Three days after a jury read convicted murderer Andrew Rogers his verdict in the wee hours of Friday morning, his defense attorneys said they will sit down next week to discuss a possible appeal.

Rogers, 29, was convicted last week on third-degree murder charges in connection with the bludgeoning death of Penn State student Youngcheol Park, 24. Park was known by many as an area drug dealer, and Rogers said they were poker buddies who did cocaine together the evening of Park's death.

Rogers testified at trial that he beat Park to death with a rolling pin, beer bottle and baseball bat, but he has consistently claimed that a third man -- possibly named "Sweet" -- attacked him in his own home and caused him to act in self-defense.

By returning a verdict of third-degree murder, the jury rejected Rogers' claim of self-defense. Under Pennsylvania law, the claim of self-defense would have meant he was justified in killing Park.

"We were hoping for acquittal, but we're happy it wasn't 'murder one,' " public defender David Crowley said. " 'Murder three' is at least something you can work with. It's not a waste of human life."

Crowley said any appeal of the verdict will be made by the defense following Rogers' sentencing, which is currently scheduled for 9 a.m. May 10. Crowley said under Pennsylvania's indeterminate sentencing system, the minimum amount of time Rogers could be jailed is six to 12 years, and the maximum could be as many as 21 to 42 years.

Crowley said an appeal would most likely stem from the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict Rogers.

"Our argument all along is that there's nothing in the evidence that contradicts what Andy [Rogers] said," Crowley said. "If nothing factually that contradicts that, how do you lose?"

Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira said he would not be surprised if an appeal is filed, but said he believes an appellate court will find that the trial was "good" and "clean."

While most appeals generally focus on only a couple areas of contention, Crowley said another possible objection by the defense might be the use of crime scene photos by the prosecution.

Before the trial, Centre County Judge Bradley P. Lunsford rejected a motion by the defense to prevent the commonwealth from showing the photos to the jury.

The photos depicted the aftermath of the murder in gruesome detail and helped a "blood stain" expert show the jury where Rogers allegedly hit Park by pinpointing specific splatters of blood across the walls and refrigerator.

Juror David Colameco said the photos were "extremely helpful" in his transition from an initial presumption of innocence on all charges to, at one point, considering a first-degree murder conviction. Colameco was unsure if he would have returned the same verdict without having seen the photos.

Madeira brought the images up on the screen once again at the conclusion of the trial to accompany his closing statements.

Maderia said the standards for allowing pictures to be shown to the jury is one that leaves a lot of discretion with the trial court, and he believes Lunsford made the right decision by allowing them.

"You don't prove intent by what the person said, you have to prove it by showing what they did," Madeira said. "I'm not the one who created the horror of that scene, the defendant did."

Crowley said he visited Rogers in jail Friday and spoke with him about his upcoming sentencing. He said Rogers' mother was still "pretty shook up" and he also spoke briefly with Rogers' uncle.

"Everybody's disappointed, but it could've been a lot worse," he said. "We've all lived with this for 14 months -- no matter what the verdict was, there was going to be a flood of emotions from everybody on our side."