Though Andrew Rogers, who was convicted of murder in April of 2007, will have to wait at least another month for a judge to decide whether he receives a new trial, Rogers' attorneys said they are "cautiously optimistic."

In an evidentiary hearing Thursday, Judge Bradley Lunsford held off on deciding if evidence that surfaced after Rogers conviction of third-degree murder impeded the judicial process.

In a theft case, a man named Ronnie Starr gave a description of a man he called "B," that was similar to a description Rogers gave of "Sweet," a third man he said started the fight that ended in the 2006 bludgeoning death of former student Youngcheol Park. Centre County District Attorney Michael Madeira said the evidence was not introduced because he did not think it was "material."

"I guarantee if that evidence had been presented, the trial would've had a different flavor," Lunsford said.

Lunsford set deadlines for the district attorney's office and the defense to submit briefs. The district attorney's office has until Sept. 17 to submit its brief and the defense must respond by Sept. 29, Lunsford said.

Lunsford will decide, based on the briefs, if this evidence should have been turned over before the trial, Centre County Public Defender Deborah Lux said.

Lunsford pointed out Starr's description of the man, that matches that of "Sweet," was recorded a year before Rogers' trial.

Assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall maintained the only similarity in the descriptions of "B," the man Starr said sold him the watch, and "Sweet" is that of a "stocky, cocky, Italian fellow."

The prosecution added that even if "Sweet" and "B" are the same and the presence of "Sweet" in Rogers' apartment on the day of Park's murder is proven, the defense will "have to put the gun in Park's hand" to support Rogers' claim of self-defense.

"There is no evidence that puts anyone in the apartment," Madeira said. "I don't believe this would've made a difference in the conviction of third-degree murder. It was the shots with the baseball bat that determined the verdict."

Marshall and Madeira suggested Starr is not a credible source, but Assistant Public Defender Casey McClain said it's not for the prosecution or the judge, but the jury, to decide.

"If there was intentional conduct on the commonwealth's part, that could implicate double jeopardy rights, which could bar a retrial, and [Rogers] could be set free," Crowley said. "At the very least, we should get a new trial."

Crowley and Lux said they hope to hear a decision from Lunsford in the next couple months.