco said he connected with Park, who studied engineering, when he saw crime-scene photos of an eraser that Park was using while studying at Rogers' house. Colameco, also an engineer, said he had used a similar eraser in his studies.

Colameco added that he detached himself and looked only at the facts.

"It looked like it was a one-way fight," he said.

After yesterday's portion of the trial, the jury had a nearly three-hour testimony from Rogers himself to mull over, as well as the closing statements from Madeira and McClain.

Rogers took the stand at about 9 a.m. His testimony was anticipated since the first day of trial, when Lux told jurors he would recount his story of the deadly struggle in his own words.

Rogers' testimony painted a picture of a man scared and confused after being attacked in his own home. His details of the fight, in which he claims a third man known only as "Sweet" caused him to kill Park in self-defense, were consistent with his previous statements to police.

Centre County Assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall questioned Rogers' reasoning for not contacting police after leaving State College following the incident.

"I wasn't thinking clearly and if I had to do it again, I would do it differently," Rogers said. "I made a poor decision ... It was a lot to handle for me. I had to get the hell out of there."

Marshall went through Rogers' story step by step and twice approached him at the stand. Marshall handed Rogers the baseball bat, which he allegedly used to choke Park, and asked him to get down on his knees in order to show the jury how he choked him.

Rogers testified that he knew the rolling pin he used during the fight was between the couch cushions because he had brought it out earlier to jokingly compare to his collection of martial arts weapons, which included nunchucks, knives and a large club.

During his closing statement, Madeira finally unveiled his theory about the three bloody footprints at the scene that could not be matched to either Rogers or Park. To explain why the prints, which were left under and around Park's body in the kitchen, could not belong to a third person, Madeira used Rogers' story of the events.

"The only person standing over the body, by his own admission, was the defendant," Madeira said.

Prior to his theory about the shoeprints, Madeira attempted throughout his closing statements to expose inconsistencies in Rogers' story.

Rogers' cooperation with police was "merely a charade" and instead, he was sending them on "a wild goose chase," Madeira said.

"Cocaine and gambling are expensive vices. People have killed for less," he said, though Madeira did not offer a motive for killing.

Rogers bought the Bible after killing Park "to shed his guilt," Madeira added. Marshall asked Rogers during questioning if he felt guilty.

"I don't know how to answer that. I wish what happened wouldn't have happened," Rogers replied.

Rogers' mother, Sue, left the courtroom during Madeira's closing statements.

McClain's closing statements addressed the consistencies in Rogers' story and a rash decision by police to charge Rogers with murder.

"What we've had is a rush to judgment, a rush to ignore evidence ... a rush to put Andy in that chair for first- and third-degree murder," he said.

McClain discussed Rogers' testimony about his collection of weapons.

"All these weapons, if you wanted to kill someone you could have easily done so," McClain said.

"Why use a rolling pin? Does that make sense?" he asked the jury.

McClain also asked the jury if a man who threw up three times at the scene was capable of murder.

To finish his statement, McClain brought out one more piece of the puzzle -- Park's backpack. Using red children's paint on a similar looking backpack, McClain showed the jury how reaching into the bag would leave a handprint, which corroborated Rogers' story of Park reaching into it for the gun.

According to Rogers' statement to police, the last thing he remembers is Sweet picking up and pointing a gun at him, which he and Park had been grappling for in the kitchen.

Madeira called Rogers' account of the incident "a brilliant story" by making the commonwealth "prove a negative" in the sense that they have to prove that certain aspects of his account didn't happen.

"The defendant's story is a bit like a UFO landing or a Big Foot sighting," Madeira said.

Collegian Staff Writers Ryan Pfister and Alyssa Owens contributed to this report.