Lawyers in the trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo are expected to present their closing arguments tomorrow. Brelo is charged with two counts of voluntary manslaughter in the deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams, who led police on a cross-town chase in 2012 ending in a middle school parking lot. Prosecutors contend Officer Brelo fired the final 15 shots out of a total 137 bullets fired at the unarmed suspects.
Judge John O’Donnell will decide the case, because Brelo waived his right to a jury.
Ideastream’s Tony Ganzer spoke about the trial earlier with Professor Michael Benza from Case Western Reserve University Law School. He began by explaining what the prosecution had to prove:
BENZA: “The statute in a voluntary manslaughter situation like this requires that the officer be provoked into taking action, but that the officer’s action crosses over the line of justified response. And if you look at the way they have been presenting the state’s case, it really is focused on that second volley of shots that gets fired after the cease-fire order is issued. And the way the prosecutor is presenting it is that it is that point when Officer Brelo jumps on the hood of the car, and reinitiates shooting at the people in the car—that’s what constitutes the voluntary manslaughter charge.”
GANZER: “Why was Brelo singled-out, because there were many officers—thirteen officers—there? Why is Brelo the one who was charged with voluntary manslaughter?”
BENZA: “Without knowing the underlying thinking in the prosecutor’s office, there are a few legal reasons why. One would be a proof issue: they do have the ability to connect him to being on the car, and to actually firing at that point. Now there are a few other shots that aren’t accounted for out of his 15 that happened. There’s three or so other shots that can be heard. I think the real problem for the prosecutor is there’s no way to identify who actually did those shootings, but then also having to show that those shots in fact caused the death.”
GANZER: “Has the prosecution made that case, in your view?”
BENZA: “I think that they’ve made the best case they have, with the evidence that they have. One of the real problems is that we don’t have film footage. And that’s the easiest thing for the prosecutor to use is to show that to the judge, this is what happened. We don’t have that, which means the prosecutors are relying on the officers’ reports, and the officers’ statements about what was happening to try and prove their case. And I think one of the problems we’ve seen in this case is apparent in the prosecutors’ reactions to the officers taking the Fifth Amendment. That makes it really hard: if nobody will tell you what happened, you can’t prove anything, because you’ve got no facts.”
GANZER: “Ultimately one officer did testify, and did say that Michael Brelo climbed on the hood of the car and continued to fire. Having so many officers plead the Fifth, what role did that play, or will that play, in a verdict?”
BENZA: “I don’t think it’s going to play major role, and one reason for that is because it’s being tried to a judge. If this was to a jury, I think there would be a bigger impact of those officers being called to the stand and taking their Fifth. But since it’s being tried to a judge, I think the expectation is that the judge will decide this case on the law, rather than the emotions surrounding what was happening.”
GANZER: “What is the potential for precedent being set in this case? Is this going to influence how we think about future cases?”
BENZA: “I think we’re starting to see some of that. The Governor released his report on the task force that he wants to create regarding police training. The Attorney General here in Ohio is conducting his own evaluation on how to do law enforcement training. Of course there’s the intervention of the Department of Justice at the Cleveland police department on how to do things there. But that’s really not the big issue that this case might be, again, at the front end of, and that is: what is really going on between police officers and the public when it comes to these types of interactions...”
GANZER: “And that change is happening—sorry to cut you off—that change is happening independent of a verdict yet. So do you think the impact is going to be greater or less depending on guilt or non-guilt here?”
BENZA: “I’m starting to worry about the impact of a verdict in this case. Early on it didn’t seem to have these big social repercussions. All of the sudden this is starting to take a different feel.”
