Personal bias. I was disappointed no doubt about it. However, he relied on the law. And the inputs which are the charges and the indictment which he could not control, dictated his output. I think that it was an inappropriate charge from the start there were many other officers there and there could have been charges that would have implicated the other officers who did set this chain of events which caused death, into motion. Which is exactly how and why mr. Brelo was acquitted. So joey one thing that the judge pointed out, is that causation was a real problem in this case. And it appears that thats one of the things that that led to his decision of not guilty on both counts. He did indeed joe. You know its interesting, though whenever a judge acts as a finder of fact in addition to a concluder of law, the judge of course is placed in a position as a jury would be placed in. Its interesting because the judge certainly could have gone another route had he credited expert testimony. And
these lofty principles of setting innocent people free after they re wrongfully quicked and prosecuted [ crying ] sorry about that. we were still hearing from the attorney patrick deangelo the representative of michael brelo. and called this a ruthless act, the pursuit of this one officer for all that took place on that november 29th back with me now, walter madison and joey jackson and avery friedman both avery and walter you re familiar with cleveland this is your home town. and let me just go to you first, walter. you said this in your view is classic victim-blaming hearing from the attorney there who said you know this was wrong, to pursue his client. and that the outcome is fair and just. and you know, i clearly disagree with that and so does the department of justice and our united states government when they wrote that scathing
officers? well actually unbeknownst to most there are pending criminal cases against a handful of the officers involved. those cases are of a minor nature. but the case isn t over in terms of civil claims. i heard patrick deangelo talk about civil rights lawyers. well patrick and i actually co-counselled in a case against the klu klux klan. so in a sense patrick was a civil rights lawyer in that case and he he was a civil rights lawyer in a sense for michael brelo. his job was to assert constitutional protections and frankly, judge o donnell bought it. so at the end of the day i m not sure i understood what he was talking about after that. i m also in agreement with walter and joey that in terms of what judge o donnell did, in carefully looking at expert testimony, looking at the circumstances, that s the call that judges make as finders of fact and it may very well be