And also joining us criminal defense attorney and hln analyst joey jackson. Walt let me start with you, do you know anything about the judge presiding over the case . And what has been the, i guess feel in the community about this particular case . Well you know the judge has been a fair judge all that ive known. And theres nothing to suggest that he has done or will do anything other than follow the law. The real question is what case or matters presented before him for him to make the decision and theres a lot of questions surrounding why only one officer was prosecuted or selected to be indicted. And the particular charge. Because theres a serious question about causation. And how, how does any one person know that mr. Brelos bullets were the actual cause of death . Or did he actually shoot a dead person . Thats a good point. I was reading that the defense is arguing this is about 2. 6 seconds. That the 2. 6 seconds were when he jumped on to the car and the defense claims by that time both were already dead. Thats according to a forensic pathologist for the defense. Do you believe it comes down to 2. 6 seconds . Or is it bigger than that . Well who really knows, thats the point. The real question is that there are other charges that could have been filed, that would have involved or implicated the other officers whether it be on a Conspiracy Theory or on a felony murder theory in the state of ohio. One person being held responsible for the cause of death for these two individuals, puts the judge in a very difficult position. Heres one thing a lot of people might be asking. People who watch csi or whatever know for sure you have ballistics tests and you can usually tell the fingerprint of a round from a firearm. And trace that back to the gun. Whoever had that gun. In this case it seems pretty clear that authorities are saying they cant trace which bullets hit this couple. Is that is that a fact . Absolutely. Thats exactly what makes this so difficult for the judge to make a decision. Every officer in cleveland is issued the same Service Weapon same rounds so in that respect, theyre identical. You know judge from a Legal Standard you ask a judge to make this call and issue a causation, he would not be incorrect in acquitting this officer. We have joey jackson, maybe wed like to go out to him. As you look at the situation and the judge about to come in any minute on this case what are your overarching thoughts about this Police Officer who right now is in jeopardy of being convicted on a manslaughter charge . Good morning joe, good morning christi, good morning walter. Its about two competing theories in the courtroom if youre on the side of the Police Officer who is defending this its about listen i acted reasonably and in accordance with my training and in accordance with my experience. There was a highspeed chase here, obviously youve amped up from that. You believe theres shots being fired at you. Its about the perception of fear. Is that perception that you have or fear joe, imminent enough for me to then strike back at you . And is the threat posed to me and the force that i use proportionate to what that threat is . And of course when youre acting under the sphere of all of the excitement and under the sphere of just having a moment to react, its a bit different. And i think thats why in this case what you saw the defense do is say look its not about monday morning quarterbacking its about what your perceptions were at that time. Of course if youre on the prosecutions side, youre going to say that your actions were unreasonable. You came out from cover, you stood on that hood and you discharged your weapon into that car. Firing and using as they said joe, using him as target practice and really killing you see the victims there. Killing them of course there is the issue of causation, but i think certainly the trial dealt with that issue from expert testimony. And you could see the trajectory of bullets that hit them. Based upon the rods and based upon the way that the Bullet Wounds entered. And so there are really two competing interests here. Were you acting in accordance with a perceived reasonable threat . Or in the alternative, were you acting unreasonably . Did you need to come out from cover . Did you in coming out from cover jumping upon a hood, act in a way that was converse to your training and certainly exceeding the bounds of the law . And that i think is what the judge has said the balance in making the right decision here. You can see there, just to reiterate whats going on here the judge, judge john oconnell, odonnell, excuse me has not yet taken his seat yet. But he is on the way we understand. And hes going to be telling us finally this verdict about Michael Brelo. I know a lot of you are out there, wondering perhaps why this chase started in the first place. And thats a really interesting concept here. It seems that an officer thought he heard a gunshot while he was had his cruiser outside the Cuyahoga County justice center. He pursued the car and something went out over the police radio that indicated an officerinvolved shooting. And thats why there were so many Police Officers involved. This was a 22minute highspeed chase there were 62 police cars. As we said 137 bullets were shot into this car, 49 of them were from brelo. This is what we know about the victims, we cant forget about the victims here. Youre wondering why were they running . Why didnt they stop . Apparently Timothy Russell, who is 43 years old, had alcohol in his system. Melissa williams had consumed marijuana. Both had tested positive for cocaine. But Russell Williams was shot 23 times. Melissa williams was shot 24 times and even you know the assistant Prosecutor SaysTimothy Russell made some bad decisions that night, but it should not have been a death sentence for him. So joey when we look at the defense in this case brelos defense, heres whey told the ohio bureau of investigations ive never been so afraid in my life. I thought my partner and i would be shot and that we were going to be killed. At which point i drew my weapon and i shot through the windshield at the suspects. Again, the point of contention here is that he was standing on the hood of the suspects car, firing into the front windshield. Is that joey, a lodge catgical defense . Thats what it comes down to christi. We have to answer the question of reasonableness of your behavior. And certainly you couldnt even imagine the adrenaline that must be flowing, you know looking at this as the defense has pointed out in the context of how it occurred. You, christi, breaking down the highspeed chase involved. The people who were involved in that car. The fact that there was something in their system i dont know that the officer had a basis to know that at the time. But the question comes down to when youre shooting at someone believing theyre shooting at you. When youre fearing and perceiving theres a risk of your imminent death and youre trying to defend yourself at that time does it transcend the bounds of that to now jump on top of a hood of a car, where youre exposed. And then the question becomes from a prosecution perspective, well if they had a weapon and you really felt that you were in danger of you dying, why would you fully exposureself jumping on a hood and firing rounds into that car . Unless you intended to kill them and knew that they posed no threat to you . And so thats what needs to be balanced. Was that the proper thing to do in accordance with your training no matter how scared you were . And so the prosecution is resounding the themes of accountability yes, police are scared. Yes, they have a tough job. But should they not reassess a situation and evaluate and use as a defense as excuse me the experts have said in this case for the prosecution, lethal force as an absolute last resort resort. And that includes discharging your firearm. Now 30,000foot view i would like to come back to Walter Madison for a moment. Were at a very peculiar place with cleveland, ohio right now. Where this city is essentially looking at three different individuals who have died as a result of Police Activity and theyre all controversial cases. You have Timothy Russell, you have Melissa Williams this case right before us. And then we have the case of the family that you represent, tamir rice the 12yearold boy in cleveland. Give me some sense, is there some type of a culture problem in cleveland, ohio . Or have they just had an unfortunate series of events in the Police Department . It is not an unfortunate it is systematic. And these are the words of the federal government. There has been a declared systematic and pattern of excessive force, thats violence. Joe, that is thats just three, two instances. There are many more. Theres a pattern of violence perpetrated upon citizens by the city of cleveland Police Department thats by our government. Were in a situation where the judge is getting ready to render a verdict and weve been very proactive in preventing violence. You dont have to support violence to understand the response that everyone is preparing against. The people of cleveland didnt start the violence. And speaking of violence were obviously hoping for calm in cleveland. No question about it. And, right. And we do know that there are some plans to try to get in contact with National Guard people and have them on alert or whatever in the event there is a problem in cleveland. But the fact remains that we have this situation here look the judge is coming in right now. And it looks like were getting ready to find out what the verdict is. Probably be another couple minutes here before before he actually sits down and takes the mic. This is judge john odonnell. And real quickly, you know lets listen here. Make sure we doesnt want to miss anything. You sat through the whole thing. Were on the record in the state of ohio versus Michael Brelo. All counsel and the defendant are present. D fearful of the police. Citizens think the men and women sworn to protect and serve have violated that oath or never meant it in the first place. Some of these places are long familiar. New york city, and baltimore. Some were unfamiliar until incidents there laid bare the divide between the people and the police. Ferguson missouri. North charleston south carolina. Probably not coincidentally these places are mostly africanamerican communities. Cleveland, too, is one such place. As the reaction and attention to this case and other recent events has shown. Every week i pass a mound of stuffed animals left in memory of a 12yearold that many people believe was murdered by the police. This animosity toward the police is fed not just by stories that tvwatchers and internet clickers are attracted to. But by Police Officers afronts, honest people treated as criminals, by unnecessary brutal treatment of suspected arrestees. By daily slights and disrespect real and imagined. By police on the people they serve. These realities in some neighborhoods have nourished attitudes towards the police ranging from wariness to outright hatred. And these feelings have existed long before they gained prominence through the proliferation of smartphones, surveillance cameras, and other recording devices that let pictures and news of Violent Police citizen encounters quickly saturate the internet. Some say the volatile relationship between police and the community is rooted in our great countrys original sin. Whether it is or not, that sin wont be expiated and the suspicion and hostility between the police and the people wont be extlipated by a verdict in a single criminal case. If defendant Michael Brelo is not guilty of the manslaughter of Timothy Russell and Melissa Williams if the evidence did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly caused their deaths in violation of the constitution then i will not sacrifice him to a public frustrated by historical mistreatment at the hands of other officers. At the same time if the evidence did prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, then he will be found guilty and punished as any other criminal. His badge and gun offer no special protection here. He and i took similar oaths to support and uphold the constitution. If the evidence shows that he violated his, he can be sure i will honor mine. But whatever the verdict is a conclusion about the evidence in this case only. If he is guilty it doesnt mean the entire cleveland Police Department is dysfunctional. Incompetent and uncaring. If he is not guilty the verdict does not mean the department covered itself in glory on november 29th. And guilty or not guilty the verdict should be no cause for a Civilized Society to celebrate or riot. Whatever the outcome, two people are still dead and the defendants life is forever changed. I have mr. Mcguinty and mr. Deangelo, a 35page verdict that i will spare you the reading of the entire thing. There are probably ten pages or so that i do want to read on the record in open court. The rest of course you will have in moments. Ple knowing that death would probably result. But the state also has to show that the conduct was the actual cause of the deaths of russell and williams. Timothy russell had 23 gunshot wounds. The medical examiner who performed his autopsy, dr. Weens, numbered the wounds sequentially in headtotoe order, not the order they were sustained. So that wound number one is at the top of russells led. Wound number two, lower on the head and so on down to 15h. Of the 23 both wounds 1 and 2 to the head would be fatal. Taken alone. The nine wounds labeled at 15a to 15h together would be fatal combined. These are wounds that were penetrating shots to the chest and abdomen and for which, dr. Weems could not determine necessarily the wound paths. But of these, 15b from a bullet that pierced the heart and lung and 15c from a bullet that perforated the heart would each be fatal by itself. Wound 1 at the top of the head is from a bullet that entered there, less than an inch left of the midline and lacerated among other structures the left basal ganglia, which controls movement. Weems testified that the trajectory of that wound was down from the top, to the left of the deceaseds body and from the back toward the front of russells body. Wound 1 was immediately incapacitating to russell so that he could not move and by itself would have killed him within minutes. Wound two was another penetrating wound to russells head on the side. Entering two inches to the right of midline, just above the right ear. And injuring the brain stem which controls respiration and heart rate. Dr. Weems testified that this bullet caused a nearly immediate death. Like wound 1, the path of this bullet was down from russells right to his left. In that basic direction. And from back to front. Russell incurred the head wounds indeed all of his wounds while sitting on the drivers side of the malibus front bench seat. Other than that his movements are not known and his exact position at the time he was shot in the head was not known. What is known is that after the shooting stopped, he was found sitting back in the car and slumped to his right. Resting against and a little behind williams left shoulder. Because russells head wounds were incapacitating that is to say he wouldnt be moving after either of them and because they were so close to each other with such similar trajectories they either came from the same gun in rapid succession or nearly simultaneously from two separate shooters positioned near each other. And that shooter or those shooters would have been to his right on a cars passenger side. There is no evidence that brelo ever shot his gun toward the malibu from its passenger side. Wound 15b is a penetrating wound to russells left upper chest. The bullet that caused this wound came in from russells left and went right front to back. Where it entered the heart and would have killed russell within anywhere from several seconds to a minute. Wound 15c is a penetrating wound to russells left im sorry, right upper chest. About three inches from 15b. But on the other side of midline. Like 15b the bullet that caused 15c hit russells heart and taken alone, would be fatal. Also like 15b after sustaining this injury russell could have remained alive for a couple minutes, maybe. According to the testimony and could have still operated a car. But unlike 15b which came from the left 15c came from the right and went left. In other words, the opposite direction to 15b. Brelo stands accused of illegally using deadly force against russell and williams. From the trunk of zone car 238 and the hood of the malibu. His final 15 cartridges were spent while on the malibus hood. It took 7. 392 seconds to fire all of those shots. And they all came from the same place. Although russell could have been positioned relative to brelos gun barrel in a way that would have exposed either the top of his head or the right side of his chest, or the left side of his chest, to a bullet with the trajectory of wound 1 or 2 for the head 15b or 15c for the chest, it is highly unlikely if not impossible that during less than eight seconds, russell was positioned, then repositioned then repositioned again so that all four wounds came from the same gun in the same place. I therefore cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that brelo took the four gunshots causing the four fatal wounds. Any one of which by itself would have caused russells death. Dr. Felo did the autopsy of Melissa Williams. He identified 24 gunshot wounds six of which taken in isolation were fatal. Wound 8 was caused by a bullet that entered just under the collar bone. About two inches to the right of midline and into the lung. That wound has a trajectory straight in. And from left, her left to right. The projectile that made wound 9 entered williams chest on a downward trajectory went left to right. Slashed the lung and pierced the ascending aorta. Gunshot wound 10 was on the right side of williams chest. Less than an inch from the midline. The bullet that caused it had a downward trajectory came from left to the right. And went through the sac around the heart and ripped the superior serena cava the major vein that drains blood from the heart. Wound 11 is lower on williams chest and on the left side. About two inches from the center of her body. And was caused by a bullet coming down and also from left to right. This bullet went through the hearts right ventricle and lacerated williams right diaphragm and kidney. About two inches below wound 11 is wound 12. The bullet that came in here scuffed the heart, and went through the left lobe of the liver and the stomach. Wound 12 has the same basic path as wound number 11. Downward into the chest and from left to right. The last of williams unequivocally fatal wounds number 13 is in her right abdomen onehalfinch from midline. The path of the projectile that came in here was upward and from left to right. And it hit the intestines, pancreas pancreas inferior serena cava and right renal artery. Wound 13 is the only fatal wound with an upward trajectory and it is apart from the others. All five of wounds 812 are clustered within a distance from her head to her toes of eight inches. And wound 13 is another five inches itself below wound 12. S to say before death. He testified that wound 12 is most likely premortem. Williams also had one head wound that could be said in isolation to be fatal. Wound 1, not depicted on the mannequin, is just above her left ear. The bullet came straight in and penetrated the brains left temporal lobe. If this injury was incurred alone, it would have caused instant unconsciousness, and williams heart would have stopped beating within minutes. Yet, the parties experts differ on whether the lethal shot to the head came after williams was already dead. Dr. Fela classified as post mortem because it is nonhemorrhagic not bleeding. Dr. Roe, the expert for the defense, characterized it as peri mortem. Meaning the injury happened around the time of death, but whether it came before or after the cessation of life the Legal Definition of death, cant be determined. Dr. Fela did agree that the term peri mortem is an accepted term of art in pathology and is not just a hedge for a doctor unwilling to opine whether an injury is pre or post mortem. Dr. Felas testimony that wound 1 to her head was sustained after death, after the cessation of respiration, pulsation and all of her other vital functions, combined first with his testimony that after the other fatal wounds to the chest, williams would have lived for 1220 seconds. And second with the fact that the time from the first shot to the last was about 20 seconds, essentially be a solves brelo of causing her death, if believed. The very latest williams could have sustained wound 1 to the head was during the 20th second of shooting. Which is to say the last shot. Subtracting from that the 12 seconds at a minimum it took for her to die from the fatal chest wound, or wounds she would have been hit by those bullets to the chest no later than eight seconds into all of the shooting. And all of the shots taken by all 13 officers including brelo, during those first eight seconds, have been deemed by the state as legally justifiable. Even if one arbitrarily cuts off half the minimum time williams would have lived after the chest wounds from 12 seconds to eight seconds, and still assuming wound 1 was made by the very last bullet fired during the 20 seconds of firing that excludes all of brelos shots during the last 7. 392 seconds, when he did the shooting that the states expert considers not justified. As causes of wounds 813. I detail this timeline to illustrate the imprecision inherent in a medical examiners opinions. I am not critical of dr. Felas qualifications and abilities. I believe no pathologist could say exactly when williams heart beat and breathing ceased. But opinions are just that. One persons conclusions about an unknown fact based upon known facts combined with the experts knowledge gained if education, training and experience. And experts opinions can be the difference between finding something beyond a reasonable doubt and not. They should be examined carefully. Having considered dr. Filas opinion, i believe hes either wrong about the time from the chest injuries until death. Or hes wrong that wound 1 to the head was postmortem. On the one hand his estimate of the time from the chest injuries to death is based on years of experience and a rough mathematical calculation about the amount of blood pumped per beat of williams heart. On the other hand his opinion that the head wound was nonhemorrhagic and thus must have occurred after williams lost pulsation, is based on his own kplgs examination own examination of the injured area of the head and brain. Yet given the extremely compressed timeframe, i find that the fatal injury to williams head came before her heart stopped pumping and before her life had ceased. That leaves williams with seven separate fatal wounds. Five of them 812 could have been inflicted by one shooter in one position. But if they were the highend probability that williams body was con torted in such a way that she was exposed to those five downward shots and an upward shot to her lower abdomen and a straightin shot to the left side of her head leads me to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that brelo caused at least one fatal wound to williams chest. Probably wound 10. And maybe all five. But that one or two other officers inflicted two other fatal wounds namely 13 to the abdomen and 1 to the head. Ssa williams i cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that brelo took the four gunshots causing russells four fatal wounds any one of which would have caused russells death. I do find beyond a reasonable doubt as with williams that he caused at least one of them. I find it possible but not beyond a reasonable doubt, that he caused two of them. I cannot however, as mentioned, find beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the four fatal wounds he caused. In russells case it is likely that he is responsible for 15c given that shots downward and righttoleft trajectory and brelos likely spot on the hood more or less between williams and russell. Which put brelo slightly to russells right. So for both Timothy Russell and Melissa Williams i have found beyond a reasonable doubt that brelo fired at least one shot which by itself would have caused russells death. But proof of voluntary manslaughter requires a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Either that his shot alone actually caused the death. Or that it was to use the words of Justice Scalia from burge versus the United States the straw that broke the camels back. Dr. Weems owepined that each of the four wounds suffered alone was fatal. And this described to russell as ante mortem. Which is to say before death. Her definition of death does comport with the Legal Definition which as i mentioned is cessation of life the ceasing to exist, defined by physicians as a total stoppage of the circulation of the blood. And a cessation of the animal and vital functions consequent thereon, such as respiration, pulsation, et cetera. In other words, since they were premortem, any of these four wounds caused the death and not necessarily the first to hit russell. Since the time from injury to cessation of life varied, depending on the wound. In the end, as to Timothy Russell, dr. Weens could not offer an opinion on which ante mortem wound caused death first. Leaving me as the finder of the fact to guess which of of the four undoubtedly deadly bullets caused the cessation of life. Guessing and being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt are not compatible. Brelos deadly shot would have caused the cessation of life if none of the other three were fired. On Timothy Russell. But they were. And that fact precludes finding beyond a reasonable doubt that russell would have lived but for brelos single lethal shot. Similarly with Melissa Williams i find that russ one or two other officers inflicted two other fatal wounds as i mentioned, 13 to the abdomen and 1 to the head. So with these killing wounds from one or two people other than the defendant, i cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that but for brelos fatal shot or shots to williams chest, she would have lived. As with count one, i therefore find on count two that the voluntary manslaughter of Melissa Williams that the element of causation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Having said that the question of whether brelos affirmative defense has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence is not moot. Having found beyond a reasonable doubt that brelo did cause a wound that would have killed both of these people and having concluded that both of them lived for some moments, however brief, after those killing shots. He may still be found guilty of the lesser included offense of felonious assault defined as knowingly causing serious physical harm. It is therefore necessary to address his claim of legal justification justification. First, i find if not strictly as a matter of law, that as a matter of practicality his claim of legal justification is an affirmative defense, that hes required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. But a preponderance of the evidence is a lesser burden than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance is the greater weight of the evidence and only requires a belief that something is more likely than not. Pardon me. The Fourth Amendment to the United States constitution provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, against all reasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. Whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person. There can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure, subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. A determination of the reasonableness of the seizure requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. The question is whether the officers actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them. Wherein an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect pose as threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others is not constitutionally unreasonable to effect a seizure by using deadly force. A reasonable perception of threat is the minimum requirement before deadly force may be used. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20 20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that Police Officers are forced often, to make splitsecond judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. About the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Earlier in the opinion i already listed some of the Police Officers observations during the chase. That brelo heard. And which bear upon a question of whether brelo had an objectively reasonable perception that the Chevrolet Malibu and its occupants present presented an imminent danger of serious bodily harm to him or to the other officers. The initial report from officer van that someone in the malibu popped off a round. Officer seiferts called that the passenger looked angry and was pointing a gun out the back window. Vans warning that the passenger had a gun. Seifer saying that the passenger is turning back around again, pointing a firearm. And another officers call that williams was possibly loading a weapon. Brelo was also aware of the length in both distance and time of the chase. Although he was driving one of the cars nearest to the malibu he likely knew that many other cars were in pursuit, yet russell still would not stop. He knew russell had gone over 100 miles per hour. And ignored dozens of traffic controls. All of this would make him wonder why the people in the car were so desperate to escape. By the time the chase was near its end, brelo had been led through parts of cleveland unfamiliar to him and at the school was in east cleveland, a different city altogether. The entrance drive from whymore drive to the parking lot was a dusty, dirty area where the driver could only see the car in front of him. As he was on that entrance he heard a radio call of shots fired and another radio call that there was no way out of the parking lot. When he pulled to a stop russell was unexpectedly barrelling down the driveway toward him, and then slammed into car 238 to brelos left. He thought he saw both people in the malibu with something black in their hands. Gunfire was erupting in front of him. Apparently coming from the suspects. And the car was still running. Under the totality of these circumstances, he perceived that imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to himself and other officers. And he decided to use deadly force to seize the malibus occupants. The same decision was made by 12 of his fellow Police Officers all of whom surely made many of the same observations as brelo. I find by a preponderance of the evidence that brelos decision to use deadly force against russell and williams was based on probable cause to believe that they threatened imminent serious bodily harm to him and the other officers not to mention the public. I therefore find that his initial decision to use force was constitutionally reasonable. It was reasonable despite knowing now that there was no gun in the car. And he was mistaken about the origin of the gunshots. It is brelos perception of a threat that matters. Excessive force claims like most other Fourth Amendment issues are evaluated for objective reasonableness based upon the information an officer had when the conduct occurred. If a Police Officers perceptions were objectively reasonable his use of force is not unconstitutional. Even if no weapon was seen or the suspect was later found to be unarmed. Or if what the officer mistook for a weapon was something innocuous. But my conclusion that brelo was justified in his initial decision to use deadly force should come as no surprise to the parties. Since the same opinion was testified to by the plaintiffs use of force expert w. Ken kitsaris. The real dispute between the defense and the prosecution is whether brelos probable cause to use deadly force continued through to the conclusion of the shooting or disappeared about eight seconds before he stopped shooting when he took an elevated position out of his own car and then the malibu. Our review of kitsari ss testimony valuable on the ultimate value of this issue. In kitsari ss opinion William Salupo reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least a shot at the malibu and both of its occupants. In his opinion, paul box reasonably perceived a threat justifying a shotgun blast at russell and williams. In his opinion, Christopher Eric reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least two shots at russell and williams. In his opinion, will diaz reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least three shots at russell and williams. In his opinion, brian sabolick reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least four shots at russell and williams. In his opinion, Michael Farley reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least four shots at russell and williams. In kitsaris opinion, william demcheck reasonably perceived a threat just dpiing at least four shots at russell and williams in his opinion, Randy Patrick reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least nine shots at russell and williams. In his opinion, michael rinkas reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least nine shots at russell and williams. In his opinion, Aaron Odonnell reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least 11 shots at russell and williams. Scott sistak according to kitsaris reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least 12 shots at russell and williams and cynthia moore, brelos partner, reasonably perceived a threat justifying at least 14 shots at russell and williams. Ant kitsaris holds these opinions about the other officers regardless of their tactical mistakes. Box was out from cover near the malibus drivers side. Eric odonnell and rinkus were exposed on the passenger side or the safety of the positions these other officers took. Even officers who were behind cover and thus mostly protected from any shots coming out of the suspects car were justified, according to kitsaris in firing as many shots as they did. Moreover in kitsaris brelo reasonably perceived a threat justifying about 34 shots at the suspects. So where did brelo run afoul of the constitution . As kitsaris put it because at the point of going on the trunk of his own car, 238 and then on the malibus hood he is taking action that is not trained, not recognized not safe and put all the other officers in the vicinity at risk of his becoming a victim and theyre having to attempt now to save his life. In other words, because brelo put his own life in danger. Kitsaris later backed up his criticism of brelo stems from actions he took that were contrary to his training and not from the harm that could befall russell and williams from those actions. By testifying as follows. Question but then why would it be unreasonable for him to get up and eliminate this threat . Answer for the exact reasons he gave for why he did what he did. Which were in my opinion, not objectively reasonable decisions. Question what do you mean . Explain that. Answer because if you are in fear of your life and youre behind cover, i cant imagine the fear that youre going to have when you put yourself standing on top of a car, in the middle of as he called it a firefight. That is not trained. Its not appropriate. Its not objective. And whatever subjective belief this is kitsaris still he had about his spirit at that moment was not objectively reasonable to put himself up in the middle of both crossfire and the potential of being shot either by officers or the suspects. Which would then jeopardize the other officers who would have to go into a mode of saving the officer thats now down. You dont put yourself in a position of officer down in the middle of a situation that he was involved in. Thats why its objectively unreasonable. Its not trained, its not appropriate. Its taking yourself out from behind cover. And youre putting yourself in crossfire. And you are putting the other officers in jeopardy of having to now, if you get shot save your life, which risks their lives. Finally, when asked if brelo would have acted reasonably had he continued for the last eight seconds to fire from behind car 238, instead of the hood of the malibu he said, i would probably say so. To me all of this demonstrates that kitsaris point is not that brelos perception that the people in the car posed a threat of imminent serious bodily harm. Which he needed to stop. Was unreasonable. But only that his actions taken to get into a position to stop the threat were unreasonable. Kitsaris seems more focused on the location of the shooting than the fact of the shooting. In any event, im not bound by kitsaris opinion that brelo acted unreasonably. And if i reject his opinion, i can do so without necessarily relying on the opinion of Ron Martinelli the defendants use of force expert. Expert opinions are merely offered to help the finder of fact make informed conclusions and the implications of and significance of the known facts. And those known facts are first, the car was still running and to brelos observation, the occupants were still moving. Until then over 22 miles of driveways, sidewalks, parking lots streets, roads and highways russ headline shown no intention of giving up. He had just rammed car 238. But his car was not so tightly wedged against 238 or blocked by 217, brelos car, to keep him from continuing to use the car as a deadly weapon. The possibility that car 238 could have been pushed by the malibu to pin brelo to the ground was not imaginary. Second up to three other officers were not convinced by then that the threat was over. Because three other shots were fired during brelos final volley of 15 during the last 7. 392 seconds. Third, sabolik, a reasonable Police Officer, praised by the prosecution as having moral strength and courage, expressed a belief at trial that the cars occupants still posed a threat during the last eight seconds. Additionally brelo was acting in conditions difficult for even experienced Police Officers to imagine. He was in a strange place at night surrounded by gunfire. Sirens and flashing lights. He and moore had fired straight through their own windshield, thinking they were about to be shot and killed. He described it as worse than being under attack from rockets and mortars while serving as a marine in iraq. These and more are the totality of the circumstances happening when he decided to use deadly force. Brelo did not fire too quickly. Or at a person who was clearly unarmed. Or clearly unable to run him over. He did not fire at somebody walking or running away. Finally, brelo acted in slightly more than the time it takes for a pro golfers tee shot to fall and less time than it takes to read this sentence. Four weeks was spent in trial examining those 7. 392 seconds in every detail. And adversary at trial has proved over the centuries to be an effective way to find the truth. But if there is an ideal place to step into brelos shoes, and view those less than eight seconds, and the 12 that came before them the way he did on the night of the shooting it is not the artificial environment of a courtroom. Still, that is what the law requires. So i reject the claim that 12 seconds after the shooting began it was patently clear from the perspective of a reasonable Police Officer in brelos position that the threat had been stopped, and therefore find that brelos entire use of deadly force was a constitutionally reasonable response to an objectively reasonably perceived threat of great bodily harm. From the occupants of the malibu russell and williams. Having so find in summary, i find that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Michael Brelo, knowingly caused the deaths of Timothy Russell and Melissa Williams. Because the essential element of causation was not proved for both counts. I therefore find the defendant not guilty of counts one and two as indicted. The state did prove the lesser included offense of felonious assault on both counts by demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant knowingly caused serious physical harm to both victims. But the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is legally excused from liability for those crimes because he caused the serious physical harm to the victims in a constitutionally reasonable effort to end an objectively reasonable perception that he and the others present were threatened by russell and williams with imminent serious bodily harm. I therefore also find the defendant not guilty of felonious assault, a lesser included offense on both indicted counts and the defendant is discharged, thank you. Were off the record. All rise. So there you have it. Officer Michael Brelo found not guilty on both counts of manslaughter that he was charged with the judge said the state had proven felonious assault, but that he was excused because he acted reasonably as a Police Officer would in that situation. So Michael Brelo found not guilty on all counts in cleveland this morning. And the judge also saying because they he just could not get past the reasonable doubt, that needed to be that threshold that needed to be met there. We want to pass it over to fred actually im sorry, joey joey and walter are still with us here. Walter you know this judge. I wanted to ask you, have you ever seen him take almost an hour to read a verdict . No. I have not. And under the circumstances, i do understand why. I believe that he wanted to be very particular about his findings of fact. And his ultimate ruling. I think that you know he did a very good job with that. He relied heavily on the medical examiners testimony, as well as all the other witnesses. And i think it was important in this instance so that he is you know