Trial Transcript For D. Odolecki (Feb 2016)

1.
STATE OF OHIO
2.
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
3.
4.
IN THE PARMA MUNICIPAL COURT
5.
6.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY OHIO
7.
8.
9.
CITY OF PARMA
10.
11.
12.
13 .
Plaintiff
vs
CASE NO. 14CRB02839 & 15CRB03055
DOUGLAS E. ODOLECKI
Defendant
14.
15.
*************************** ***********************************************
16.
Transcript of a Jury Trial held on February 9, 10 & 11, 2016 before the Honorable
17.
Deanna O ' Donnell, in the City of Parma, Ohio.
18.
19.
20.
**************************************************************************
APPEARANCES:
JOHN J. SPELLACY
21.
On Behalf of the Plaintiff
22.
JOHN W. GOLD & PETER TRASKA
23.
24.
25.
On Behalf of the Defendant
1.
THE COURT: The City of Parma versus
2.
Douglas E. Odolecki, 14CRB02839, 15CRB03055. The parties are present in the Courtroom
3.
this morning we are getting ready for a Jury Trial. Before the jury comes out we have some
4.
preliminary matters that the parties want to discuss. Mr. Spellacy anything?
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor we had previously filed a Motion in Limine,
6.
months and months, I don' t believe, I don' t know that the Defendant ever responded to it. It
7.
was filed on July 29, 2015. There ' s a Motion to Preclude Evidence relating to specific
8.
incidences of conduct under 608(b) and specifically in the video tape, one of the videos there
9.
are, there's mention by the Defendant to Officer Manzo who is citing him for Obstructing
10.
Official Business that, oh, is it okay to beat people with a flashlight, the City had to pay, you
11.
know, it's okay to cost the City $45,000.00 and other things that are totally unrelated to the
12.
case or -- and they' re certainly prejudicial and more prejudicial than probative and not
13.
probative of any untruthfulness or truthfulness. So I haven' t received a response to that that
14.
I'm aware of. I might ask that be redacted from any tape and not be permitted for the jury
15.
to hear. Thank you.
16.
17.
18.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold?

MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor. Truthfully I don't recall the Motion
however --
19.
THE COURT: Hold on, hold on. Can
20.
you show me a copy of it too because I don't -- it's probably in here somewhere but I want
21.
to make sure that you have -- did you receive a copy of it?
22.
MR. GOLD: I don't remember seeing it, no. I'm not going to say I didn't
23.
receive it, but it just hasn't been on my radar so and we haven't discussed it at any of the
24.
Pretrials in this case.
25.
THE COURT: But you' re not saying that
1.
you didn't get a copy of it you're just saying that as you were preparing you didn't review
2.
it?
3.
4.
MR. GOLD: No, I don't know ifl received a copy or not. I'm not going to say -I don 't have it in my file.
5.
6.
7.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD: I guess is what I'm saying. I am prepared to respond to that Motion
nevertheless.
THE COURT: And Mr. Gold if you want
8.
9.
to sit or stand, whatever you're comfortable with that's fine. And the same with you Mr.
10.
Spellacy. Okay?
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor.
12.
MR. GOLD: There's a lot of history to this case Your Honor. Specifically there is
13 .
a pre-existing animus I think between the City as well as my client. My client has -- the
14.
evidence in this case, I think, it's going to demonstrate that my client has made complaints
15.
about the arresting officers, Officer O'Grady and Officer Manzo in the past in that they've
16.
had encounters in the past and that in fact some of the conduct that's being alleged as criminal
17.
in this case here today has you know has occurred several times in the past without incident.
18.
The comments made by Mr. Odolecki during the arrest I think are probative to show that there
19.
is a history between the City and Mr. Odolecki and what's really happening here in this case
20.
is that Mr. Odolecki is -- the City is essentially attempting to use the criminal process to
21.
silence Mr. Odolecki. Mr. Odolecki is an activist he protests what he believes, what he deems
22.
to be unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints, what he deems to be excessive force matters, what
23.
he deems to be police misconduct. This is the entire basis I think of Mr. Odolecki' s free
24.
speech and why he's out there that day and it's important I think for the jury to hear what it is,
25.
why he's there and what's going on and what the history is leading up to this and I don't think
1.
that it's possible really to dissect --
2.
THE COURT: Can I interrupt? What does,
3.
who is it, Officer Manzo, what does Officer Manzo 's prior behavior let's call it, have anything
4.
to do with a checkpoint?
5.
MR. GOLD: It has to do with the decision to arrest. The decision to arrest. This
6.
conduct has occurred without arrest in the past. During this time Mr. Odolecki's been very
7.
vocal against Officer Manzo as well as Officer O'Grady. And, you know, and I think it
8.
absolutely that information is important for the jury to understand with respect to the bias
9.
of Mr. -- of Officer Manzo in this particular situation. I would certainly be amenable to
10.
redacting any of that if the standing order of the Court is all this case has to do with is the
11.
checkpoint that night. If all the case has to do with the checkpoint that night then I would
12.
agree that maybe that shouldn't be in there and the rest of the other acts evidence the State
13.
the City is intending to produce also shouldn't be in there. I agree with you Your Honor, this
14.
case should simply be, at least the first case, about the checkpoint. And if there's a way that
15.
we can mute those comments I'll need a little bit of time I think to adjust to that but it can be
16.
done, if there's a way to do that.
17.
THE COURT: Can I interrupt you. So
18.
what is your thought on that he 's saying, and the Court agrees that this first case, let's call it,
19.
is a let's just call it the checkpoint case so why do we need to have anything other than
20.
information on the checkpoint.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor the notice of intent to use 404(b) evidence that we
22.
filed and supplied the Court with a copy of that because as Mr. Odolecki -- as Mr. Gold said
23.
regarding Mr. Odolecki, what his motives are, what his purpose is, is important because his
24.
motives and his purpose is is important. Because his motives and his purpose while at the
25.
checkpoint and while at the bridge, are to obstruct, are to impede. They don't serve any
1.
legal purpose. They're to obstruct and impede and to harass the police.
2.
3.
THE COURT: Wouldn't you want to show,

if he's harassing Officer Manzo wouldn't you want that to be shown?
MR. SPELLACY: If it was probative of the facts in this particular case but the
4.
5.
facts in this particular case are that number one, contrary to what Mr. Gold stated he was not
6.
arrested.
THE COURT: Who wasn't?
7.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Odolecki was not arrested he was handed --
9.
MR. GOLD: He was cited.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: -- he was handed a citation.

THE COURT: Okay.
11.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Officer Manzo never placed his hands on him at all.
13.
Officer Manzo did not make the decision to cite, the evidence will be that Captain Manning
14.
made the decision for Officer Manzo to cite. So Captain Manning you will hear testified --
15.
THE COURT: Let me stop you there. So
16.
what do you say about that? So I'm just learning now that it wasn't Officer Manzo that made
17.
the decision and was, with all due respect, Officer Manning a higher up, correct, is that correct
18.
in saying that?
19.
MR. GOLD: Well, again, I'm just hearing this for the first time. All I know is I
20.
have a Complaint which was the subject of a previously filed, denied Motion to Dismiss that
21.
was prepared by Officer Manzo. There' s nothing in the four comers of that Complaint that
22.
indicates it was anybody else's call to arrest Mr. Odolecki but Officer Manzo.
23 .
MR. SPELLACY: Can I respond to that?
24.
25.
THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SPELLACY: Just to that point.
THE COURT: Let Mr. Gold finish first.
1.
2.
Were you finished ?

MR. GOLD: If that is the City's position. Now that this came from somehow
3.
4.
above Officer Manzo ' s paygrade, I think it' s all the more important thing to understand the
5.
larger picture of I think the friction between Mr. Odolecki and the City of Parma. I, you
6.
know, based on what Mr. Spellacy is saying I think that that strengthens my argument that
7.
hey there ' s more to this than just an isolated incident, this came from up above somewhere.
8.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy?
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Unlike the evidence which the City intends to introduce under
10.
404(b ), Mr. Odolecki was not a participant in any prior incident that they're trying to say
11.
that should come in. He was not present during any prior incident where this supposedly
12.
or the allegation that he makes against Manzo that you did something. We don't know
13.
whether that is true or not whereas the evidence that the City intends to introduce under
14.
404(b) is video of the Defendant. It' s not some other person or some other act of some other
15 .
person. It' s actions that the Defendant participated in whether he was videotaping it, whether
16.
he was the active participant. So there is a huge difference, number one, number two, for
17.
Mr. Gold to stand up and to say that' s the first time he ever heard that, is preposterous because
18 .
he was supplied with a copy of the police report. In the police report from the first incident,
19.
it says, who made the decision and who made the decision to cite. And Captain Manning
20.
THE COURT: Can I interrupt you?
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes.
22.
THE COURT: Isn' t that on all police
23 .
reports it will say the officer that cites and then it will also have the higher up on that police
24.
report?
25.
MR. SPELLACY: In fact it goes into the point where Captain Manning had
1.
conferred with Tim Miller from the Law Department. That' s all contained in the police
2.
reports.
3.
4.
MR. GOLD: Well that may be in the police report, I don't know that the police
report in this instance is necessarily admissible, number one.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, sir, we're

in the middle of a Hearing, would you step out please. Thank you. I'm sorry Mr. Gold.
MR. GOLD: I don't know that the police report is necessarily admissible in this
case. It's my understanding that police reports
THE COURT: But you knew about it. You
had it, you had access to it, you were able to review it, you had that in your possession.
MR. GOLD: What I was told, what that said, what the police report and what
12.
Manzo ' s comments say is that the Law Department made the call. Now we're hearing that
13.
there was another officer involved in this and that's quite a different thing. Okay what we
14.
were told was that the Law Department made the call and that Manzo, acting with the Law
15.
Department told him issued the citation but this is a situation where now the City is saying
16.
that another officer was an intermediary in this and that's not supported here by the facts.
17.
When you look at the video and when you look at the citation itself. I guess at the end of
18.
the day ifl could respond to Mr. Spellacy' s comments regard the 404(b) evidence, there is
19.
ample video of people other than Mr. Odolecki in these videos. There are radio interviews
20.
providing commentary by people who are not parties to this case. There are radio
21.
interviews conducted by Cop Block, which Mr. Odolecki has no control over. He has no
22.
he has no actual input into what Cop Block and their website does.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: But he can post on it.

MR. GOLD: Can he post on it, anybody can post on it.
THE COURT: So the answer is yes. I'm
1.
just asking.
2.
MR. GOLD: He can post on the Facebook Page --
3.
4.
5.
THE COURT: Can I post on it? Can I

post on it.
MR. GOLD: He can post on the --
6.
7.
8.
THE COURT: Hold on, hold on, hold on,

can I post on it?
MR. GOLD: On the Facebook Page.
9.
10.
11.
THE COURT: Facebook, okay.

MR. GOLD: But what we're talking about are videos that were placed on the
website by Cop Block.
12.
13.
THE COURT: For a specific website.

MR. GOLD: For a specific website.
14.
15 .
THE COURT: So ifl go like www. MR. GOLD : copblock.org.
16.
17.
THE COURT: Can I post on that?

MR. GOLD : You cannot post videos up on copblock.org, no you cannot.
18.
19.
THE COURT: I have to go to Facebook

and then Facebook --
20.
MR. GOLD: You could post comments on their Facebook Page and that's no
21.
different than anyone else's Facebook Page, but what my understanding -- all this video
22.
was taken from copblock.org.
23 .
THE COURT: Okay so I think we ' ve
24.
gone a little bit too far. The first issue was whether or not the prior conduct, prior cases,
25.
prior history of Officer Manzo could be brought into either one of these cases.
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Unfounded allegations.
2.
MR. GOLD: My final answer that is even if they 're unfounded, at the end of the
3.
day we're talking about speech case. The question is whether --
4.
THE COURT: But should a jury, I mean,
5.
should a jury hear that, should a jury hear, you know, Mr. Odolecki was charged with Robbery
6.
it's unfounded but the Prosecutor is just going to throw that out there. Mr. Odolecki is a
7.
horrible man, should that be thrown out there so the jury has that in their head? Isn't that
8.
going to bias the jury? I mean I'm not going to allow that to happen. I'm not going to allow
9.
Mr. Spellacy to get up here and make these unfounded accusations that can't be proven and
10.
aren't part of the case to detriment Mr. Odolecki. Mr. Odolecki is no good, he's a horrible
11.
man, he's accused ofrape, he -- I'm not going to allow that to happen. That's going to be
12.
a detriment to your client. So how do I allow him to make these kind of statements towards
13.
an officer when I don't know if that even has a focus to this particular -- this is an
14.
obstruction charge. It's not an Officer Manzo is a bad guy charge or you know Captain
15.
Manning is a horrible cop charge. That's not what we're here for. This isn't about Odolecki
16.
is an idiot charge. That's not why we're here. I'm not going to allow your client to be
17.
prejudiced that way. I'm certainly not going to then allow the police officers to be prejudiced
18.
that way. Let's keep this case simple. I'm going to make a ruling right now, there will be no
19.
mention of Officer Manzo or any other police officer as to what their prior alleged acts,
20.
incidents, whatever, that' s going to stay out. I'm not going to allow Mr. Spellacy to get up
21.
there and say Mr. Odolecki is an idiot. I'm not going to do that. You can't do that. I' m
22.
not going to allow the jury to hear that, okay. Let's keep this simple, let's have the jury hear
23.
the facts that are pertinent to this case and then make their decision. So that's my ruling on
24.
that one. What else do we have Mr. Spellacy?
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor I have not -- and just for the record I just wanted
10
1.
to read one thing into the record to protect the record with respect to that issue. The police
2.
report, which was authored by Captain Manning says, Lieutenant McCann called me to advise
3.
me of the refusal and I advised him that Odolecki would have to be cited and his sign taken as
4.
evidence. So clearly that was disclosed, clearly that's in the police report, clearly Mr. Gold's
5.
prior comments were mistaken. I'm not saying that he misled, is trying to mislead the Court
6.
but they were certainly mistaken as to what's contained in the police report. Secondly Your
7.
Honor I have not received a response to our reciprocal discovery request from Mr. Odolecki
8.
and lastly I don' t know if anyone else is a witness or potential witness in this case but I don't
9.
think they should be in here for these discussions if there is any potential witnesses.
10.
11.
12.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold anyone in here

going to be a witness?
MR. GOLD: Potentially a rebuttal witness depending upon --
13 .
14.
THE COURT: The gentleman behind you?

MR. GOLD: This gentleman right here.
THE COURT: Okay sir I'm going to have
15.
16.
you sit in the hallway, okay. And then when it's your time when the lawyer is ready for you
17.
or whomever, we' re going to bring you back in okay. What about the other individual?
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Could we get a name and address of the potential witness.
19.
20.
21.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold can you identify

this gentleman for us? This one right here, this one right here.
MR. MUELLER: My name is Adam Mueller.
22.
23.
THE COURT: Adam Miller, M-1-L-L-E-R?

MR. MUELLER: M-U-E-L-L-E-R.
24.
25.
THE COURT: M-U-E-L-L-E-R?

MR. MUELLER: Yes.
11
THE COURT: Okay.
1.
2.
MR. MUELLER: Do you want an address?
3.
4.
THE COURT: Yes please.

MR. MUELLER: 103 South Lincoln Street, Keene.
5.
6.
THE COURT: Keene?

MR. MUELLER: New Hampshire.
7.
8.
9.
THE COURT: All right sir then if you would

have a seat and they'll call you when you're needed okay?
MR. MUELLER: Yes.
10.
11.
12.
13.
THE COURT: Thank you sir. And then

the other individual behind you Mr. Gold?
MR. GOLD: I believe you're familiar with this gentleman it's Tom Foster. I
will not be calling Mr. Foster as a witness in this case.
14.
15.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD: And I may not be calling Mr. Mueller, I guess it really comes down
16.
to the question of the 404(b) notice and really what the Court is willing to permit into
17.
evidence with respect to you know these other acts, you know, our position I think in our,
18 .
you know, in our Motion Pursuant to Rule 16 was that you know Mr. Odolecki has no
19.
control over a lot of this material that was taken from copblock.org that was compiled by
20.
other people that was then subsequently at least edited into some sort of compilation by
21.
someone other than certainly Mr. Odolecki who had no involvement with the placement of
22.
that material on copblock.org and really these all involve incidents either you know radio
23 .
interviews or comments.
24.
25 .
THE COURT: Are they -- I haven't seen

them, are they comments made by your client?
12
1.
MR. GOLD: There are comments made by my client.
2.
3.
THE COURT: So you're not objecting to

your clients own words?
4.
MR. GOLD: We' re -- well we would be objecting to the relevance with respect
5.
to the fact that these are all, all this information are materials or issues that happened after
6.
these events. Most of them if not all of them, at least the stuff, the materials that were
7.
produced on Friday are from the summer of 2015 on, some as recent as December. I fail to
8.
see how interviews and what Mr. Odolecki is doing in Zanesville for example have to do with
9.
this case.
10.
11.
12.
THE COURT: So let me interrupt, anything

after July 29, 2015 you would think is inappropriate?
MR. GOLD: Absolutely, as a starting point, absolutely.
13.
14.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Spellacy?

MR. SPELLACY: That' s not what the Rule says Your Honor and it specifically
15.
says other act evidence if it' s probative of motive, intent, state of mind. What's clear in each
16.
of these exerts and specifically rather than play 12 hours of copblock.org, of which Mr.
17.
Odolecki may not be in a lot of them. Only the ones involving Mr. Odolecki were selected
18.
and taken out and we provided the Court with the disc yesterday in response to Mr. Gold's
19.
Motion so the Court could see. In each one of those Mr. Odolecki is present. He' s
20.
participating. In each one of those it' s a common plan of harassing the police. It' s a common
21.
plan of going to the scene of where some police action is going on and trying to interfere with
22.
the actions of the police officers.
23.
THE COURT: Is there a way that you can
24.
arrange this tape so that we 're not hearing anything beyond the last citation date, July 29th?
25.
MR. SPELLACY: I don 't believe so Your Honor because one of the excerpts
13
1.
is Mr. Odolecki actually talking about what happened at the July 29th incident involving
2.
the minor.
3.
4.
THE COURT: Do you have tapes before

that date though? Is there a way of knowing that?
MR. SPELLACY: July 1st\ April 1i\ April 13th.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
THE COURT: What's before July 29th of

2015?
MR. SPELLACY: Well let me just go through these Your Honor if I could.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SPELLACY: Clip one has to do with Mr. Odolecki, it's posted the day of,
11.
I believe the day of the incident, the bridge incident where the kid was attempting to jump
12.
off the bridge. He is describing, it's his own words, it's a noncustodial statement about
13.
what happened at the bridge. He wasn't in custody, he ' s on a radio show and I would
14.
implore the Court to watch that, that video. Certainly there is, there is no justification that
15.
I'm aware of to keep that out when it's his own noncustodial statement about the incident
16.
that had occurred. The second clip is from August 13, 2015, which Mr. Odolecki is talking
17.
about the fact that he can say what he wants to say, when he wants to say it no matter who
18.
is around, whether kids are around, whether anyone is around because these cop suckers,
19.
as he calls them, right, should keep their children away from him and it's their to job to keep
20.
the children away from him, that goes to the elements of the case in this particular case
21.
where he is using foul language and obscene language in front of these poor sisters,juvenile
22.
sisters, young children of the young child who is threatening to jump off the bridge and he
23.
is talking about that it goes to his common plan or scheme and his thought process behind it
24.
is that he can say what he wants, when he wants, wherever he wants. The third clip is from
25.
a -- which was published July 18t\ which is before the date, the next one is April 1i\
14
1.
the next one is April 13 t11, so those are fairly before and --
2.
3.
4.
THE COURT: Hold on, hold on, April

1ih, April -MR. SPELLACY: April 13th.
5.
6.
THE COURT: -- 13th.

MR. SPELLACY: And then December 8, 2015 is the sixth clip.
7.
8.
9.
THE COURT: December -- say that again,

December?
MR. SPELLACY: Eighth of 2015.
10.
THE COURT: Okay.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: The next clip is September 16, 2015, it's a live broadcast that
12.
Mr. Odolecki is participating in. The Eighth clip is from May 12, 2015 so that's before then.
13.
14.
THE COURT: May I2'h?

MR. SPELLACY: Yes. And the last clip is from November 2, 2015 .
15.
THE COURT: Okay so the ones outside or
16.
beyond the citation date would be August 13th of 2015, December 8th of 2015, September 16th
17.
of2015 and November -- what's that last date?
18.
MR. SPELLACY: November 2, 2015.

THE COURT: November 2, 2015. Okay.
19.
20.
21.
Mr. Gold, anything you want to say?

MR. GOLD: Yes I did not receive these until Friday afternoon at 3:00 o' clock.
22.
We were dialed into our Trial prep at this point. It would be highly prejudicial now for me to
23.
have to address this information, which has been available for, in some cases, almost a year.
24.
Why this wasn't produced until two days before Trial, especially if it was something that the
25.
City believes goes to the actual guilt or innocence in other words establishing one of the
15
1.
elements of the offense. I just, it's highly prejudicial for the, for that to be admitted at this
2.
point. Even the Monday, last Monday we received a notice of intention to use 404(b ), well
3.
okay all the evidence I have up to this point are some of these videos that well predate these
4.
incidents, not a huge problem with it, okay, the issue that I had was that, okay, you know,
5.
we see the notice, no big deal, we carry on with preparation of our case and then Friday,
6.
after 3:00 o'clock we get this compilation, all these materials that occurred after the incident,
7.
you know, I hadn't even had a full opportunity to sit down with my client with all these
8.
materials and go over them much less address them to the Court. So I just, it, the materials
9.
were available earlier, they should have been produced earlier.
10.
THE COURT: I'm concerned about the
11.
incidents after the last citation so that would be the four recorded after that July 29th
12.
citation. I'm not so concerned what the first five the Prosecutor has spoken about, the ones
13.
prior to the citation, that last citation. Mr. Spellacy?
14.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor I would suggest to the Court that first of all I want
15.
to respond and just say we provided Mr. Gold with numerous DVD' s of information taken
16.
off Cop mock. We tried to pare down that information because there were several discs I
17.
think that were sent to him through the course of discovery involving taking off the website
18.
YouTube of copblock.org some of which had to with Mr. Odolecki some of whom we
19.
couldn't identify whether he was in the crowd or not or there or not or participating or not
20.
so in preparation for Trial how this came about is we filed the notice of intent to use the
21 .
information from copblock.org and then once I received it, once I got it from the officers,
22.
I immediately had the assistant in our Prosecutor's Office forward it to Mr. Gold immediately
23.
so that he had exactly was going to be used, not just randomly throw, ambush him with you
24.
know seven discs of potential material, guess which one we' re going to play. No, I sent him
25.
exactly wllat we intended to --
16
THE COURT: So what you're saying Mr.
1.
2.
Spellacy, again I'm going to interrupt you, what you're saying is once you received the
3.
information you forwarded it to Mr. Gold?
4.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes. Secondly Your Honor, we could, I've conferred with
Captain Manning, we could redact those that were after that date.
6.
THE COURT: Okay let' s not stop here
7.
then. The Court is Ruling on this one. August 13 , 2015, December 8, 2015, September 16,
8.
2015 , November 2, 2015 will not be permitted to be shown to the Jury. July 18t\ July 29th
9.
of 2015, May lih of2015 and the two recordings April 13th and April 1i\ 2015 those
10.
occurred prior to and the Court will allow those in.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: And the July 29t\ the date of the incident, that's permitted?
12.
13.
14.
THE COURT: July 18t\ July 29th_ All

right. Mr. Spellacy anything else?
MR. SPELLACY: I guess just the only other thing would be my Motion for
15.
Discovery which I never received a response to. I don't know ifhe intends to introduce any
16.
other documents or any other Exhibits or use anything in cross-examination that hasn't been
17.
previously disclosed.
18.
THE COURT: Well it looks like you had
19.
something set up. Is Mr. Spellacy then privy to the information that you're going to show
20.
on the screen?
21.
MR. GOLD: Yes everything that we intend to show we only intend to show two
22.
videos. The video of the incident from the checkpoint and the video of the bridge incident.
23.
And we actually produced pursuant to agreement that video for the State because it was on
24.
Mr. Odolecki's cellphone, you may remember there were some discussions in chambers about
25 .
that and then the first video is video that was produced to us in discovery which I think might
17
1.
have been taken from Mr. Odolecki' s cellphone. As far as our not responding to discovery
2.
THE COURT: Wait hold on.
3.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes it was Mr. Odolecki's video which was then posted onto
copblock.org.
5.
THE COURT: Okay.
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Which we then got off of that and then resubmitted it back to
him.
8.
THE COURT: But again what we have here
9.
from Mr. Gold, what you' re going to present to the Jury again is the video from June 13t\
10.
that's the DUI checkpoint and the second video is the July 29th which is the, let's call that the
11.
bridge incident, those are the only two videos.
12.
MR. GOLD: Those are the only two videos. We would also be producing the
13.
documentation that was produced by the City with respect to the DUI checkpoint policy of
14.
the City of Parma as well as statistics, checkpoint statistics, which were obtained during
15.
discovery as well.
16.
17.
18.
THE COURT: The City provided Mr.

Gold with statistics?
MR. SPELLACY: We did, yes we did.
19.
THE COURT: Okay.
20.
MR. GOLD: And then you know anything that we're producing, anything we're
21.
using is provided to us from the City. I would like to state though on May 28, 2015 prior to
22.
when the Trial was originally scheduled I think in this case, we did respond, we did submit
23.
our reciprocal discovery. I have a signed copy of it in my iPad here and I could you know
24.
produce a paper copy if the Court needed it.
25.
THE COURT: Did you get a copy of that
18
1.
Mr. Spellacy?
2.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: I can review in my file, I did not find one. I can't say for
sure.
4.
THE COURT: Okay. The same thing with
5.
the Motion In Limine. You're not saying that you didn't get it, you' re not saying you didn't
6.
get it, you're saying that as you were preparing for Trial you didn't see it. So do you want
7.
Mr. Gold to give you a paper copy of it?
8.
MR. SPELLACY: No as long as I, ifl know who the witnesses are we've already
9.
disclosed that and the documents he's indicated that there's nothing that we didn't produce in
10.
discovery that he' s using any other documents other than what he said.
11.
MR. GOLD: It didn't identify any witnesses, it didn't identify any documents.
12.
13.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD: Or reports for that matter. And with respect to Mr. Mueller I think
14.
that now that the Court has ruled on the 404(b) issue, at least ruled to my satisfaction, I do
15.
not see that Mr. Mueller's testimony at this point would be probative.
16.
17.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD: And I would ask that --
18.
19.
20.
THE COURT: Ifhe is not going to testify

then he absolutely is welcome in the Courtroom.
MR. GOLD: Okay.
21.
22.
23.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD : Fair enough. I am not going to be -- because that, that evidence
has been excluded, I don't intend to call, I won't be calling him.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything else? Mr.

Gold anything else?
19
1.
2.
MR. GOLD: No only that, just some, I guess just some housekeeping matters with
respect to the conduct at Trial, I just wanted to make sure we're clear on those.
3.
4.
5.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD: Do we have free use of the UNINTELLIGIBLE or do I need
permission to --
6.
7.
THE COURT: Absolutely not.

MR. GOLD: Okay.
8.
THE COURT: And again, if you're
9.
more comfortable sitting, standing, whatever you need. If you want to approach the witness,
10.
just put it on the record that you' re approaching the witness. Ifwe need to do a sidebar let
11.
us know, you two gentlemen will come up, I'm pretty flexible in what happens here but I'm
12.
also I'm not going to put up with any kind of nonsense from anyone including any of our
13.
participants and viewers here today. This is a Courtroom, we're going to be respectful of all
14.
parties, okay. Anyone that gets out of hand, anyone that tries to get out of hand will be
15.
escorted out of my Courtroom but other than that I don't anticipate any other problems. If
16.
at any time you need to take a break let us know and we'll keep an eye on the jury to because
17.
the last thing I want is for the jury to get, you know, overburdened, if they think they need a
18.
break, let's give them a break. As far as the procedure today, we'll go as long as you
19.
gentlemen want to go. We can go well past 4:30 if that' s what you want to do, we can go well
20.
into the night, whatever is, you know, comfortable. All cellphones have to be turned off
21.
please. There' s no recording whatsoever in this Courtroom. We record so if at the end you
22.
need something we will provide that for you. If any cellphones do go off the individual will
23 .
be escorted out of the Courtroom and will not be allowed to come back in. Okay? Again we
24.
treat everybody in this Courtroom with respect. The Court won't put up with any kind of
25.
nonsense from anyone.
20
1.
MR. GOLD: Can we bring Mr. Mueller in here.
2.
THE COURT: Absolutely.
3.
MR. GOLD: To hear that last bit please.
4.
THE COURT: Yes.
5.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor.
6.
7.
THE COURT: You can relay that to him

Mr. Gold.
8.
MR. GOLD: I feel better if the Court did.
9.
10.
THE COURT: Okay. Have him come in.

That goes for everybody, that's here.
11.
MR. GOLD: He probably stepped outside.
12.
13.
14.
THE COURT: Okay, very good. Anything

else?
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor the jury list?
15.
16.
17.
18.
THE COURT: I have the jury list, did you

just get one?
MR. SPELLACY: We did. So James Budzik would be in seat number one?
THE COURT: I will tell you how this will
19.
be. James Budzik will be number one, Donald Chuppa is number two, Ann Hardink is
20.
three, Tracy Trent is juror number four, number five is Denise Briggs, number six is Katherine
21.
Morway, number seven is Richard Grayshock and number eight is April Kaczmarek. We will
22.
have -- we 'll get one alternate when all the jury selection is done. Mr. Spellacy you're all
23.
set up with your technology and everything that you need?
24.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes Your Honor, we don't have a podium do we?

THE COURT: Can we get a podium?
21
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Do we have a podium?
2.
3.
THE COURT: Judge Spanagel. We'll get

that for you. Mr. Gold are you all set up with all your technological needs?
4.
MR. GOLD: Surprisingly yes. I've been running the checks and I think it's all
5.
working. The only thing that I would ask Your Honor is maybe before certain witnesses I may
6.
ask for a brief recess just to get set up.
7.
THE COURT: That's fine.
8.
MR. GOLD: Because I may use this for in my cross-examination.
9.
THE COURT: Okay. And then let' s just
10.
remind all of our witnesses and I' ll try to do that, with all these cords and everything, not
11.
too much on your side Mr. Gold but certainly on this side but we ' ll just make sure that
12.
everybody is fine for cords here.
13.
MR. TRASK.A: Can I do a quick introduction. I'm Peter Traska I intend to second
14.
chair with Mr. Gold today, I don't think my involvement is going to be very in depth but
15.
I wanted to do a quick introduction.
16.
THE COURT: Do you want a chair?
17.
MR. TRASK.A: That would be nice.
18.
THE COURT: So we' ll get you a chair and
19.
again gentlemen at your Trial table feel free to have pop, water, coffee, whatever it is that you
20.
need. Okay, Kim and I will try to accommodate whatever else you might need. Anything else
21.
Mr. Spellacy?
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Two minutes for a bathroom break?
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Absolutely. Mr. Gold

anything?
MR. GOLD: That's my last request.
22
1.
2.
3.
THE COURT: Okay.

BAILIFF DESIMONE: All rise. The Parma Municipal Court is now in session,
the Honorable Judge Deanna O' Donnell presiding.
4.
5.
6.
THE COURT: Please be seated. Good

mormng everyone.
EVERYONE: Good morning Your Honor.
THE COURT: Gentlemen we are ready?
7.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes Your Honor.
9.
10.
11.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold we're ready?

MR. GOLD: We are Your Honor.
THE COURT: Again, good morning ladies
12.
and gentlemen you have been called to serve as perspective jurors in the Parma Municipal
13.
Court so first on behalf of the Court I welcome you. My name is Judge Deanna O' Donnell
14.
and this is my Bailiff, Kim DeSimone. Both Kim and I will try to do everything we can to
15.
make sure this is a rewarding experience for you. If at any time during this process you have
16.
any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my Bailiff and she will do whatever she
17.
can in order to assist you. Now as we get started today I would like to explain to you some
18.
preliminary matters. A Jury Trial is a very structured event. All of the parties here, including
19.
yourselves have a very, very, specific role. So in order to familiarize yourself to this process
20.
please allow me to read to you the following information. Those who participate in a Trial
21.
must do so in accordance with established rules. That is true of the witnesses, of the lawyers
22.
and of the Judge. It is equally true of you the jurors. The lawyers present the evidence
23.
according to the rules. The Judge enforces the rules and determines what evidence may or
24.
may not be admitted. You the jurors will be sole judges of the facts, the credibility of the
25.
witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony that you hear. Later the Court will
23
1.
instruct you regarding the law and you will apply that law to the facts. It is your sworn
2.
duty to accept the law as given to you by the Court. Procedure for Trial is as follows: first
3.
Counsel for both sides will take turns outlining what they expect their evidence to be.
4.
These Opening Statements are not evidence but rather a kind of preview of the claims of each
5.
party designed to help you follow the evidence as it is presented to you. After Opening
6.
Statements the City will offer or present its own evidence. At the conclusion of the City's
7.
evidence the Defendant may, but need not offer his own evidence. If the Defendant does
8.
present evidence the City may then present what' s called rebuttal evidence. The Trial will
9.
conclude with Closing Arguments presented by Counsel for both sides. After that the Court
10.
will instruct on the law and you will then be sent back into the jury room where you will
11.
deliberate until you've reached a verdict. Ladies and gentlemen you have been summoned as
12.
perspective jurors in a criminal case involving the City of Parma and Douglas Odolecki.
13.
Present today on behalf of the City of Parma is Assistant City Prosecutor John Spellacy.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
15.
16.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy if you would

introduce the officer at the table.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: This is Captain Joe Manning.
18.
CAPTAIN MANNING: Good morning.
19.
20.
21.
THE COURT: Present on behalf of the

Defendant is Attorney John Gold. Mr. Gold.
MR. GOLD: Good afternoon, or good morning, sorry.
22.
23.
THE COURT: And would you introduce

the other individuals at your table.
24.
MR. GOLD: My Co-Counsel Peter Traska.
25.
MR. TRASKA: Good morning.
24
1.
MR. GOLD: And the Defendant, my client, Douglas Odolecki.
2.
MR. ODOLECKI: Good morning.
3.
THE COURT: Thank you gentlemen.
4.
Ladies and gentlemen both the City of Parma and the Defendant are entitled to jurors who
5.
approach this case with open minds and agree to keep their minds open until a verdict is
6.
reached. Jurors must be free as humanly possible from bias, prejudice and sympathy and not
7.
be influenced by preconceived ideas either as to the facts or as to the law. You are
8.
undoubtedly all qualified to serve as jurors. However there may be something that could
9.
possibly disqualify any one of you in this particular case. Therefore at this time the Court and
10.
the attorneys will ask you questions. These questions are not designed to pry into your
11.
personal affairs but rather to discovery if you have any knowledge of this particular case, if
12.
you have any preconceived opinion that you cannot lay aside or if you have had any
13.
experience that might cause you to identify yourself with any of the parties here today. These
14.
questions are necessary to assure each party, both the City of Parma and the Defense a fair and
15.
impartial jury. Since this is an important part of the Trial, you are all required to be sworn in
16.
before any questions are asked. Therefore I would ask all of our potential jurors to please
17.
stand, raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will truly and fully
18.
answer all questions put to you by the Court and Counsel touching your qualifications to sit
19.
as a juror in this case now called for Trial. If so, please answer I do.
20.
21.
PERSPECTIVE JURORS: I do.

THE COURT: Thank you, please be seated.
22.
Ladies and gentlemen the Court now will ask you a few preliminary questions before I tum the
23.
questions over to each side. I will address these questions to those of you seated in the jury
24.
box but I would ask that all perspective jurors listen carefully as you may be called at any time
25.
to replace one of these perspective jurors and sit in the box here. So I'm going to ask this
25
1.
group some questions and just by a raise of hand if you could answer me. Again, everyone
2.
else in the room if you could please listen carefully because again these questions may at
3.
some point be posed to you so to our perspective jurors in the box, have anyone here ever
4.
been convicted of a serious crime? Okay. I see no hands. Have any of you been subpoenaed
5.
as a witness in this case? All right there are no hands. Have any of you served as a juror in
6.
any other Court in this County over the past 12 months. So none of you have had jury duty
7.
over the past 12 months in Cuyahoga County? Very good. Do any of you have any here have
8.
any type of physical impairment which might prevent you from serving on this jury and
9.
serving as a juror? And no hands. Is there any one of you here that is not a resident of the
10.
Parma Municipal Court district. Do you know what the district is? Parma, Parma Heights,
11 .
Seven Hills, Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights, Broadview Heights, North Royalton and/or
12.
Linndale. Is there anyone here that doesn't reside in one of those cities? And there's no show
13 .
of hands. Do any of you individuals know any of the attorneys present here? Do any of you
14.
know the Judge? Does anyone here know the Defendant? Again there's been no show of
15.
hands on any of those questions. Is there any one of you that does not understand completely
16.
the English language? The Court will instruct the jury concerning the law as it applies in this
17.
particular case. Is there anyone here who cannot accept the law as explained to you by the
18.
Court? Is there anyone here who can't and won't apply the law as explained by the Court?
19.
And nobody is raising their hands. The Court will instruct you as to the degree of proof
20.
required to prove the issues in this case. Is there anyone here that cannot follow the
21.
instructions of the Court as given to you? Okay. Does anyone here have a reason why he or
22.
she cannot sit and serve on this jury? We're anticipating that the Trial will last approximately
23.
a day and half, possibly two days, deliberation that's going to be completely up to the jury, so
24.
is there anyone here that in the next day or two has something pressing that they need to
25.
attend and you won't be able to be here? Is there anyone here who cannot render a fair and
26
1.
2.
3.
impartial decision when the case is finally submitted to you? All right. Mr. Spellacy?
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor. May it please the Court. Good
morning ladies and gentlemen.
4.
EVERYONE: Good morning.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: You know I'm told to address my questions only to the jurors
6.
in the box at this time so don't be offended, all my attention will up here but I ask as the Judge
7.
indicated please listen to the questions so that if you do get moved from there up here you can
8.
bring to our attention, kind of speed up the process a little bit some of your responses that you
9.
may have had to some of the questions that either I or Mr. Gold asked. This process of voir
10.
dire means to speak the truth, okay and it' s a process and the only opportunity that we have
11.
to actually converse with one another, okay, this is the only time that I get to actually speak
12.
to you. From here on out, after we select the jury when I see you out in the hallway or if I
13.
see you on break, we're not supposed to have any interaction with you so contrary to what my
14.
parents taught me as a kid, right, taught me to be nice and say hello to people and greet people,
15.
I'm supposed to ignore you, okay? So don't be offended by that, all right. I'll tell our officers
16.
the same thing, we can nod and that should be the end of it but I instruct the officers and any
17.
potential witnesses the same thing so don't take that the wrong way that's the way we're
18.
supposed to operate from here on out. But this is our opportunity to actually speak to one
19.
another and to learn about you and to see whether you are the right person for this particular
20.
case. So if by chance either myself or Mr. Gold or the Court or somebody excludes you or
21.
asks you, you know to be excused, don't be offended, okay. It may be a valid reason, it may
22.
be a hunch, it may be something to do with the case that we know about that you don't know
23.
about yet that maybe you're not the right person for this particular case so don't be offended
24.
by that, okay, we have that agreement? Okay. Likewise these questions are not meant to
25 .
embarrass you, okay, it's just we are seeking a fair and impartial jury for this particular case,
27
1.
this particular set of facts. Miss Briggs, what did you think when you opened up your mail
2.
and saw that you just hit the lottery and you were selected for jury duty?
3.
4.
MISS BRIGGS : Um, I've never been on jury duty before so I thought it was kind
of interesting.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
6.
MISS BRIGGS : I was a little disappointed that I had to miss work but --
7.
MR. SPELLACY: It's probably going to take today and tomorrow.
8.
MISS BRIGGS: Um-hmm.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Are you going to be able to
10.
MISS BRIGGS : Yeah.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you want to do it?
12.
MISS BRIGGS: Yeah it's fine.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Morway what did you think when you opened up that
14.
15.
and saw you'd been selected for jury duty?

MISS MORWAY: It felt like February was going to be a long time away and
16.
it's already here so that was my honest thought. I've been a teacher for a long time and
17.
actually having the chance to serve I think would be a very valuable real life lesson to take
18.
back to the students.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Where do you teach?
20.
MISS MORWAY: I teach at St. Stanislaus.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And what grade?
22.
MISS MORWAY: I teach third graders right now.
23 .
MR. SPELLACY: So you teach them all the different subjects.
24.
MISS MORWAY: Yes and I used to teach fourth grade.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Including history and government and things like that?
28
1.
MISS MORWAY: Yes that is correct.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Rewarding profession?
3.
MISS MORWAY: Yes definitely.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Are you going to be able to be with us for the next couple days?
5.
MISS MORWAY: Yes I will.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Grayshock?
7.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Sir?
8.
MR. SPELLACY: How about you, what did you think when you first got that
9.
10.
11 .
12.
13.
14.
15.
notice?
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I better learn where this building is. Because I live in
North Royalton.
MR. SPELLACY: Maybe it's a good thing that you didn't know where this
building was.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Exactly. We just moved into the area a couple years ago
so it's my first opportunity to serve here.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Great, where did you live before?
17.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: We lived in Lima Ohio.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: And what do you do for a living?
19.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I write.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay who do you write for?
21.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Scout.com, it's a football website.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: So you do all the scouting for the high school or college?
23.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: No, no, I just like cover the Browns and some college stuff.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: They also do the writing for recruiting, do they not?
25.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Some ofit.
29
1.
MR. SPELLACY: So you've been busy with covering the Cleveland Browns.
2.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Unfortunately.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: And all the off season antics?
4.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yes.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Can't get enough of Johnny Manziel, right?
6.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I can.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Are you going to be able to be with us for the next
8.
couple of days and can you listen intently to the evidence that's presented to you?
9.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I think so.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you follow the Judge's instructions?
11.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Kaczmarek?
13.
MISS KACZMAREK: Um-hmm.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: What did you think when you got that notice that you were
15.
16.
17.
going to be selected to be here today?

MISS KACZMAREK: I was a little nervous because I don't know what to
expect and I was also hoping I was going to be able to get off from work.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone else think why me, how can I get out of this? I can
19.
tell you when I got my notice years ago, oh, no, I had a Trial coming up and I thought, why
20.
me, how can I get out of this. Now that you're here, can everyone agree that you could be here
21.
for the next couple of days and this is your civic duty and it's one of the most important civic
22.
duties that we can do for our Country. Next to military service this is the second highest civic
23 .
duty; does everyone agree with that? Miss Trent what did you think when you got that notice?
24.
25.
MISS TRENT: I was nervous. I have never been called before and didn't know
what to expect. I'm happy to serve.
30
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Great. Miss Hardink?
2.
MISS HARDINK: I wished it was Publisher's Clearing House.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: You wished it was the lottery, right?
4.
MISS HARD INK: Yeah. This is -- I've done this before and I know what it
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
entails and I'm here.

MR. SPELLACY: All right. Well knowing what it entails would it cause you any
trepidation or like why do I have to do this again since you've already done it before?
MISS HARDINK: Well the last one was 10 years ago and this is this seventh time
that I've been called and I've served on Grand Juries.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you ever served in Parma Municipal Court?
11.
MISS HARD INK: Yeah that was the last one 10 years ago.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: And was it in this Courtroom or was it in another Courtroom?
13.
MISS HARDINK: I believe it was another Courtroom.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: And did you actually get selected to serve on the jury?
15.
MISS HARDINK: Yes.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: And did you render a verdict in that particular case?
17.
MISS HARDINK: Yes.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: So you had an opportunity to work with your fellow jurors
19.
and reach a common decision.
20.
MISS HARDINK: Um-hmm.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Correct?
22.
MISS HARD INK: Yes.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: So having been through the process, can you be with us the
24.
25.
next couple days, render a fair verdict in this case?

MISS HARDINK: Yes.
31
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Chuppa?
2.
MR. CHUPP A: Yes.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: What did you think of when you got that notice?
4.
MR. CHUPPA: This is my first time also serving on a jury so I thought it would
5.
be interesting because I've never done it before.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And not but not least, Mr. Budzik?
7.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: What did you think when you got the notice?
9.
MR. BUDZIK: I doubted that I would be selected to sit on a jury.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: You doubted?
11.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Why do you doubt that you would be selected?
13.
MR. BUDZIK: As a practicing attorney I found out that any other attorneys do not
14.
like having attorneys sitting on a jury.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. What type of law do you practice?
16.
MR. BUDZIK: Employment law mostly representing cities and counties union
17.
negotiations, grievance administration, arbitrations, EEOC laws but I do represent some
18.
employees on the side.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Are you with a firm?
20.
MR. BUDZIK: I am.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: And what firm are you with?
22.
MR. BUDZIK: Mansour Gavin.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: So attorney Mansour is at the head of that?
24.
MR. BUDZIK: Marie is still coming to work at 83 years old.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Right. Most of your practice is civil in nature, correct?
32
1.
MR. BUDZIK: It is.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Where here today on a criminal matter, okay, criminal charges,
3.
have you practiced criminal law in your tenure as a lawyer?
4.
MR. BUDZIK: Have I ever done a case, possibly years and years ago for a friend
5.
but I do not practice criminal law. I know one of our law clerks had a DUI case be resolved.
6.
7.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. So you've never really engaged in the practice of

criminal law either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney.
MR. BUDZIK: That would be true, I have worked with prosecutors in the past,
9.
city and county. Many times when you deal with employment law and employees they may
10.
do something wrong, some wrong doing that could be construed to be criminal in nature and
11 .
then I have to contact or I am contacted by prosecutors to determine if that would be
12.
potentially a criminal offense or an internal administrative matter.
13.
14.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: So you would be in the position ofreporting something to a

city or a county.
MR. BUDZIK: Generally likely because under well you probably wouldn't know
16.
the law under certain administrative law and under Garrity v. New Jersey anything that
17.
during the internal investigation anything that is received by a public entity cannot be used
18.
in a criminal proceeding against that employee.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: So would you be comfortable sitting on this particular -- on a
20.
criminal case in Parma Municipal Court, not even knowing what the -- you don't know
21.
anything about the case right now, correct?
22.
MR. BUDZIK: That is correct.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you be fair and partial to both sides?
24.
MR. BUDZIK: I would hope so.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you listen to the evidence and base your decision on the
33
1.
evidence and the instruction that the Judge is going to give you?
2.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes I can.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: And not revert back to your law practice?
4.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you ever been called for jury duty before?
6.
MR. BUDZIK: I have.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: And have you ever been questioned like I am now?
8.
MR. BUDZIK: It was out here, I was not in the box. I think we did general
9.
10.
11.
questions out there, you know, that's as far as we got.

MR. SPELLACY: Great. Can you be with us for the next couple of days if called
upon to serve on this case?
12.
MR. BUDZIK: I told work I plan on not being back for four days.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Great, thank you. A couple of you have mentioned that you're
14.
nervous, okay, rest assured that you know, every time I walk into a Courtroom, my father told
15 .
me it was his practice for years and years, whether a prosecutor or defense lawyer or Judge, he
16.
said the minute, the day you walk into a Courtroom and you're not nervous, is the day you
17.
better do something else. So rest assured we're not -- there's no need for you to be nervous
18.
here today, okay. There's no need at all on your part to be nervous so relax and we ask you
19.
to be honest during this process so that we can select a fair jury. Miss Morway why do you
20.
think that you're here today?
21.
MISS MORWAY: I know that I was called several years ago when I had my first
22.
daughter and it was like on her due date so maybe it's just a sign that I was supposed to come
23.
because it seemed like every time I got called something else was in the way, if that's the
24.
right way to put it.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
34
1.
MISS MORWAY: And so this time there wasn't.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Well you heard the Judge say before that she asked a question,
3.
does everyone live in the cities within the Parma Court District, Parma Municipal Court
4.
District, right? And she read you the names of those cities.
5.
MISS MORWAY: Correct.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. You're here because this is your community.
7.
MISS MORWAY: Yes I have lived here for my whole life.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: And you live here now.
9.
MISS MORWAY: Yes.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: And it's your community and you get to make decisions, okay,
11.
regarding things that happened in your community and with respect to the facts of this
12.
particular case you get to decide because this is your community, what happened, what didn't
13 .
happen. What do you think about that awesome responsibility and that awesome power.
14.
MISS MORWAY: It is an awesome responsibility and having lived here as long
15.
as I have I don't have plans to leave, I do, I love it here, I purposely bought my parents' house
16.
so that I could continue to live here after I moved and I'm happy to be here for that
17.
responsibility absolutely.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Great. Miss Briggs, what do you think about your ability to
decide what happened, decide the facts?
MISS BRIGGS: I think I'm a pretty impartial person and listen to both sides of
the story and come up with my own conclusion.
MR. SPELLACY: Great. Mr. Grayshock what do you think about that, that you
get to make these decisions in your community.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I don't think it's important but I think it's something I'm
willing to do to be called upon a jury.
35
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Kaczmarek what do you think about that, that you have
2.
the responsibility and the power to make decisions as to what happened in your community,
3.
or what didn't happen in your community.

MISS KACZMAREK: I think it's a great honor just that I'd be able to make
4.
5.
decisions hoping it's the right one.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Miss Trent?
7.
MISS TRENT: I agree I think it' s a great honor to be able to do it.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Hardink?
9.
MISS HARDINK: I think it's your duty as a citizen and I think you should be
10.
impartial and listen to both sides and come to a decision with the other jurors.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Great. Mr. Chuppa?
12.
MR. CHUPPA: I think it' s a good opportunity to serve and to definitely make our
13.
decision based on the facts that we heard.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: And Mr. Budzik?
15.
MR. BUDZIK: It's the rule and that's what we plead by.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: And you'll follow the rules right?
17.
MR. BUDZIK: I like rules.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: You ' ll follow the rules that the Judge tells you, correct?
19.
MR. BUDZIK: Got to do it in real life, got to do it here, got to do it everywhere.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Grayshock what do you think my job is as a Prosecutor?
21.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Present the facts in the case to give us the information we
22.
need to make a decision.
23 .
24.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: You're the first one that's nailed it in all my years of practicing
law.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Good.
36
1.
MR. SPELLACY: You are, in all my years as a Prosecutor it's the first time I've
2.
gotten a response of your job is to present the facts to us, that' s what you said. I' ll hear get a
3.
conviction at all costs, I'll hear other things your job is to get a conviction. My job is to
4.
present the facts to you, present the evidence to you, the Judge is going to give you the
5.
instructions and then it's your community, you get to make the decision. Okay. Like that
6.
first question I asked you, why do you think you're here, you're here because it's your
7.
community. I'm here because I have the privilege of presenting the facts to you but it's your
8.
community, you get to make the decision and you get to apply the law given to you by the
9.
Judge and render a verdict in this particular case. Mr. Budzik, might as well just go in order,
10.
why don't you tell me a little bit about yourself. And tell me something about, you know,
11.
something I may not find out today through this process and asking you questions.
12.
MR. BUDZIK: Well you know what I do for a living. On the side I'm actually
13.
an adult leader with our boy scout troop out of St. Albert 526 it' s called the Charter
14.
Organization Representative I am the liaison between the troop and St. Albert our Charter
15.
Organization but I watched my boy come up through boy scouts for all those years and it was
16.
fun doing the campouts and helping the boys out, I'm the merit badge counselor too that
17.
teaches citizenship in the community and citizenship in the nation so everything you talked
18.
about today I sort of try to lead those principles on with our scouts.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Great. And you mentioned -- you have a son?
20.
MR. BUDZIK: I have a son who goes to Padua, senior at Padua, he's the class
21.
president, he's quite a young man and I have a daughter who is a junior at Ashland University.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And are you married?
23.
MR. BUDZIK: I am. Wife Barbara.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: And other than -- it sounds like you do a lot, you're very
25.
active with your parish and with your, with the boy scouts.
37
1.
2.
MR. BUDZIK: I do more than most I would think but there are many others that
do more than I do .
3.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you have other hobbies?
4.
MR. BUDZIK: You know I like to watch sports, you know, dabble in that and I
5.
like to watch the elections actually I did watch a lot of CNN and Fox News the last couple
6.
months.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: You hear the same thing over and over don't you?
8.
MR. BUDZIK: You hear the same thing over and over again.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay, thank you for sharing. Mr. Chuppa tell me a little bit
10.
about yourself.
11.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy, come on up
12.
gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury Mr. Odolecki needs to use the restroom. Go
13.
on sir. So we're going to continue without Mr. Odolecki present. His attorney has indicated
14.
that he wants to go on without Mr. Odolecki being here. Is that correct Mr. Gold?
15.
MR. GOLD: That's correct.
16.
THE COURT: All right, thank you. And
17.
then as soon as he's done he'll join us again. I'm sorry Mr. Spellacy for interrupting. Go
18.
ahead.
19.
20.
21.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor. Mr. Chuppa tell me a little bit about
yourself and maybe something that I wouldn't find out by asking you questions.
MR. CHUPPA: Well I work for a mortgage company in Brecksville and I help
out UNINTELLIGIBLE.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Do you have any other hobbies or interests?
24.
MR. CHUPPA: I read.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: What types of books do you read?
38
1.
MR. CHUPP A: Mystery novels.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Do you watch movies?
3.
MR. CHUPP A: Occasionally yeah.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: What's your favorite movie?
5.
MR. CHUPPA: Shawshank Redemption.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: A good one. Are you married?
7.
MR. CHUPP A: Engaged.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Any children?
9.
MR. CHUPPA: No .
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Thanks' for sharing. Miss Hardink tell me a little bit about
11.
12.
yourself.
MISS HARDINK: I have four children, 10 grandchildren and two great
13.
grandchildren and one grandchild on the way. And I do a lot of babysitting and I'm a widow
14.
and I've lived in Parma, I grew up in Parma, moved out to Bainbridge, moved back from
15.
Bainbridge into Parma, moved out to Mosquito Lake, moved back to Parma. You can take
16.
the girl out of Parma but you can't take Parma out of the girl.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Glad to have you back.
18.
MISS HARDINK: Thank you.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: So you've got your hands full.
20.
MISS HARDNIK: Yeah kind of.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: All those grandkids.
22.
MISS HARDINK: Yeah but I love them.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: All four of your children all grown?
24.
MISS HARD INK: Oh yeah if you want to call it that.
25 .
MR. SPELLACY: They never move away though do they?
39
1.
MISS HARDINK: No.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: That's what I tell my mom and dad.
3.
MISS HARDINK: It' s a revolving door, yeah.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: So you do a lot of babysitting?
5.
MISS HARDINK: Oh yeah.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: So how old is the youngest?
7.
MISS HARDINK: The youngest it's still cooking but I have an 18 month old and
8.
then I have a 26 year old granddaughter out of the 11.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Are they all in town here local?
10.
MISS HARD INK: Yeah except my one son is at the University of Syracuse taking
11.
his master' s degree there.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: You' re lucky to have them all around, right?
13.
MISS HARDINK: Yeah sometimes.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay what are your hobbies other than watching the kids and
15.
grandkids?
16.
MISS HARDINK: I bowl and I garden and I walk.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Great. Thank you for sharing.
18.
MISS HARDINK: And I shop.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Are you a good shopper?
20.
MISS HARDINK: Oh yeah.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Or are you a buyer?
22.
MISS HARD INK: TJ Maxx, I'm a Maxxinista.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Trent tell me a little bit about yourself. Maybe something
24.
25.
that I wouldn't find out by asking these questions.

MISS TRENT: Well I usually work 12 hour days and my daughter plays every
40
1.
sport you can imagine so every Sunday I cook all of my meals for the week.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: So you have a daughter.
3.
MISS TRENT: Two.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Two daughters. How old are they?
5.
MISS TRENT: Twenty-three and 13 and I am a grandmother of a six month old.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: So you get to spoil the grandchild.
7.
MISS TRENT: Absolutely.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Daughter -- or grandson?
9.
MISS TRENT: Grandson.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Then you get to give him back.
11.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: All right. Do you find that you treat him a little differently
13.
then you did your own?
14.
MISS TRENT: Of course I do.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: And probably even the 13 year old compared to the 23 year old,
16.
right?
17.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: So I have a gap from 23 to 10 and I've noticed that with my
19.
girls it's a lot more than perhaps maybe the 22 year old.
20.
MISS TRENT: Right.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you find that to be the case?
22.
MISS TRENT: Yeah I do unfortunately.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Now you've had an opportunity have you not to judge their
24.
credibility, right and so for instance the 23 year old maybe you had an inclination that they did
25.
something but you weren't exactly sure what they did and your job you had to judge whether
41
1.
they were telling you the truth or not right?
2.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: And you used your common sense to do that.
4.
MISS TRENT: Right.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Correct. And you used your prior experiences in life to do
6.
that, correct?
7.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: In this particular case you're going to be asked to use your
9.
common sense and reach your determination as to the facts in this case. Will you agree to do
10.
that?
11.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Will everyone agree to use your common sense in arriving at
13.
decisions in this particular case? You're going to hear that from the Judge to bring your
14.
common sense with you into the Courtroom, okay, will you do that?
15.
MISS TRENT: Um-hmm.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: All right. What are your hobbies other than Sunday cooking?
17.
MISS TRENT: I really don't have time for hobbies. I enjoy cooking that's it.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Great, what' s your favorite dish?
19.
MISS TRENT: I don't have a favorite dish.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: We're going to get back to that one.
21.
MISS TRENT: Okay.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: I want you to think about that.
23.
MISS TRENT: Okay.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: All right I want you to think about your favorite dish.
25.
MISS TRENT: Okay.
42
1.
MR. SPELLACY: We' ll get back to that in a little bit. No other hobbies?
2.
MISS TRENT: I enjoy watching movies, reading.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: And what sports does your daughter play?
4.
MISS TRENT: Basketball, volleyball, baseball.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: So are you in the J.O. Volleyball and any of that stuff, Junior --
6.
MISS TRENT: Well she did it for her middle school.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And basketball?
8.
MISS TRENT: She's in basketball now.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Great. So you spend a lot of time carting her back and forth.
10.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: To events, to and from events, correct?
12.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
13 .
MR. SPELLACY: Great.
14.
MISS KACZMAREK: Yes.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Tell me a little bit about yourself.
16.
MISS KACZMAREK: I've lived in North Royalton pretty much my whole life but
17.
I work out in Strongsville in retail. I went to school for like drawing, graduated with drawing
18.
degree and I also have a certificate in graphic design and my favorite hobby is pretty much
19.
watching baseball, I like baseball.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Baseball?
21.
MISS KACZMAREK: Um-hmm.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Are you an Indians fan?
23.
MISS KACZMAREK: Huge Indians fan.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: Great. So do you go to a lot of games?
25.
MISS KACZMAREK: Last year I did. UNINTELLIGIBLE.
43
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Where do you work?
2.
MISS KACZMAREK: I work at JC Penny in Strongsville.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: And in what capacity?
4.
MISS KACZMAREK: I'm sorry?
5.
MR. SPELLACY: What do you do for JC Penny?
6.
MISS KACZMAREK: Pretty much like anything and everything.
7.
UNINTELLIGIBLE.
8.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. What are your hobbies, what do you like to do in your
spare time.
10.
MISS KACZMAREK: Well pretty much, you know, since I went to school for
11.
drawing that' s like my biggest UNINTELLIGIBLE like whenever I have spare time I'll
12.
just draw.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: What do you like to draw?
14.
MISS KACZMAREK: It really varies, I like you know surrealism,
15.
UNINTELLIGIBLE.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Are you married?
17.
MISS KACZMAREK: No.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Any children?
19.
MISS KACZMAREK: No.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you for sharing. Mr. Grayshock, tell me a little bit about
21.
22.
yourself.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: My wife is Kelly, she's a maintenance secretary in Parma
23.
here for Pleasant Lake Apartments. My daughter, Rachel, she's 11 , she goes to North
24.
Royalton Middle School. I lost my father in 2002. He was a police officer so I grew up as a
25.
police officer's kid. UNINTELLIGIBLE I was a minister for eight years and I work during
44
1.
the season for the Indians.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: You work for the Indians?
3.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: In Guest Services.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: What do you do for Guest Services?
5.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Complaints. UNINTELLIGIBLE.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Try to calm people down?
7.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Sorry we're losing, have another hotdog.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Less complaints on dollar hotdog night or what.
9.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I guess less.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: And you're busy with Scout.com.
11.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: My writing.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Is it Scout.com is that the --
13.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yeah I wo,rk like, I write for the Orange and Brown report
14.
but that's Scout.com.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
16.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: It' s just the Browns.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And because football is such a part of your job is it
18.
19.
also your hobby?

MR. GRA YSHOCK: Well I played football UNINTELLIGIBLE but I was not
20.
good enough to play past high school UNINTELLIGIBLE and I like to cook
21.
UNINTELLIGIBLE I worked in restaurants and I like to cook UNINTELLIGIBLE.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: You mentioned you're married and you have a daughter?
23.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Um-hmm.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: Any other children?
25.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: No.
45
1.
MR. SPELLACY: And is your 11 year old active?
2.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yes she ' s doing snowboarding this year so that's interesting.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: It' s a tough thing to pick up.
4.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: She seems to like it so I'm happy about that. She' s very
5.
musical she got her mother' s ability.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: And what does your wife you said, what does she do?
7.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Kelly, she ' s a maintenance secretary so she schedules
8.
maintenance for apartments.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you for sharing. Miss Morway?
10.
MISS MORWAY: Well I mentioned that I'm, well Seven Hills is where I actually
11.
live, native, pretty much I was born. My husband and I actually went to elementary school
12.
together so we went all the way up from first grade and went to prom together and the story
13.
kept going. We have two young children, two girls, so they keep us very, very busy. I play
14.
the violin and the piano, I played violin with the Parma Symphony Orchestra here in town
15.
for 14 years, a teacher, I said I was a teacher although I feel that I'm much more than that.
16.
I actually feel like that's like the lowest part of my job the teaching part sometimes, it's like
17.
nurse, counselor, friend, you know all those things sometimes more than the teaching part
18.
and you know the job has changed a lot even I don't feel like I have that many years in but
19.
it' s changed a lot with the you know the federal standards coming down so every year is
20.
new something different, you know, we're learning or some new practice you know teach
21.
math this way or use this book or so it keeps me on my toes for sure and it helps me with my
22.
own kids because I see like where they're going to be needing to go so I can you know already
23.
work with them.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: Are they still using the simple solution book?
25.
MISS MORWAY: Actually we are, yes, it's on my lesson plans for this week.
46
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: UNINTELLIGIBLE like the show are you smarter than
a fifth grader.
3.
4.
MISS MORWAY: Some of those things, unless you're in fifth grade, come on.
UNINTELLIGIBLE.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: How old are your children?
6.
MISS MORWAY: I have a four year old and a two year old.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Thanks for sharing. And last but not least Miss Briggs.
8.
MISS BRIGGS: I worked at Southwest General for 11 years in patient accounting.
9.
That department was just outsourced to another company in Fairlawn so I got ajob with them
10.
and now I'm doing the same thing working at home. I have a nine year old son. I was married
11.
for 20 years but now I'm going through a divorce. That's about it.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. What do you like to do in your spare time?
13.
MISS BRIGGS: I spend a lot of time with my son, I have two dogs, shopping,
14.
reading.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay, great, thank you for sharing. Anyone have any friends
16.
or family members, close acquaintances that are involved in law enforcement, police officer,
17.
prosecutor, any capacity? Let's start with Miss Briggs.
18.
19.
MISS BRIGGS : My husband' s grandfather was on the Cleveland Police Force

for like 30 years and he was a bailiff and a private detective.
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you be fair and impartial in this particular case to both
sides?
22.
23 .
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Morway?
24.
MISS MORWAY: My husband is a practicing attorney currently.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: And where does he practice?
47
1.
MISS MORWAY: He practices at a firm owntown Ankuda, Stadler and Moeller.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: And is his last name J orway?
3.
MISS MORWAY: Um-hmm.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: They do civil defense
5.
MISS MORWAY: Yes mostly for insura ce.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Right. And so this is a criminal case now has he ever practiced
7.
ork.
criminal law.
8.
MISS MORWAY: To my knowledge he as never been on a criminal case. He's
9.
actually only been with this firm a little bit over a yea and he was doing work for Janik, LLP
10.
before that and although the cases were the higher mol ey volume, I try to understand it all,
11.
I don' t think any of those were criminal either.

MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Anything about that that would prevent you from being
12.
13.
fair and impartial as a juror in this case?
14.
MISS MORWAY: No I do not believe so.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Grayshock?
16.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I mentioned that my father was a police officer.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Other than your father any other friends, family
18.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: No.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: -- acquaintances that a1e involved in law enforcement?
20.
Anyone else that raised their hand? Miss Hardink?

MISS HARDINK: I have a friend who is 1 ke an Uncle who was on the East
21.
22.
Cleveland Police Force, he' s passed. I have a daughte who is dating a retired police officer.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
24.
MISS HARD INK: And there was one othe , I can't remember who it is, just
25.
that's it.
48
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Does anyone else have anyone? Anyone have a close
friend or family member or themselves that have been charged with a crime?
3.
MR. BUDZIK: My brother has been charged. Several times.
4.
MISS TRENT: It was a divorce case and it involved Georgia and it was, it was
5.
my husband he helped my, my brother move his belongings out of the house, they were
6.
moving their stuff out of the house while the bus was bringing my ex-sister-in-law in and she
7.
was charged with prostitution and my brother was trying to get away from her so she put
8.
charges against my husband and my brother for grand theft but it was dismissed.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: You were satisfied with the result in that case?
10.
MISS TRENT: Oh, yeah.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: All right. And did it go to Trial?
12.
MISS TRENT: Yeah, well it was before a Judge, yeah. There wasn't, I don't
13.
remember a jury. I had to testify but it was -- the FBI was involved it was a drug raid,
14.
drug ring she was involved with, my, they were trying to get, my brother was trying to get
15.
away from them, her and it worked out. I mean --
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Anything about that process that would -- or what happened
17.
there that would prevent you from being fair and impartial to both sides in this particular
18.
case?
19.
MISS TRENT: No.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Budzik?
21.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: You mentioned that your brother was charged several times
23.
and where any of those here in Parma?
24.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes Municipal Court.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: And were you involved with any of his cases in any capacity?
49
1.
Either as a witness or a character witness or
2.
MR. BUDZIK: No.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: And what types of cases, I'm sorry to get personal.
4.
MR. BUDZIK: Drug paraphernalia, possession, those types of minor, minor
5.
things.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Were you satisfied with the way those were handled?
7.
MR. BUDZIK: It was fine. He spent a little time in jail so that's the system.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Did you think that the police did anything wrong in those
9.
particular cases?
10.
MR. BUDZIK: No.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you have any animosity towards the police for the jobs that
12.
they did in those particular cases?
13.
MR. BUDZIK: No.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: And can you be fair and impartial to the City of Parma and
15.
Mr. Odolecki in this case?
16.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone else? Has anyone ever had any negative interactions
18.
with police officers? Anything that you could think of that you would say, you know what,
19.
that wasn' t a very positive experience. Okay, no hands raised. Anyone ever get a speeding
20.
ticket? Most everybody, right. Miss Trent?
21.
MISS TRENT: It was my fault, I knew I
22.
MR. SPELLACY: That wasn't the most positive experience though was it?
23.
MISS TRENT: But I knew I did it.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. You got pulled over and you knew when he pulled
25.
you over UNINTELLIGIBLE, right. And that officer was doing his or her job.
50
1.
MISS TRENT: Right.
2.
3.
MISS TRENT: Right.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: So you accept it, but you didn't like it though right?
5.
MISS TRENT: I accepted it, paid, I knew I did wrong.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Anyone else? I saw a bunch of hands up. Anyone have
7.
a negative experience with a speeding ticket that they didn't like the officer, they didn't like
8.
what he did they don't think he had a right to pull him over any of those thoughts? Everyone
9.
agree that that's part of a police officer's job. Can I see a show of hands we all agree there.
10.
We all know that, that that's part of their job to enforce the traffic laws. Does anyone have
11.
any particular negative attitudes about drinking alcohol? Does anyone -- how many of the
12.
jurors drink alcohol? UNINTELLIGIBLE you don't drink?
13.
UNIDENTIFIED: No.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone think that it's okay to drink and drive? A show of
15.
hands. Nobody's hands were raised, right. So can we all agree that people should not drink
16.
and drive. We all agree? Miss Kaczmarek what do you think about police officers, like
17.
Captain Manning and others, enforcing the DUI laws, OVI laws?
18.
MR. GOLD: Objection.
19.
THE COURT: No, overruled.
20.
MISS KACZMAREK: Can you say the last part?
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes, I'm sorry, let me repeat. What do you think about
22.
officers enforcing OVI laws, or DUI laws?
23.
MISS KACZMAREK: I don't have any problem it.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: Why do you think it's a good thing?
25.
MISS KACZMAREK: You know to keep people off, you know, if somebody
51
1.
is you know they say they're okay to drive even though you know obviously they're not
2.
UNINTELLIGIBLE.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Does anyone disagree with Miss Kaczmarek's
4.
opinion there about police officers enforcement of DUI laws? Does anyone think that the
5.
cities, police departments spend too much time enforcing DUI laws? Anyone feel that way?
6.
Anyone think that police officers are too lenient for enforcing DUI, anyone feel that way?
7.
Has everyone every come to a DUI or OVI checkpoint? Mr. Grayshock?
8.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yeah there ' s one set up on 82 which is how I get home.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: And have you had the opportunity to go through the
10.
checkpoint?
11.
12.
13.
14.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy, Mr.

Gold.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor. I'm sorry Mr. Grayshock, we were
talking about --
15.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Checkpoints.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: -- checkpoint and you going through a checkpoint.
17.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yeah I was stopped, I was on my way home from work and
18.
so they just questioned me, asked me where I was coming from, let me go
19.
UNINTELLIGIBLE.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: And you followed their procedures that they had in place.
21.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yeah just answer a couple of questions.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: And you had not been drinking?
23.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I was at work.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: And so you went through it.
25.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Um-hmm.
52
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Was it an inconvenience for you?
2.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I guess, you know I was tired, I was wanting to get home.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: But you complied with the officers' directions.
4.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone think that the police officers shouldn't be able to run
6.
checkpoints? Anyone think that they shouldn't be able to do that? And if you do now is the
7.
time to be honest, we respect everyone's opinions. Mr. Budzik what do you think would
8.
happen if the City of Parma came out and said we're not enforcing the OVI laws and
9.
anyone can drink and drive.
10.
11.
MR. BUDZIK: Technically I guess they could but that would tend to lead to
chaos in my opinion and it would lead to unsafe roadways.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: And as a citizen in your community would you feel safe?
13 .
MR. BUDZIK: I would not feel safe.
14.
MR.SPELLACY: Would you feel safer knowing that your police enforced the
15.
OVI laws?
16.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes I would.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Does everyone else share that opinion? Anyone else have to
18.
go through a checkpoint? Has anyone or does anyone know a close friend or a family member
19.
that has been the victim of drunk driving? Anyone ever been or have a friend, close friend or
20.
family member be a victim of a crime? Mr. Budzik.
21.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you tell me a little bit about it.
23.
MR. BUDZIK: My sister when she was a alive she was -- she was disabled so
24.
she rode one of those big three wheel bikes and she was coming back from the store one day
25.
and she was assaulted.
53
1.
MR. SPELLACY: How old was she?
2.
MR. BUDZIK: About 30.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: And how did that make you feel?
4.
MR. BUDZIK: I was quite upset actually. You know because someone got out
5.
of the car and basically you know pushed her off the bike, took her purse, and got back in
6.
the car and ran and got away.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Did they ever find them?
8.
MR. BUDZIK: Never did.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Police were called?
10.
MR. BUDZIK: Absolutely.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Police responded?
12.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes they did.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Police investigated it?
14.
MR. BUDZIK: They did.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Were you satisfied with the actions of the police officers?
16.
MR. BUDZIK: As much as they could do, yes. That was in Cleveland.
17.
UNIDENTIFIED: Does stalking count?
18.
MR. SPELLACY: You were the victim?
19.
UNIDENTIFIED: I was stalked for seven years yeah.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay, yes, absolutely.
21.
UNIDENTIFIED: Seven years. It was the first stalking case in Parma at the
22.
old police station.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
24.
UNIDENTIFIED: And he was sentenced. I'm the first from Parma.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
54
1.
UNIDENTIFIED: But it lasted seven years.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Were you satisfied with the police response?
3.
UNIDENTIFIED: The police were fabulous. They were the ones -- I worked for
4.
the man and my husband and I were separated at the time, excuse me, and he was following
5.
me to the dentist, following my daughter to school. He went in the school trying to get a
6.
contract with them and it was just up front he'd be able to get in there and intimidate me and
7.
they caught him and it lasted and then we moved out of Parma and we moved for my
8.
husband' s job over to Trumbull County and he continued after that and there was nothing the
9.
Parma Police could do then you know but they informed the police there and they kept an
10.
eye on my house but it was seven years of that. Now he's too old.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: That was when?
12.
UNIDENTIFIED: That was in 93 to 2000.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Were you satisfied with the response that you got from the
14.
Parma Police Department?
15.
UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Anything about that case and the fact that you were a victim
17.
in that case that would prevent you from being fair and impartial to both sides in this case?
18.
UNIDENTIFIED: No.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone else either a victim of a crime; Mr. Grayshock.
20.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: A couple items, I had my car broken into and the stereo
21.
stolen when I was at work one night and there was no video there was no UNINTELLIGIBLE
22.
and he was never caught and then my niece was sexually assaulted by my brother-in-law
23.
and he was convicted and served his time.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: Was that locally here?
25.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: That was in Summit County.
55
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Were you satisfied in the police department's response?
2.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: With the investigation. Anything about either of those cases
4.
that would prevent you from being fair and impartial in this case?
5.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: No.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Chuppa you had your hand raised?
7.
MR. CHUPPA: Yes I did. I lived in Parma six years ago and somebody actually
8.
threw a patio brick through my picture window and they never caught the person who did it.
9.
I was happy with how the police handled the situation.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Did you call the police?
11.
MR. CHUPP A: Yeah.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: And did they respond?
13.
MR. CHUPP A: Yes they did.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: And anyone have any occasion to call the police for some
15.
16.
17.
reason? Okay. Miss Morway?

MR. MORWAY: Ours was just a -- we had a small kitchen fire, there was no
crime or anything.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
19.
MISS MORWAY: So the Seven Hills Police were called and they of coursed
20.
dispatched everything out and everything was good.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: And you called them expecting them to do what?
22.
MISS MORWAY: Well obviously calling 911 we expected --
23.
MR. SPELLACY: A response.
24.
MISS MORWAY: Right.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Right?
S6
1.
MISS MORWAY: Right. We expected, I mean the policemen were actually the
2.
first ones to show up in Seven Hills and the fire was small enough they were able to put it
3.
out. We obviously got out of the house right away but the ambulance came right after that.
4.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: And when you called them, you called the police you expected
them to respond, correct?
6.
MISS MORWAY: Um-hmm.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: And you expected them to be able to do their jobs, correct?
8.
MISS MORWAY: Yes.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone else? Yes Miss Briggs?
10.
MISS BRIGGS: We have some neighbors that are always out fighting in the
11.
street like domestic disputes so it' s kind of scary but at 2:00 o'clock in the morning we
12.
hear yelling outside and we think somebody is getting hurt out there so we call the police.
13 .
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Then you called the police.
14.
MISS BRIGGS: They came, they broke it up.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: You expected them to
16.
MISS BRIGGS: Right.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: -- go there and you expected them to do their jobs.
18.
MISS BRIGGS: Right.
19.
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone else? Mr. Grayshock?
22.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Just when my car was broken into.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. You were satisfied you called them?
24.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: All right. They came out and you expected them to do their
57
1.
job and you expected them to be able to do their job, correct?
2.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Correct.
3.
UNIDENTIFIED: Somebody like around 1:30, 2:00 o'clock in the morning
4.
somebody just starts banging on our front door you know hitting it and we just called the
5.
police.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And did they respond and did they do their job?
7.
UNIDENTIFIED: Um-hmm.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: There's been a lot of press and media about police officers
9.
and the jobs that they do ; anyone have a negative opinion of police officers in general and
10.
the jobs that they do? If you do, we're here to talk about this, it means to speak the truth so
11.
so be open and honest. There' s nothing to be ashamed of today, okay. A raise of hands,
12.
nobody? Anyone think that people have a right to interfere with the jobs that police officers
13.
do? Does anyone think that people have a right to interfere with the police officers ability
14.
to do their jobs; can I have a show of hands? Miss Morway you are a school teacher?
15.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: And you teach third grade?
17.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: And you have duties and responsibilities, correct?
19.
MISS MORWAY: Yes.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: How would you feel if someone followed you around and
21.
tried to prevent you from doing your job?
22.
MISS MORWAY: It would be very frustrating, I sometimes can feel like that
23.
not directly but a lot of indirect things can sometimes make it feel that way. Behavior of
24.
students, administrate -- you know, federal guideline things but nothing like directly that I
25.
feel like I can't do my job.
58
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Miss Kaczmarek you work at JC Penny, correct?
2.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: You have duties and responsibilities, correct. Does anyone
4.
5.
attempt, in your daily life, to interfere or not allow you to do your job?
MISS KACZMAREK: UNINTELLIGIBLE but like honestly customer services
6.
UNINTELLIGIBLE if they need help finding something UNINTELLIGIBLE that's the only
7.
time UNINTELLIGIBLE.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Trent?
9.
MISS TRENT: I'm an HR Manager UNINTELLIGIBLE.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: You're an HR Manager, as an HR Manager you have duties
11.
and responsibilities with respect to the employees, correct?
12.
MISS TRENT: Um-hmm.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: And you have certain jobs that you need to do, right, for
14.
your employer related to the employees and have you ever had somebody follow you around
15.
trying to prevent you from doing that, doing your job?
16.
MISS TRENT: No.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Does anyone think there should be no laws against interfering
18.
with the police officer' s ability to do their jobs?
19.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Could you repeat that?
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Sure. Does anyone think there shouldn't be any laws
21.
preventing people from interfering with a police officer's ability to do their job? In other
22.
words you're going to hear that there are charges in this particular case which relate to the
23.
interference by the Defendant of police officers' actions and their ability to do their jobs, all
24.
right. Is there anyone that thinks that there should be no restriction on a citizen's right to
25.
interfere with the police officers? Do you understand that?
59
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: What are your thoughts on that Mr. Grayshock?
3.
MR. GRA YSCHOCK: Well like it interferes is a big word there right I mean
4.
if there's relevant information it would be important for whoever to share that with the police
5.
officer but the police officer, I would assume, would somewhere in the line of process there
6.
would come to that point so interfere, no, but if there's a fact that the police officer needs to
7.
know at that point I would say that they need to speak up.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: There's a relevant fact concerning the investigation.
9.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Correct.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: The circumstance you would certainly want them to be heard,
11.
correct?
12.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yes. Anyone else have any thoughts on it? Can each of
13 .
you accept the Judge's instructions oflaw on that issue? Would each of you agree to listen
14.
to the Judge' s instruction oflaw on that and render your verdict based on that law and the
15.
facts as you decide them. You're the sole judge of the facts but we agree to apply the law.
16.
Thank you. Has anyone ever been involved in police protests or protesting some actions of
17.
police officers. Show of hands. Anyone think that citizens have a right to say whatever they
18.
want wherever they want in front of whoever they want, does anyone think that? Does
19.
anyone think there should be no restriction on somebody's ability to say what they want, when
20.
they want and in front of whoever they want? Everybody understand that? Am I being
21.
confusing again?
22.
MR. GRAYSHOCK: UNINTELLIGIBLE.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Will you accept the Judge's instruction with respect to that
24.
issue? You've all heard of freedom of speech, right, okay. But does anyone think there can't
25.
be any restriction on what is said, in front of who it's said.
60
1.
UNIDENTIFIED: Fire, yell fire.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And the Judge is going to give you the instruction oflaw
3.
with respect to that issue.
4.
5.
UNIDENTIFIED: Is that something like -- does that make any sense I mean I
believe in freedom of speech but I don't believe in inciting riots or that' s what I --
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Has anyone ever been with their children or grandchildren
where somebody is using foul abusive
8.
9.
10.
THE COURT: Overruled. You'll have your

chance.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Has anyone ever been with their children, grandchildren or
12.
people of tender ages where somebody is using grossly abusive language or words of that
13.
nature?
14.
MISS HARDINK: Teenagers do that in restaurants all the time.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: And how do you feel when that happens.
16.
MISS HARDINK: I try to be polite and ask them to just tone it down.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: And --
18.
19.
THE COURT: Excuse me Mr. Spellacy.

UNINTELLIGIBLE. Thank you sir. Go ahead Mr. Spellacy.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor. I'm sorry Miss Hardink.
21 .
MISS MORWAY: Most kids will not be confrontational if you ask them nicely.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Morway?
23.
MISS MORWAY: I guess I try to already my little ones raise them a certain way
24.
and I've actually heard my oldest and my oldest is 24, but I' ve heard her say mommy they
25.
shouldn't talk like that and so I usually don't ever approach anybody to say anything, I figure
61
1.
it's not my business especially if they're not talking directly to me and again I feel like I've
2.
raised my kids a certain way I mean I've heard Audrey say that so I can take comfort in it's
3.
going to happen I don't agree with it I mean my students sometimes will say things that they
4.
shouldn't too and that's different, I have to address that because they're in my classroom but in
5.
public, if they're not bothering me or causing a big ruckus I usually stay out of it.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Who else had their hand raised? Mr. Grayshock?
7.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yes. I think that's part of customer service, occasionally
8.
a guest will complain about somebody and generally we try to if possible we try to offer
9.
them a different place to sit.
10.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: And this is in public and have you ever been in a situation
where you have to call UNINTELLIGIBLE.
12.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I haven't.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Will each of you agree to follow the Judge's instruction oflaw
14.
with respect to these issues? And will each of you agree to decide the facts collectively,
15.
together, and work with your fellow jurors in reaching a fair decision in this particular case.
16.
Burden of proof. You're going to hear, the Judge is going to give you the instruction oflaw,
17.
that the City has the burden of proving each and every essential element of the crimes charged
18.
beyond a reasonable doubt. And the Judge is going to instruct you what that is, okay. Will
19.
each of you agree to hold the City of Parma to that burden of proof. Can I have a show of
20.
hands yes. Will each of you agree not to hold the City of Parma to any higher burden like
21.
the imaginary doubt, or things like do you agree to hold us to that burden but not to a higher
22.
burden. Yes? Anyone ever bought a house?
23.
UNIDENTIFIED: Did you say bought a house?
24.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes bought a house. Okay, Miss Trent that's an important
25.
decision.
62
1.
MISS TRENT: Um-hmm.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Correct. One of the most important decisions in your life,
3.
correct.
4.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: And you need to be sure about that correct?
6.
MISS TRENT: Correct.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: You're going to hear the Judge talk about, when you're given
8.
the instructions on that degree of proof that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and
9.
act upon in the most important of his or her own affairs, okay. Can you hold us to that burden
10.
of proof? Okay. And can you agree not to hold us to any higher. Who watches CSI or Law
11.
and Order or any of those shows where at the end of the show, every time at the end of the
12.
show there's some DNA evidence or scientific evidence or something that solves the case,
13.
right. A show of hands, who likes those shows?
14.
MR. CHUPPA: I do.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Chuppa in this particular case you're not going to see any
16.
fancy DNA evidence, okay. You're not going to see any fancy scientific evidence. Do you
17.
think that we need -- you don't know anything about the case right now right?
18.
MR. CHUPPA: Right.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Other than a little bit of what I questioned you on, right? Do
20.
you think that we need scientific evidence to prove any of the elements of the case?
21.
MR. CHUPPA: UNINTELLIGIBLE.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay but you don't know yet, right. I submit to you that most,
23.
a lot of the evidence, a lot of what happened is on videotape okay so you're going to see
24.
videotapes. And that's what I tell my kids anyway, the whole world is videotaped now, you
25.
behave yourselves, you know, and that's to a large extent true. So you're going to see
63
1.
videotape. Can you agree to pay close attention to the videotape? And can you agree to listen
2.
to the people who were present when it happened and listen to what's going on at a particular
3.
point in the videotape and can you work together to kind of piece that together. Do you agree
4.
to do that? All right Miss Trent, I told you I would get back to you, do you have a favorite
5.
dish?
6.
MISS TRENT: Pasta.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: My wife is Italian so -- what kind of pasta?
8.
MISS TRENT: Every Tuesday is spaghetti night.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: All right, great, spaghetti and meatballs?
10.
MISS TRENT: Spaghetti.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you make your own sauce? Nothing like homemade sauce,
12.
right?
13.
MISS TRENT: Right.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: What are the ingredients for the sauce?
15.
MISS TRENT: Well actually I don' t make homemade sauce, I doctor up.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: All right.
17.
MISS TRENT: So I use Ragu and I put my own spices, garlic
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
19.
MISS TRENT: Try to make it a little better.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: And any particular types of noodles?
21.
MISS TRENT: Any type of noodles.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: So but you spice it up, right and so you said what were the
23 .
spices?
24.
MISS TRENT: Garlic powder, onion powder --
25.
MR. SPELLACY: You can tell I don't cook.
64
1.
MISS TRENT: Italian seasonings.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: So if you, you're going to hear from the Judge that we have
3.
the burden of proving each and every essential element of the crimes so consider your
4.
ingredients if you will, okay. If your ingredients call for more ingredients have to be present,
5.
okay, you have to prove, the City has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each elements of
6.
the crime, okay. And if we do, just like if you put in your sauce, your job is to render a guilty
7.
verdict, okay. Can each of you do that if we prove the elements of the crime. Whether or not
8.
you agree personally with the crime charged, okay, if you find that we met our burden of proof
9.
will each of you agree to render a guilty verdict as to that charge. May I have a show of hands
10.
please. Would anyone be hesitant to do so? We're talking about a little bit about using your
11.
common sense and the common sense that you use in your job as an HR Director, right, use
12.
common sense a daily basis, right? Can you use that in here in the Courtroom over the next
13.
couple days? And use your common sense, what makes sense, right. We probably ask
14.
ourselves all the time in our jobs, in our lives with our kids, right, does that make sense, right?
15.
I ask myself that all the time. Mr. Budzik in your practice oflaw, right, does that make sense
16.
to do this . You're also going to hear from the Judge you're going to hear an instruction with
17.
respect to an inference, using an inference, okay. And we don't always, Miss Morway, we
18 .
don't always know why somebody does something, correct?
19.
MISS MORWAY: Yes.
20.
MR.SPELLACY: It's hard to get into other people's heads do you agree with
21.
that?
22.
MISS MORWAY: Absolutely.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: All right. So the law provides that we may use an inference
24.
based upon other facts to determine something, okay, other facts in evidence and maybe
25 .
to determine what the purpose was that somebody does something. Would you agree to do
65
1.
that in this particular case. And you do that probably all the time.
2.
MISS MORWAY: UNINTELLIGIBLE.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: Why my son ate the cookie after my wife said don' t eat
4.
the cookie.
5.
MISS MORWAY: Yes I do that all the time.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Because he wanted to eat it. Okay?
7.
MISS MORWAY: Right.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Because he was hungry. So Miss Morway you go to bed,
9.
there ' s no snow on the ground, you get up, walk downstairs, look outside, there's snow on
10.
the ground, what can you infer?
11.
12.
MISS MORWAY: That I should maybe turn on the news, it might be a snow day
for school.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: That it snowed last night, right?
14.
MISS MORWAY: That too.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: But you didn't see it snow, right?
16.
MISS MORWAY: Right.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: But you can infer that when I went to bed there wasn't snow
18.
there.
19.
MISS MORWAY: Right.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Right. I wake up there's snow there, it must have snowed last
21.
night. That's an example of an inference, okay. And each of you will agree to make
22.
reasonable efforts from the evidence and from the facts in evidence, yes. Anyone ever, and
23.
this a very sensitive subject so I apologize in advance, but has anybody ever had to deal with
24.
somebody who was suffering from mental illness or somebody who was threatening to commit
25 .
suicide? No. Has anyone ever had to call the police because they suspected somebody
66
1.
was going to hurt themselves, harm themselves. Has anyone had a close friend or a family
2.
member who suffered from mental illness or depression? Show of hands. Miss Briggs?
3.
MISS BRIGGS: My soon to be ex-husband was diagnosed with depression.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Miss Hardink?
5.
MISS HARDINK: My son is bipolar.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you ever been concerned that he was going to hurt
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
himself?
MISS HARDINK: No but he goes into depression and we urge him to go see a
psychiatrist.
MR. SPELLACY: Has it ever gotten to the point where you had to seek police
involvement?
12.
MISS HARDINK: No.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone else? Has anyone heard of Cop Block, an organization
14.
called Cop Block? Anyone know Doug Odolecki? Anyone know or know of a woman by
15.
the name of Shaunda Hall, she ' s the mother of five children, lives in Parma. Anyone know
16.
Sergeant Ken Gillissie who is going to be a witness in this particular case. Anyone know
17.
Captain Joe Manning? Anyone know Captain McCann, used to be Lieutenant McCann with
18 .
the Parma Police Department. Anyone know Patrolman Jim Manzo? Yes Miss Morway?
19.
MISS MORWAY: My aunt was married to him years ago.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you know a Patrolman Manzo?
21.
MISS MORWAY: I would not recognize him on the street. I only know of him.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And when you say you only know of him what do you
23.
24.
25.
mean by that?
MISS MORWAY: I know the relationship that my aunt had with him was not
good and that she needed to get out of it and she did. I have a cousin, they have a little boy
67
1.
but he does not have any, they don't have any relations at all so to speak.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: And how long ago --
3.
MISS MORWAY: Oh my gosh, at least, I' m estimating maybe 20 years, I mean
4.
it's a long time.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Twenty years ago?
6.
MISS MORWAY: Right around there.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Twenty years ago that their relationship ended?
8.
MISS MORWAY: Yes.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: So would you be able to set your feelings, do you have any
10.
feelings about Patrolman Manzo?
11.
12.
MISS MORWAY: No because I never thought of him as an uncle I was too

young.
MR. SPELLACY: So nothing about that situation the fact that he used to be
13.
14.
married to your aunt would cause you any difficulty in this particular case.
15.
MISS MORWAY: No.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Or any reason not to be fair to both sides in this case.
17.
MISS MORWAY: No.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Anyone know Patrolman Michael Tellings? Patrolman
19.
Kuchler? Can each of you agree to be fair and impartial in this particular case, can you listen
20.
to the evidence closely, pay close attention to the evidence and can you agree to return a
21.
fair verdict? Yes. I pass for cause Your Honor, thank you.
22.
23.
24.
25 .
THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Spellacy.

Mr. Gold?
MR. GOLD: Your Honor would we be able to take a brief 10 minute recess before
I begin my voir dire?
68
THE COURT: Any objections Mr. Spellacy?
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: I' m sorry Your Honor?

THE COURT: Mr. Gold was asking for a 10
3.
4.
5.
minute break.
MR. SPELLACY: Great.
THE COURT: Is that okay?
6.
7.
8.
9.
THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLD: I'll try to make it five Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there any juror
10.
11.
12.
that needs to use the restroom? Okay.

MR. SPELLACY: Should you give the admonition Judge?
13.
14.
15 .
THE COURT: Should we give the whole

group the admonition?
MR. SPELLACY: Yes.
16.
THE COURT: Okay. Because we're letting
17.
you go let me say to you the following, all of you, it is important that you be fair and attentive
18.
throughout this entire process. Do not discuss this case amongst yourselves or with anyone
19.
else. Do not permit anyone to discuss it with you or in your presence. Do not form or express
20.
any opinion on this case. It' s too early for you to do any of that. Do not discuss this case
21 .
amongst yourselves, do not discuss it with anyone near you or anyone around you. Do not
22.
talk with the attorneys, the parties or any witnesses that you may see. Likewise, participants
23 .
in the Trial must not talk with you. If anyone should attempt to discuss this case with you,
24.
you are ordered to report the incident immediately to the Court or to the Bailiff. You may
25.
not investigate or attempt to obtain any additional information on this case outside of this
69
1.
Courtroom. It is highly improper for any one of you to do this or to attempt to do that. All
2.
right ladies and gentlemen, with that being said let's take a 10 minute break, the restrooms
3.
are right out the door here we will reconvene in 10 minutes. All rise. All right folks please
4.
be seated. We have everyone back, right. Okay we're back on the record. All right Mr.
5.
Gold.
6.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor. Thank you. Thank you everybody because
7.
tone thing I took away from my colleague's voir dire questions was that everybody
8.
here seems to be very busy. I can certainly appreciate that and quite frankly a lot of these
9.
criminal matters really don't get to this point. A lot of them resolve one way or the other
10.
prior to putting a jury in the box and asking questions. But we're here and this is very
11 .
important and it means it a lot to myself and to Mr. Odolecki that you' ve taken the time to
12.
be here despite the fact that you all have very busy schedules. So I wanted to start with that.
13.
My name is Attorney John Gold, I represent the Defendant Douglas Odolecki and I introduce
14.
my co-counsel Peter Traska. You had an opportunity to you know to answer some questions
15.
that Mr. Spellacy asked about your background, about your thoughts, maybe share a little bit,
16.
maybe about the case and one thing that kind of struck me was one of the questions that Mr.
17.
Spellacy asked was you know what are the police' s jobs and you know does everybody believe
18.
that you know the police should be able to do their jobs and I think we all agree that the police
19.
should be able to do their jobs. Certainly reasonable we all have to be able to do our jobs. My
20.
question is, again, get a show of hands, who thinks that the police can do whatever they want?
21 .
Is there anybody here who believes that, in the jury box the police can do whatever they want?
22.
So although they have an oath to enforce the law that oath, those duties and that job has limits.
23.
We understand that there are some limits to what the police can do, correct. Does anybody
24.
believe that there are no limits in what the police can do in performing their job? And we
25.
talked a little bit about that oath and one part of the oath that Mr. Spellacy didn't mention was
70
1.
the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States because we all agree that that's part of
2.
their job to have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Does
3.
anybody believe that police officers do not have to abide by or uphold the Constitution of the
4.
United States as they're doing their jobs? No. I'd like to start with you Miss Trent. I think
5.
Mr. Spellacy was asking you about, you know, you have children right?
6.
MISS TRENT: Um-hmm.
7.
MR. GOLD: And sometimes they get into a little disagreement and you have as
8.
a parent have to make decisions and decide facts, correct. And he asked you to I think the
9.
understanding was that you have to use common sense when you're doing that, all right.
10.
Now, you know, common sense is important and I would expect everyone who's here to
11 .
use it. I don't think common sense, by its definition it's common. We don't need to be
12.
reminded you know to do things that make sense, I think it's just what makes us who we
13.
are. But there's more to this case than just common sense and you're going to see evidence
14.
and my question for you Miss Trent specifically is are you willing to look at the evidence
15 .
and base your factual determinations off of the evidence that' s provided?
16.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
17.
MR. GOLD: And that might even mean that intuitively you might believe that,
18.
you know, the facts are one thing but they might not be consistent with what the evidence
19.
UNINTELLIGIBLE, right? And if the evidence were to contradict or place in question you
20.
know your intuition, your common sense intuition, would you be willing to still look at the
21.
evidence and use the evidence to determine the facts in this case? Does anybody here in the
22.
box have a question about the question I just asked? We understand that you know we got
23.
the evidence 30% in this case and that we're going to be asking you to make your factual
24.
determinations based off the evidence? Is everybody willing to do that? Yes? Okay.
25.
Now going back to your particular hypothetical example that was discussed, you Miss
71
1.
Trent, if you have he said versus she said, that might be a situation where you would have
2.
to look at the credibility of each of your children, right?
3.
MISS TRENT: Yes.
4.
MR. GOLD: You might have to make common sense determinations of whose
5.
story makes sense, right. Do you have, when you're arbitrating with your children do you
6.
have the benefit of video?
7.
MISS TRENT: UNINTELLIGIBLE.
8.
MR. GOLD: You know if you had a video of your children it might definitely
9.
be helpful in terms of determining what the facts actually were, right? And you would
10.
want to see that video, right? And you might use that video to determine what actually
11.
happened, correct? Does anybody here have, take exception to or have a problem with
12.
private citizens videotaping police officers in the performance of their duties? Anybody
13.
at all? Do we have -- anybody here in the jury believe that private citizens shouldn't
14.
be able to videotape police in any situation? Does anybody believe that videotaping police
15.
officers somehow interferes with the performance of their duties? No? Miss Kaczmarek,
16.
am I pronouncing that correctly? I think you indicated that you work at JC Penny and
17.
the question was asked of you, you know, have you ever had somebody try to interfere
18.
with you performing your job, correct? Have you ever experienced that?
19.
MISS KACZMAREK: Well it's mostly like customers and that's like the very first
20.
thing that you know above everything else above our job, you know, what we're supposed to
21.
do, customers always come first, whether they asks questions.
22.
MR. GOLD: So dealing with customers is part of your job.
23.
24.
MR. GOLD: Suppose somebody doesn't like JC Penny, and they were outside the
25.
store with a sign that says don't shop at JC Penny, don't come here, would that person in your
72
1.
2.
mind be interfering with your ability to do your job?

MISS KACZMAREK: I mean if they're getting UNINTELLIGIBLE and if they're
3.
being like disruptive in any way and you know dealing with other customers like harassing
4.
them then yeah UNINTELLIGIBLE.
5.
MR. GOLD : So if someone was outside the store with a sign saying don't shop
6.
here and they were actually keeping customers from entering the store, that might be
7.
disrupting the business?
8.
MISS KACZMAREK: Yes ..
9.
MR. GOLD : Okay. If they're just standing there with a sign saying don't
10.
shop here you wouldn't think that that's disrupting business would you?
11.
MISS KACZMAREK: No I mean UNINTELLIGIBLE.
12.
MR. GOLD: So if they' re not physically preventing people from entering the
13.
store, they're not interfering with your job at JC Penny?
14.
MISS KACZMAREK: UNINTELLIGIBLE.
15.
MR. GOLD: Fair enough. You indicated that you're a baseball fan, what do you
16.
17.
18.
19.
think about instant replay in baseball.

MISS KACZMAREK: I'm not really a fan of it unless it works to your
advantage. UNINTELLIGIBLE.
MR. GOLD: Because we agree that you know in a baseball game it's important to
20.
get facts like if something is a homerun or not, correct? So in that sense having a video
21.
evidence , is a good thing right?
22.
23.
MR. GOLD: Anybody here a football player? Mr. Gray?
24.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Grayshock.
25 .
MR. GOLD : Oh, I'm sorry, Grayshock, I apologize. Mr. Grayshock, I'll ask you
73
1.
2.
3.
the same question, how do you feel about instant replay in football?
MR. GRA YSHOCK: For the most part it helps get things correct on the field
UNINTELLIGIBLE.
4.
MR. GOLD: But generally speaking you think that having instant replay
5.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Yeah it's good.
6.
MR. GOLD: -- helps get the call right. And in this case you're going to be asked
7.
to determine facts, right.
8.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Okay.
9.
MR. GOLD: Kind of the way maybe the referee might have to determine facts
10.
in a football game. And would you agree that having video evidence would be helpful to you
11 .
in determining what happened in a particular incident?
12.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Sure.
13.
MR. GOLD: And so if the video were inconsistent or UNINTELLIGIBLE
14.
something that was said would you be willing to give the video consideration even though
15 .
you heard testimony from another witness that might contradict that video?
16.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: UNINTELLIGIBLE.
17.
MR. GOLD: I'll submit to you that most of the testimony that you're going to hear
18.
in this case will be from police officers. Does anybody here believe that police officers just
19.
by virtue of wearing a badge and taking the oath are always correct? Do we all agree that
20.
sometimes police officers get the facts wrong? Mr. Budzik?
21.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
22.
MR. GOLD: You're an attorney.
23.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
24.
MR. GOLD : Do you have an understanding, I think a question was asked whether
25.
people should be able to say whatever they want, wherever they want to whoever they want,
74
1.
and I don't think that anybody here in the jury box agreed and you didn't agree with that,
2.
right?
3.
MR. BUDZIK: That's correct.
4.
MR. GOLD: Okay. But do you believe that people, private citizens can have a
5.
right to criticize the police.
6.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
7.
MR. GOLD: Do you believe that that' s something that's a protected right?
8.
MR. BUDZIK: I' d like to know what you mean by protected right.
9.
MR. GOLD: Well do you think we have a right generally speaking do you think
10.
we have a right to free speech in terms of criticizing the performance of officials and their
11.
duties.
12.
MR. BUDZIK: Go to a council meeting and criticize the police officers all you
13 .
want. Call up the Chief of Police and say, hey I have a problem with Officer X, Lieutenant
14.
X, you have that right.
15 .
MR. GOLD: If somebody were critical of the way and the manner in which the
16.
City of Parma conducts their OVI Checkpoints, would you agree that to some extent they
17.
have a right to voice that criticism?
18.
MR. BUDZIK: I would say yes.
19.
MR. GOLD: The question was asked before whether anybody has family or
20.
friends who are in law enforcement I'd like to first start by offering my condolences Mr.
21.
Grayshock with respect to the passing of your father and I don't want to be insensitive but I
22.
just want to call up a couple of questions like that --
23 .
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Sure.
24.
MR. GOLD: Who was your -- and if you answered this already I apologize, who
25.
was your father employed by?
75
1.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: The Summit County Sheriffs Department.
2.
MR. GOLD: Had he ever worked for the City of Parma?
3.
MR.GRAYSHOCK: No
4.
MR. GOLD: Do you know anybody who is either in the Prosecutor's Office or
5.
a police officer with the City of Parma?
6.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: No.
7.
MR. GOLD: And Mr. Budzik you indicated in the course of your profession that
8.
you at times represent municipalities in labor disputes?
9.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
10.
MR. GOLD: In grievances?
11.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
12.
MR. GOLD: Have you ever represented any of the Parma Municipal Court
13 .
communities in grievances or employment issues?
14.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes I have.
15.
MR. GOLD: Which communities?
16.
MR. BUDZIK: I'm going to go back since 19 I guess 90 when I came back to
17.
Cleveland, I represented the City of Parma under Mayor Boldt in a couple disputes involving
18.
firefighters and a contract dispute that ended up in Common Pleas Court after
19.
UNINTELLIGIBLE issue. I've done work in Broadview Heights. I currently still do work
20.
for North Royalton and by the way I'm not, for the record, I'm answering questions here I'm
21.
not trying to give away any type of client information. I do represent the City of North
22.
Royalton in wage matters. Who else is our, who else is in our community?
23.
MR. GOLD: So far we've got North Royalton.
24.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
25.
MR. GOLD: So you have represented some of the Parma Municipal Court
76
1.
communities.
2.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
3.
MR. GOLD: Have you ever represented the City of Parma?
4.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
5.
MR. GOLD: Do you still currently --
6.
MR. BUDZIK: I do not.
7.
MR. GOLD: What about your law firm?
8.
MR. BUDZIK: We do not. My representation was under Mayor Boldt.
9.
MR. GOLD: That you' re aware of, do you have any present representation of
10.
any of the Parma Municipal Court communities?
11.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
12.
MR. GOLD: So which would be present at the time?
13.
MR. BUDZIK: North Royalton.
14.
MR. GOLD: Any others?
15.
MR. BUDZIK: Who do we have, we have Seven Hills, no, who else?
16.
MR. GOLD: Parma Heights?
17.
MR. BUDZIK: No.
18.
MR. GOLD: Linndale?
19.
MR. BUDZIK: No.
20.
21.
THE COURT: Broadview Heights?

MR. BUDZIK: No longer, no.
22.
23 .
THE COURT: Seven Hills?

MR. BUDZIK: No.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Brooklyn?

MR. BUDZIK: No.
77
1.
THE COURT: Brooklyn Heights?
2.
3.
MR. BUDZIK: No. I believe my partners have done work in Brooklyn Heights
for the Village on some real estate matters and some evictions.
4.
MR. GOLD: Mr. Chuppa?
5.
MR. CHUPP A: Yes.
6.
MR. GOLD: I recognize that name I see it around in local UNINTELLIGIBLE in
7.
this area of town. Do you have any affiliation with Chuppa Market?
8.
9.
10.
11.
MR. CHUPPA: They are a distant cousin but we can't find them on the family
tree.
MR. GOLD: So you don't have any regular contact with anybody affiliated with
that business?
12.
MR. CHUPPA: No.
13.
MR. GOLD : I' d like to go back to you Mr. Grayshock, you were asked questions
14.
about the OVI checkpoints.
15 .
MR. GRAYSHOCK: Yes.
16.
MR. GOLD: You've been through at least one of them, right?
17.
MR. GRAYSHOCK: Yes.
18.
MR. GOLD: Do you believe that simply because there's an OVI checkpoint and
19.
you're driving in Parma that you have an obligation to drive through that checkpoint?
20.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I believe if you' re stopped, you have an obligation to stop.
21.
MR. GOLD: So if you approach the checkpoint and you're stopped you believe
22.
you have an obligation to go through it right?
23.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: You have an obligation to stop.
24.
MR. GOLD: All right. Suppose you wanted to go a different direction at an
25.
intersection before approaching the checkpoint, do you believe that you're not permitted to
78
1.
do that?
MR. GRA YSHOCK: If it's not your tum or whatever then yeah
2.
3.
UNINTELLIGIBLE.
4.
5.
MR. GOLD: So just because Parma might have an OVI checkpoint that doesn't
necessarily mean that you as a private motorist have to drive through it UNINTELLIGIBLE.
6.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I guess so.
7.
MR. GOLD: Does anybody here not know that drunk driving is against the law?
8.
Is there any question in anybody's mind that drunk driving is against the law in the year 2016?
9.
Do you believe that the City of Parma needs a separate checkpoint to remind you that drunk
10.
driving is against the law?
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Objection.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go on Mr.

Gold.
MR. GOLD: Does anybody here believe that the City of Parma needs to set up a
checkpoint to remind them that drunk driving is against the law?
MR. GRA YSHOCK: I don't think they need to set up to remind you but I mean
to enforce it perhaps not to remind you.
18.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold and Mr. Spellacy
19.
I'll just say there was a question from a perspective juror here in this room who wasn't sure
20.
what OVI was. They were questioning if an OVI and DUI are the same. Do we want to
21.
address that?
22.
23.
MR. GOLD : I feel comfortable enough addressing that unless the Court
UNINTELLIGIBLE specificity.
24.
25.
THE COURT: When you ask questions

do you want to explain that it's one in the same.
79
1.
MR. GOLD: If we say OVI you might hear the term OVI throughout the course
2.
of this Trial, OVI basically it's an acronym for operating a vehicle while impaired, essentially
3.
drunk driving, driving while impaired it' s called different places, called different things,
4.
different jurisdictions UNINTELLIGIBLE but when we say OVI what that basically
5.
UNINTELLIGIBLE.
THE COURT: So we're saying DUI, DWI,
6.
7.
8.
OVI the terms are changed.

MR. GOLD: Does everybody understand that?
9.
THE COURT: Thank you.
10.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor. Does anybody here believe that the police
11.
have a right to put their hands on you if you're not under arrest? Does anybody here believe
12.
that if a private citizen is videotaping the police it's okay for the police to put their hands on
13.
them and physically stop them from videotaping?
14.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go on Mr. Gold.
15.
16.
17.
You've asked a question. Are you asking that to the general pool here?
MR. GOLD: Well I' m asking the jury.
18.
THE COURT: Okay they can answer.
19.
MR. GOLD: Does anybody here think that that's okay? Does anybody here
20.
believe that it's the polices jobs to stop private citizens from videotaping their activities?
21.
Does anybody here know what an emergency is? Bad question. Let me ask you this
22.
let's just start I'm going to start with you Mr. Budzik, what is your understanding of what
23.
constitutes an emergency?
24.
MR. BUDZIK: It depends upon the facts and circumstances I would say.
25.
MR. GOLD: And would you agree that -- so you would agree then that
80
1.
in order to determine whether an emergency exists you would have to have certain facts and
2.
circumstances to make that determination.
3.
MR. BUDZIK: Yes.
4.
MR. GOLD: One of the things that might be helpful in determine whether an
5.
emergency exists would be if the first responders or the police told you, hey, this is an
6.
emergency, right?
7.
MR. BUDZIK: Or the flashing lights, absolutely.
8.
MR. GOLD: But just because there's flashing lights, that's not necessarily an
9.
emergency is it?
10.
MR. BUDZIK: In more cases than not I would say it would be.
11.
MR. GOLD: Well but say you get pulled over on a speeding ticket, one of the
12.
speeding tickets that were talked about in Mr. Spellacy's voir dire, is that an emergency?
13.
MR. BUDZIK: No. No that's not.
14.
MR. GOLD: So the police have been known to use their rights for things other
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
than emergencies.
MR. BUDZIK: Well that's true because you were talking about responding, first
responders, and I just assumed that you were UNINTELLIGIBLE so yes.
MR. GOLD: Okay. But in all cases just seeing lights alone would not necessarily
depict that there's a present emergency.
20.
MR. BUDZIK: No that is correct.
21.
MR. GOLD: How about you Mr. Chuppa?
22.
MR. CHUPP A: I agree.
23.
MR. GOLD: You agree with what Mr. Budzik said?
24.
MR. CHUPPA: Yeah.
25 .
MR. GOLD: Okay.
81
1.
2.
3.
4.
MR. CHUPP A: I mean if somebody is pulled over like for a speeding, yeah for
a speeding they' re also it 's more of a UNINTELLIGIBLE you know.
MR. GOLD: What if police are just interviewing witnesses, would you consider
that an emergency?
5.
MR. CHUPPA: No.
6.
MR. GOLD: Would anybody here consider that an emergency if the police were
7.
just taking witness statements?
8.
MISS HARDINK: Can I ask something?
9.
MR. GOLD: Sure, absolutely.
10.
MISS HARDINK: If you're at an intersection or there's
11.
heavy traffic and it's to the public's welfare
12.
MR. GOLD: Um-hmm.
13.
MISS HARDINK: The cruiser would have a light to
14.
caution people.
15.
MR. GOLD : Sure.
16.
MISS HARDINK: That they're on the berm or
17.
something, wouldn't that apply, not maybe as an emergency but as a safety
18.
MR. GOLD: That's a fair question do you think that might be an emergency?
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Judge can we approach.
20.
THE COURT: Yes.
21.
MR. GOLD : It' s?
22.
MISS HARDINK: Hardink.
23.
MR. GOLD: Miss Hardink, thank you, so you would be looking based on the
24.
25 .
facts and circumstances that that might be an emergency.

MISS HARDINK: Well even when you drive and you see police cruisers with
82
1.
the lights on, you assume there's an accident there's some kind of problem up ahead and
2.
you can't judge until you get there whether it's an emergency or not.
MR. GOLD: If it is an emergency and you were somewhere you weren't supposed
3.
4.
to be would it be helpful to you for someone to say hey this is an emergency, get out of here?
5.
MISS HARD INK: If somebody told me it was an emergency up ahead?
6.
MR. GOLD: Sure, that information would be useful to you.
7.
MISS HARDINK: Yeah.
8.
MR. GOLD: Okay. Does anybody consider somebody having a bad day being
9.
an emergency? We all have bad days, right?
10.
MISS HARDINK: It depends on what they're doing on a bad day.
11.
MR. GOLD: All you know is they're having a bad day. I tell you I'm having
12.
a bad day
13.
MISS HARDINK: It depends on their actions.
14.
MR. GOLD: I'm sorry?
15.
MISS HARDINK: It depends on what action they're taking on the bad day.
16.
MR. GOLD: If they're standing there saying so and so is having a bad day, would
17.
18 .
19.
20.
21.
you consider that an emergency?

MISS HARDINK: Well if they're just standing there but if they're doing
something yes.
MR. GOLD: Like what, what kind of things would you expect to see them doing
if it were an emergency?
22.
MISS HARDINK: Hitting someone, coming at someone.
23.
MR. GOLD: Okay.
24.
MISS HARDINK: It depends.
25.
MR. GOLD: What else?
83
1.
MISS HARDINK: Being disruptive, keeping them from doing their jobs.
2.
MR. GOLD: Miss Morway.
3.
MISS MORWAY: Sir?
4.
MR. GOLD: What kind of things would you consider being an emergency?
5.
MISS MOREWAY: I would feel an emergency is something where you don't
6.
feel -- it's hard because everybody would feel differently, you don't have the tools to fix
7.
whatever it is that's happening to you at that moment.
8.
9.
MR. GOLD: Once the problem is solved or fixed would you consider that to still
be an emergency?
10.
MISS MORWAY: Whoissayingit'sfixed?
11.
MR. GOLD: Well I'm just asking you --
12.
MISS MORWAY: If I feel it's fixed.
13.
MR. GOLD: If you feel that the problem has been solved, emergency, whatever
14.
the emergency is, that it's been taken care of and addressed, do you think that the emergency
15.
still exists?
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
MISS MORWAY: Ifl should feel that I would not need outside help then I
would probably feel that yes it's not an emergency anymore.
MR. GOLD: Do you believe that an emergency exists simply because the police
are present?
MISS MORWAY: If a policeman had been called it probably isn't the nothing
21.
situation, I would hope they were called for a very specific reason. Just because they're there
22.
is it a true emergency, not necessarily. I know when I speak of an emergency before and
23.
having those tools to fix something, without a crime or anything in place when we had a fire
24.
in our kitchen and we called EMS and police, by the time they got there we were out,
25.
everything is good and it was just a minor thing, I mean we called because it was more a
84
1.
panic situation so at that particular moment when we called we didn't feel we had the tools
2.
to fix what we needed, we needed something more extreme. By the time they got there,
3.
everything was back in order and yes our neighbors saw an ambulance, our neighbors saw a
4.
police car and everything but there wasn't an emergency at that moment so no I don't think
5.
that just because police are there in that moment there is an extreme emergency.
6.
MR. GOLD: Has anybody ever seen news coverage of emergencies on TV or on
7.
the news? All ofus probably I mean watching the news we see it and there are people,
8.
obviously you've seen that video coverage because somebody took the video, right. It makes
9.
sense, is that common sense we're talking about, somebody had to take the video. Does
10.
anybody believe that simply videotaping an emergency interferes with the first responders or
11.
polices ability to deal with that emergency? Does anybody believe that it does? We talked
12.
a little bit about negative interaction with the police and some of us have had speeding tickets
13.
and I think that, I think it was you Miss Trent who said you know look I know it's speeding,
14.
I know I did the crime, didn't have a problem with the police officer doing his job, correct?
15.
MISS TRENT: Correct.
16.
MR. GOLD: Okay. Supposed you weren't speeding, would you have a problem
17.
at that point with receiving a ticket?
18.
MISS TRENT: Well I probably would fight the ticket ifl wasn't speeding.
19.
MR. GOLD: So in that situation even though the police officer is just doing his
20.
job, you might not be happy with the way the police officer is doing it, right? Is that fair?
21.
MISS TRENT: I guess that's fair.
22.
MR. GOLD: You don't want to get accused and convicted of an offense that you
23.
didn't commit right?
24.
MISS TRENT: Right.
25.
MR. GOLD: Okay. And if somebody accused you of doing something that you
85
1.
didn't do, a police officer accused you of doing something you know you didn't do would it
2.
be reasonable to conclude that you might have a negative, a negative view of how that police
3.
officer did his job?
4.
5.
MISS TRENT: I've never been in that situation but I can only assume it's human
nature I would be upset about it, feel differently.
6.
MR. GOLD: So how we view police, you know, it determined by the specific
7.
facts and circumstances, right. And just because nobody here might have had a negative
8.
experience with the police can we all agree that that doesn' t mean that other people shouldn't
9.
have negative views or experiences with police. Is that fair. We talked about jobs. Do we
10.
think it's the polices job to protect children from particular language? Do we think that that's
11.
their job? Does anybody here think it's the job of the police to arrest people who use
12.
profanity and you' re going to hear some four letter words in this case, I'm warning you right
13.
now, who use profanity simply in the presence of children; do you think that's one of their
14.
jobs? Okay. You' re a football fan Mr. Grayshock have you been to Cleveland Brown's
15.
Stadium?
16.
17.
MR. GOLD: Been there for the Steeler' s/Brown's?
18.
MR. GRAYSHOCK: Yes.
19.
MR. GOLD: Kids go to those games right?
20.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: Some do, yes.
21.
MR. GOLD: Okay. And people use some unsavory language at those games,
22.
right. Are they criminals?
23.
MR. GRA YSHOCK: No not for the language.
24.
MR. GOLD: Okay, understood, thank you for clarifying. I'd like to again
25.
conclude by thanking all of you for your time here today thus far and you know I really have
86
1.
nothing else Mr. Spellacy did a very thorough job on his voir dire and quite frankly stole
2.
some of my thunder, asked a lot of questions I ordinarily would have asked that there is no
3.
reason for me to rehash that. I think I'm done and thank you for your time and we may
4.
not be talking again and I'll turn it over to the Court.
5.
THE COURT: Pass for cause?
6.
MR. GOLD: Could we have a quick sidebar Your Honor?
7.
THE COURT: Sure. So you'll pass for
8.
cause, all right peremptory challenges. Ladies and gentlemen let me just explain what's going
9.
to happen now. The attorneys have an opportunity since they had a conversation with you,
10.
they have an opportunity to excuse some of you and again I think both these fine gentlemen,
11.
fine attorneys will tell you that it's nothing personal, don't be offended if they're asking you
12.
to leave, it' s just they feel that maybe there ' s a conflict or maybe you don't fit well in their
13.
perception of this particular case so again I'm going to start with Mr. Spellacy.
14.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor. We're satisfied with the jury as it's
presently constituted.
16.
17.
18.
THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Spellacy,

Mr. Gold?
MR. GOLD: I would like to excuse juror number one Your Honor.
19.
THE COURT: You thought so Mr.
20.
Budzik, you thought you were going. Thank you, thank you Mr. Budzik. Mr. Budzik, I
21.
believe and Kim will tell me that I'm the only one with jury trials this week and I think this
22.
is the only one so if you are excused you do not have to report any longer which means you
23.
have to go back to work. Thank you sir for your service.
24.
25.
MR. BUDZIK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right now for all of you
87
1.
that are sitting back there especially the ones in the back row with their heads down thinking
2.
there ' s no way that the Judge is going to choose me, I do have a list here and I have to go by
3.
the list so the next person that' s going to take this, what we' ll call the hot seat, hot seat number
4.
one is Mr. Charles Drake. Come on up here Mr. Drake. Now to both Mr. Spellacy and Mr.
5.
Gold because they' re going to be able to ask you some questions, however, I would like Mr.
6.
Spellacy and Mr. Gold to know that during many of your questions Mr. Drake was in the back
7.
raising his hand. So there are quite a few questions that he has. Mr. Spellacy I'm going to
8.
allow you to start with Mr. Drake but again just so both of you gentlemen know, when you
9.
were asking questions, he put up his hand quite a few times; isn't that correct Mr. Drake?
10.
MR. DRAKE: Yes.
11.
12.
13.
THE COURT: You' ve got a lot to tell us

today.
MR. DRAKE: Well the biggest thing is I prefer not to be sitting here.
14.
15.
16.
THE COURT: Okay. I kind of prefer not

to be sitting here either to be perfectly honest with you.
MR. DRAKE: Well with all respect to you, the officers, I prefer not to be here.
17.
THE COURT: Okay so Mr. Spellacy is
18 .
going to ask you some questions and then when he' s done Mr. Gold is going to get an
19.
opportunity to ask you some questions also. Okay? All right Mr. Spellacy.
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor. Good afternoon sir. You mentioned
you prefer not to be sitting there.
22.
MR. DRAKE: Correct.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Why would you prefer not to be sitting there.
24.
MR. DRAKE: Well number one, you look around the room, between me and her
25 .
we the only two people of color. Number two, with all the things that's been going on with,
88
1.
you know black people my attitude is not really the right attitude to be sitting here.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: So are you a citizen in the Parma Court district?
3.
MR. DRAKE: Yes I live in North Royalton.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: This is your community.
5.
MR. DRAKE: Correct.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: You have the right to make decisions UNINTELLIGIBLE,
7.
correct?
8.
MR. DRAKE: Correct.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Is it your concern that you can't be fair and impartial because
10.
of some of the things that have happening in our community in Northeast Ohio?
11.
MR. DRAKE: Correct.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: And it's your concern that you can't be fair and impartial to
13 .
the City of Parma and the police officers; is that accurate?
14.
MR. DRAKE: Yes.
15 .
MR. SPELLACY: So -- and I appreciate your honesty sir that's what this whole
16.
process is about. This process is about seeing if any of us have any prejudices. Prejudices is
17.
a term that it's a raw term, for instance, I don't like the Pittsburgh Steelers, okay. I probably
18.
might not be the right person in something involving the Pittsburgh Steelers. I have a
19.
prejudice against the Pittsburgh Steelers. In this particular case because of some of the things
20.
that have been happening, you have a concern that you can't be fair to the City and its police
21.
officers who will be testifying; is that accurate?
22.
23.
24.
25.
MR. DRAKE: Pretty much, I mean not all of them, but yeah that's pretty accurate.
I got an example for you, something of my own.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor may we approach?
THE COURT: Sure. Mr. Gold. Sir are
89
1.
you telling us that under no circumstances will you be able to keep an open mind here?
2.
MR. DRAKE: Correct.
3.
4.
THE COURT: You're not going to be able

to keep an open mind?
5.
MR. DRAKE: Correct.
6.
7.
8.
THE COURT: You' ve already made up

your mind.
MR. DRAKE: Yes.
9.
10.
THE COURT: The police are guilty.

MR. DRAKE: No not all are.
THE COURT: Okay, which means if not
11.
12.
13.
all are guilty then you have an open mind that some of them aren't.
MR. DRAKE: Yeah.
14.
15.
THE COURT: Is that correct?

MR. DRAKE: Yeah.
16.
THE COURT: Okay. So you could listen to
17.
evidence and testimony and only when that evidence and testimony is all over then you can
18.
make a decision as to whether or not this particular officer did anything wrong or that
19.
particular officer or that Defendant; is that true? I mean sitting right here have you decided
20.
the case sitting right here?
21.
MR. DRAKE: I don' t know what the case is.
22.
THE COURT: Absolutely. And sitting right
23 .
here have you decided that every officer, Parma Police Officer, Parma Heights Police Officer
24.
is guilty no matter what; have you made that decision?
25.
MR. DRAKE: No.
90
1.
2.
THE COURT: Okay and sitting right here

have you decided that Mr. Odolecki is guilty because he' s sitting right there, he' s guilty.
3.
MR. DRAKE: I don' t know what the situation is.
4.
5.
THE COURT: All right so you can' t say that

he's guilty.
6.
MR. DRAKE: No but I can say how I feel.
7.
THE COURT: Absolutely.
8.
MR. DRAKE: And that's what I'm saying.
9.
10.
THE COURT: So are you telling the Court

that you won't even listen to the testimony that's presented by the City of Parma?
11.
MR. DRAKE: Pretty much.
12.
THE COURT: And we understand what you
13.
prefer and what you don't prefer. There's a lot of people that don't want to be here today.
14.
Are you telling the Court that no matter what they say to you you're not going to be able to
15.
listen?
16.
MR. DRAKE: No.
17.
18.
19.

to listen?
MR. DRAKE: No.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

to keep an open mind?
MR. DRAKE: No.
MR. GOLD: I have nothing further to add.
THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you sir,
91
1.
you' re dismissed. Mr. Heidenreich? Thank you sir, right up here. Mr. Spellacy?
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor. Good afternoon sir. This has been a
3.
lengthy process to try to get to a fair and impartial jury in this particular case. A lot of
4.
questions have been asked by myself and it's necessary and by Mr. Gold. Is there anything
5.
that you want to bring to my attention now that may speed up this process?
6.
MR. HEIDENREICH: No.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. You've heard the questions about this being your
8.
community and you get to make the decisions of what happened or what didn't happen,
9.
correct?
10.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Correct.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: You heard the questions about following the Judge's
12.
instructions as to what the law in this particular is, right?
13.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: You heard Mr. Gold talk about well what is an emergency,
15 .
do you think this is an emergency, do you think that is an emergency, do you think this is
16.
an emergency, do you think that is an emergency, you heard those questions.
17.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes I did.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Can you wait until you hear the instruction oflaw
19.
from the Judge as to what an emergency is?
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: And can you wait until you see the facts?
22.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: And the evidence that are presented to you --
24.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: -- before you determine whether there is an emergency or not.
92
1.
Or whether there was an emergency situation or whether or not the Defendant's actions
2.
constituted misconduct at an emergency, okay. That' s one of the charges.
3.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Okay.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: So sir you heard the questions by Mr. Gold as to police officers
5.
upholding the constitution and enforcing the constitution, correct?
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: You're going to hear from the Judge that what the law is, all
8.
right, with respect to these particular charges, okay. And you're going to hear from the Judge
9.
that the laws are constitutional, okay, presumed to be constitution, okay. So your job is going
10.
to be determining what the facts are, and once you determine what those facts are, you're
11 .
going to determine, based upon the law given you by the Judge, whether or not Mr. Odolecki
12.
and whether the City has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Odolecki committed
13 .
those crimes, okay. Can you do that?
14.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes I can.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: But can you wait until you hear all the evidence before you
16.
do that?
17.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: So during this voir dire process and I don't want you to jump
19.
to conclusions or during Opening Statements jump to conclusion as to what is an emergency,
20.
what isn't an emergency okay. Let me ask you this, do you think somebody attempting
21.
suicide and police responding and trying to get somebody not to attempt suicide, do you think
22.
that is an emergency situation?
23.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes I do.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: You were asked -- the jurors were asked questions about
25.
whether or not a citizen has a right to videotape police. Without knowing anything else,
93
1.
without knowing any of the surrounding facts, you can't answer that question, can you?
2.
MR. HEIDENREICH: I'd say yes.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: The question Mr. Gold asked was do people have a right to
4.
videotape police, okay. That' s a kind of a broad question without knowing any other facts.
5.
Where, what else is going on, right, you want to know that, right?
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: You want to know whether they were told to get away, correct?
8.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: You would want to know whether or not they walked up on an
10.
emergency situation, correct?
11.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: You would want to know whether their presence was
13.
aggravating that situation, would you not?
14.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: And you would want to know whether they were told to get
16.
away, correct?
17.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: You' ll wait to hear all of that will you not before you make
19.
a decision in this case.
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: And can you be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?
22.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes I can.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you personally had any negative or positive experiences
24.
25.
with the police, Parma Police.

MR. HEIDENREICH: No I haven't.
94
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Or any police. Have you had any friend or family member
who served in law enforcement?
3.
MR. HEIDENREICH: No I don't.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you had any friends or family members who have had
5.
a negative interaction with the police?
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you ever had to call upon a police officer for help or
8.
for assistance?
9.
MR. HEIDENREICH: No I haven't.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: And if you had the need to call for the police would you
11.
expect them to respond and help you?
12.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes I would.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you ever served on a jury before?
14.
MR. HEIDENREICH: No I haven 't.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: What did you think when you got that postcard in the mail
16.
17.
18.
saying that you were going to be here today?

MR. HEIDENREICH: I was called down to Cleveland down there and I was
expecting a long wait based on my experience down there and just sitting around.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay, oh, Cuyahoga County?
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: All right. So you waited on the fourth floor there for a while?
22.
MR. HEIDENREICH: For almost all week, yes.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Did you ever get called up?
24.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes I did.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: And did you get on a case?
95
1.
MR. HEIDENREICH: No I didn't.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Did you ever go through this process where you were
3.
questioned?
4.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you want to serve on this case?
6.
MR. HEIDENREICH: I could, yes.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you think you're a fair person?
8.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes I do.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Tell me a little bit about yourself, things you like to do.
10.
MR. HEIDENREICH: I own my own packaging business I distribute packaging
11.
material. I like sports, Cleveland sports fan, all Cleveland sports teams I like. I like to
12.
participate in golf, basketball doing things like that.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you think people have a right to say whatever they want,
14.
whenever they want, however they want in front of whoever they want or do you think there
15.
should be laws -
16.
17.
MR. HEIDENREICH: They have a right to say whatever they want, should they,
no but --
18.
MR. SPELLACY: If the law, if you hear the law from the Judge that says that if
19.
you do or say certain things in the presence of certain people, that that constitutes a crime --
20.
MR. GOLD : Objection.
21.
22.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy.

MR. GOLD: Can we have a sidebar please.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. GOLD: I didn't say anything.
THE COURT: Okay I thought you had
96
1.
something else to say to the Court.
2.
MR. GOLD: No.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you follow the Judge' s instructions --
4.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: -- on what the law is.
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: And can you look at the facts, determine the facts based upon
8.
the law given to you, apply that law?
9.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: It's not what Mr. Odolecki says, not what Mr. Gold says it's
11.
not what I say but what the Judge tells you, that's certainly fair.
12.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Fair.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you have any particular attitudes about drunk driving?
14.
MR. HEIDENREICH: That drunk driving shouldn't happen.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you think officers should have the ability to enforce those
16.
laws?
17.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you think officers -- what do you think about checkpoints,
19.
OVI checkpoints?
20.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Since driving is a privilege, they have the right to be set up.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: You think their presence can make a difference in being a
22.
deterrent?
23.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: You think their presence can be of -- serve an educational
25.
purpose to the public?
97
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you think just because somebody doesn't like the police
3.
that they have a right to interfere with what the police are doing when they' re doing their
4.
jobs?
5.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Basically yes.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you think that just because somebody may not like the
7.
police that they have a right to interfere or harass the police when the police are in the
8.
performance of their job?
9.
MR. HEIDENREICH: UNINTELLIGIBLE.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you have children?
11.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Are you married?
13.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: And where are you employed?
15.
MR. HEIDENREICH: I'm by myself.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: And what is that job?
17.
MR. HEIDENREICH: I' m a packaging distributor.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: And have you ever had anyone try to interfere with your
19.
ability to do your job?
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further, I pass for cause Your Honor.
22.
23.

Mr. Gold?
24.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor. Good morning Mr. Heidenreich.
25.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Good morning.
98
1.
MR. GOLD: Am I pronouncing that correctly?
2.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Yes you are.
3.
MR. GOLD: Have you ever been in a situation where you thought you had to
4.
stand up to something you didn't agree with?
5.
6.
MR. GOLD: Have you ever criticize the government in any way, shape or form?
7.
MR. HEIDENREICH: No I haven't. I don't agree with everything but I don't
8.
criticize like publicly like demonstrate.
9.
10.
MR. GOLD: Do you have any problem with people who do publicly demonstrate
their, their disagreements with the government?
11.
12.
MR. GOLD: Do you have any problem with people standing on the sidewalks
13.
holding signs displaying their disagreement with the government.
14.
15.
MR. GOLD: Do you think that standing on a sidewalk, holding a sign interferes
16.
with police duties somehow?
17.
18.
MR. GOLD: Do you think videotaping somehow interferes with police
19.
20.
duties.
MR. HEIDENREICH: If you're not directly in conflict of, in the middle of the
21.
situation, if you're at least standing off to the side or something, videotaping and not part
22.
of the conflict I don't object to it.
23.
MR. GOLD : So as long you're not, the person is not interjecting themselves into --
24.
25.
MR. GOLD: -- the situation you don't see a problem with that. Do you see a
99
1.
problem with people who use four letter words to communicate their displeasure, do you know
2.
what I mean by four letter words.
3.
4.
MR. GOLD: Do you have a problem with that?
5.
6.
MR. GOLD: Pass for cause Your Honor. Thank you sir.
7.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: We' re satisfied with the jury as presently constituted.

THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Spellacy,
9.
10.
Mr. Gold?
11.
12.
MR. GOLD: Can I just have one moment to confer with Counsel, please Your
Honor.
13.
THE COURT: Sure. Of course.
14.
15.
MR. GOLD: At this time Your Honor we ask that juror number five be
excused.
16.
17.
THE COURT: Miss Briggs.

MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor, yes Your Honor.
18.
THE COURT: Miss Briggs, thank you
19.
ma'am you can gather up your belongings. Again your service is now done, you do not have
20.
to report, you do not have to call tomorrow. Thank you for your service. Todd Barnes.
21.
Mr. Spellacy we'll start with you.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Good afternoon Mr. Barnes.
23.
MR. BARNES: Good afternoon.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: You've heard a lot of questions.
25 .
MR. BARNES: Yes sir.
100
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Is there anything that you want to bring to our attention at
the outset of maybe some of the responses that you would have to some of those questions.
3.
MR. BARNES: Nothing really. All pretty basic.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you tell me a little bit about yourself.
5.
MR. BARNES: Well I've lived in Parma for the past 22 years with my wife. I
6.
have three kids, two of them are at Ohio State one is still at Parma. For the past five or six
7.
years I've always been up at the high school running booster clubs, athletic groups I'm
8.
a millwright at UNINTELLIGIBLE Steel I work there now. That' s pretty much about it.
9.
Big Browns fan, I hate the Steelers too.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: I see you have an Indians jacket too.
11.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: All right. Great Cleveland sports fan?
13.
MR. BARNES : Yes sir.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: How old are your kids?
15.
MR. BARNES: Nineteen and 18 are in Columbus and 16 is still at the high school.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: So are you a Buckeye fan too?
17.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Any particular opinions with respect to OVI or DUI
19.
20.
21.
checkpoints?
MR. BARNES: Nothing really I've hit a few of them coming home from work
and they ask you a couple questions, if you're okay then you drive by.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: You have no problem with the police officers ability to do that?
23.
MR. BARNES: No sir.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you ever had any particular positive or negative
25.
interaction with Parma Police or any police?
101
1.
MR. BARNES: Nothing out of the ordinary. I've got my speeding tickets over my
2.
time in life and you either question it or you don't question it. It's just nothing that strikes you
3.
as out of the ordinary it's just things that happen.
4.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you think you could be fair and impartial to both the City
and Mr. Odolecki in this particular case?
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you listen to the Judge on the jury instruction and base
8.
your decision on the facts as you decide them and the law that the Judge is going to give to
9.
you.
10.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: So when I question you about certain things or when Mr. Gold
12.
gets up and questions you after me, about well do you think they have a right to do this or
13.
should they have a right to do this or should they have a right to videotape or should they have
14.
a right to say anything, anyplace anytime, will you wait until you hear all of the evidence and
15.
listen to the Judge's instruction oflaw before you answer that question?
16.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: So Mr. Gold posed the question about do you think they have
18.
the right to videotape, well without knowing more information it would be impossible to
19.
answer that question wouldn't it?
20.
MR. BARNES: Yes.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: And without knowing what the law is on that subject matter,
22.
it would be impossible to determine whether or not somebody could do that, correct?
23.
MR. BARNES: Yes.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: So you want to hear all of the facts.
25.
MR. BARNES: True.
102
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: And will you wait until you hear all the facts before you make
a decision in this particular case.
3.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: And you're going to see a video, you're going to see a couple
5.
of videotapes, videotapes in this particular case and just the same when I played football in
6.
college you know Sundays were the days you would watch the tape after the game you would
7.
be like regretting it sometime because the big eye in the sky don't lie we used to say.
8.
MR. BARNES: Yeah.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Right?
10.
MR. BARNES: Um-hmm.
11 .
MR. SPELLACY: But on the same token you're going to use that videotape and
12.
you're going to watch that videotape and there's certain things you won't be able to hear or
13 .
maybe not see, will you be open to listening to other individuals explain what was happening
14.
at certain points and times during that video?
15.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: You're going to hear Mr. Gold indicated in questioning before
17.
that most of the testimony is going to be from police officers, okay. I submit to you that
18.
there's going to be testimony from Shaunda Hall the mother of a 17 year old who was
19.
attempting suicide, you're going to hear from her about what was happening when Mr.
20.
Odolecki appeared, okay. Will you listen to her testimony and will you judge her credibility
21.
just like you would anyone else' s credibility.
22.
23.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you ever had to call the police for help?
24.
MR. BARNES: I can imagine I have. I couldn't give you a specific right now but
25.
I probably have in time, yes.
103
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. And when you called them, did they come?
2.
MR. BARNES: Yes.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: When you called them did they come and help?
4.
MR. BARNES: Yes.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you think that people have a right to interfere with the
6.
police officers ability to do their jobs?
7.
MR. BARNES : No I don't think they do.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: If you, well the Judge is going to give you the law, okay.
9.
MR. BARNES: Um-hmm.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: And will you agree to follow that law regardless of whether you
11.
agree with it?
12.
MR. BARNES: Yes.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: So for instance I might not agree that everyone needs to have a
14.
front plate on their car, okay, a back plate but no front plate. But the law says you got to have
15 .
a front plate on it, okay?
16.
MR. BARNES: Okay.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: And the evidence is the person didn't have a front plate on their
18.
car well you disagree with the law but your job is to follow the law.
19.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: All right?
21.
MR. BARNES: Okay.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: So all of the evidence was, all the credible evidence was that
23.
the person didn't have a front plate on it, right.
24.
MR. BARNES: Okay.
25 .
MR. SPELLACY: You're asked to determine whether the City has proven its
104
1.
case beyond a reasonable doubt and what is your verdict under that scenario?
2.
3.
MR. BARNES: Well if he didn't have a front plate on the car and they proved
that, he's obviously in the wrong.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: All right, okay, so it's guilty, right.
5.
MR. BARNES: Um-hmm.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: So if we prove each and every essential element of the crime
7.
beyond a reasonable doubt, will you agree to render a guilty verdict?
8.
MR. BARNES: If that' s what the evidence shows yes sir.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: And regardless of whether you agree with what the law is,
10.
correct?
11.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Will you agree to use your common sense?
13.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: And the Judge is going to instruct you that you can make an
15.
inference from certain facts okay. For instance one of the elements may be with the purpose,
16.
you have to determine somebody' s purpose of doing something, right.
17.
MR. BARNES: Okay.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: And will you consider all the surrounding facts and
19.
circumstances in determining the purpose with which somebody does something because you
20.
can't get into their heads, right?
21.
MR. BARNES: Yeah, um-hmm.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: So will you use your common sense and look at what all the
23.
surrounding facts and circumstances are?
24.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: In determining what somebody's purpose is.
105
1.
MR. BARNES: Um-hmm.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: What their intent is?
3.
MR. BARNES: Yes.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you. I pass for cause.
5.
6.

Mr. Gold?
7.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor. Good afternoon Mr. Barnes.
8.
MR. BARNES: Good afternoon.
9.
MR. GOLD: First I'd like to ask, there was a question asked previously before you
10.
were called into the jury box and that was regarding whether anyone had any family or friends
11.
who were in law enforcement; do you have any family or friends who are in law enforcement?
12.
MR. BARNES: No sir.
13 .
MR. GOLD: Do you have any family or friends who are prosecutors?
14.
MR. BARNES: No sir.
15.
MR. GOLD: And Your Honor ifl may I didn't ask the question of Mr.
16.
Heidenreich for my initial -- I'd just like to shore that up and determine whether Mr. Heid
17.
MR. HEIDENREICH: Heidenreich.
18.
MR. GOLD: Heidenreich. Do you have any family or friends who are in
19.
law enforcement?
20.
21.
MR. GOLD: No. All right. Mr. Barnes I'd like to mention that you're a booster
22.
23.
24.
25.
with the City of Parma High School?

MR. BARNES: I was. My two older ones were sports addicts and they're down
in Columbus now so my youngest is -MR. GOLD: Are they in college in Columbus?
106
1.
2.
MR. GOLD: Where are they attending?
3.
MR. BARNES: Ohio State.
4.
MR. GOLD: Are they playing sports in college?
5.
MR. BARNES: No just sucking up my money.
6.
MR. GOLD: Did they play football in high school?
7.
MR. BARNES: My daughter played all three sports, volleyball, basketball and
8.
softball and my son was a golfer.
9.
MR. GOLD: Okay. What's his handicap do you know?
10.
MR. BARNES: It was all conference, he beat me so that's all that really matters.
11.
MR. GOLD: All right. You're a football fan.
12.
13.
MR. GOLD: You indicated did you watch the Super Bowl?
14.
MR. BARNES: Yes.
15.
MR. GOLD: Did Jerricho Cotchery catch or drop that ball?
16.
MR. BARNES: From what I saw the ball moved when he hit the ground so I'm
17.
18.
19.
going to say they were right in making it incomplete.

MR. GOLD : And you're basing that on the fact that -- would it be fair to say
you're inferring that the ball hit the ground because you saw it move?
20.
MR. BARNES: Yes.
21.
MR. GOLD: So your inference as to whether or not Jerricho Cotchery
22.
caught that ball was based off of, one it was based off of the video that you saw.
23.
24.
MR. GOLD: And you saw it from two different angles, right?
25.
MR. BARNES: Right. There were four but yes.
107
1.
MR. GOLD: Okay. I don't even remember UNINTELLIGIBLE and the fact that
2.
you know just basic football physics you know the ball moves we can confer that the ball
3.
hit the ground at some point.
4.
5.
MR. GOLD: Now if you had not seen the ball hit the ground or I'm sorry if you
6.
had not seen that ball move, would that have changed your opinion as to whether Jerricho
7.
Cotchery caught or dropped that ball?
8.
9.
MR. BARNES: Ifwe wouldn't have seen the replay we probably would have
went with the official ruling and they said it was a caught ball.
10.
MR. GOLD: So we're going to see playing of some video, we're going to see
11.
some video in this case and as you're watching the video obviously there may be things that
12.
you infer but you can't necessarily see on the video; is that fair?
13 .
14.
MR. GOLD: Okay. Those inferences that you draw, are you going to, are you able
15.
to look at all of the evidence before drawing those inferences?
16.
17.
MR. GOLD: You indicated you had called the police once, just once previously.
18.
MR. BARNES: The specifics, the last time I can ever recall calling police officer
19.
was a few years ago and there was somebody harassing a kid walking down the street in a
20.
car.
21.
MR. GOLD: How were they harassing?
22.
MR. BARNES: Yelling at him, doing something, I just saw him, the kid was
23.
walking trying to tell them to keep away. My wife and I called the police, the police were
24.
there in a few seconds, the car took off.
25.
MR. GOLD: Do you know what kind of things they were doing to harass the kid?
108
1.
MR. BARNES: All I can say is the kid was trying to tell them to stop it, you know.
2.
MR. GOLD: And Mr. Spellacy already has indicated he's asked you to wait until
3.
you have all the facts and hear the law before determining, reaching I guess a conclusion
4.
as to whether or not somebody should be able to videotape the police. I don' t know the
5.
statement Mr. Spellacy said I think I'm paraphrasing that, is that about right?
6.
7.
MR. GOLD: And you'd be able to do that?
8.
9.
MR. GOLD: I'm just curious as you sit here today, is there any type of -- 1s
10.
there any situation that comes to mind where you believe someone would not have the right
11.
to videotape the police performing their duties. Can you think of a specific example where
12.
you would say no, that's not acceptable.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
MR. BARNES: Nothing off the top of my head I mean like I said specifics but
nothing that I can think ofreally, I mean.
MR. GOLD: How do you feel about private citizens videotaping the police;
do you have an opinion about it?
MR. BARNES: I mean it is a free country, I mean you can basically do what you
18.
want unless you're effecting it in some other way but I mean I don't think, like you said, the
19.
proof is in the pictures when it comes down to it but I mean I don't really have an opinion
20.
I mean I watch the news like everybody else. Anything now a days everybody has a camera
21.
so whatever happens normally is going end up on film somewhere.
22.
MR. GOLD: Thank you very much Mr. Barnes. Pass for cause Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Gold.
23.
24.
25 .
Mr. Spellacy?
MR. SPELLACY: We're satisfied Your Honor thank you.
109
1.
2.
Mr. Gold?
3.
MR. GOLD: The Defendant is satisfied with the jury as constituted.
4.
THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Gold. All
5.
right. So we have our jury at this point we do still need one alternate in case something should
6.
happen, God forbid, to one our jurors here we will have one alternate. Azmat Ather. Did I
7.
say that correct? Mr. Spellacy.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Good afternoon, was that Miss Ather?
9.
MISS ATHER: Yes.
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Is there anything that you want to bring to my attention based
11.
upon the questions and the answers so far here today?
12.
MISS ATHER: I'm a little hard of hearing.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Can you hear me now?
14.
MISS ATHER: Yes.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you been able to hear the questions and answers before?
16.
MISS ATHER: No.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: You haven't been able to hear the questions and answers?
18.
MISS ATHER: No.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you been able to hear any ofmy questions up until
20.
this point?
21.
MISS ATHER: What was that?
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Have you been able to understand my questions up until this
23.
point?
24.
MISS ATHER: Yeah.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: All right. Is there anything that you want to tell me about how
110
1.
you might have responded to some of my questions before?
2.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy and Mr. Gold,
3.
in chambers please. Ladies and gentlemen at this time the Court has a couple issues that it
4.
has to deal with so we're going to take a quick five minute break. Again please remember the
5.
admonition that the Court gave you earlier this day. You are not to discuss this case with
6.
anyone, form any opinions, talk amongst yourselves, all that is forbidden. You can't go out
7.
and try to Google or all that other kind of stuff that our kids do. To get any information,
8.
that's highly improper. Again, it' s going to be a five minute break, I will see you back here
9.
then.
10.
BAILIFF DESIMONE: All rise.
11.
THE COURT: Please be seated. All right
12.
ladies and gentlemen we did excuse one of our jurors here so I'm going to call up as our next
13.
alternate Kathleen Pokorny. Mr. Spellacy.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor. Good afternoon Miss Pokorny.
15.
MISS POKORNY: Good afternoon.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Are you any relation to the Judge?
17.
MISS POKORNY: Yes I am.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: What relation?
19.
MISS POKORNY: Mrs.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay. Judge Thomas, right?
21.
MISS POKORNY: Yes Judge Thomas.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: He served our bench capably in Cuyahoga County for many
23.
years and is still sitting as the Visiting --
24.
MISS POKORNY: Visiting Judge, yes. He's all over the place now.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Did you have an opportunity to hear all the questions?
111
1.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: That I posed of the other jurors and then that Mr. Gold had
3.
posed.
4.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Is there anything about my questions or Mr. Gold's questions
6.
that would have elicited a response from you?
7.
MISS POKORNY: The one about the videotaping like this gentleman said if
8.
someone is inserting himself in the situation, interfering or making the situation worse, that's
9.
a problem. As far as the foul language and police's ability to intervene, sorry, I've never done
10.
this before.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Well you can imagine how nervous your husband may be.
12.
MISS POKORNY: It wouldn't surprise me or I wouldn't think it untoward ifl was
13.
someplace and people were creating a disturbance and using a lot of bad language. Like I said
14.
it would not surprise me to see a police officer go over and go as far as to ask them to leave
15.
so I mean maybe that's not their place but it certainly, I would certainly appreciate it and it
16.
wouldn't surprise me.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Can you be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?
18.
MISS POKORNY: Absolutely.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you have children?
20.
MISS POKORNY: Yes I have four adult children and some grandchildren.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Do you believe that somebody attempting to commit suicide
22.
would be an emergency situation?
23 .
24.
MR. SPELLACY: The Judge is going to instruct you on what' s an emergency
25.
and what's not, what are the elements of the crimes that Mr. Odolecki has been charged with.
112
1.
If the City proves beyond a reasonable doubt each element of those crimes, will you agree to
2.
render a guilty verdict?
3.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Will you hold us to -- hold the City to its burden of proof?
5.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
6.
MR. SPELLACY: And will you agree not to hold us to any higher burden of
7.
proof?
8.
MISS POKORNY: Understood, yes.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Tell me what you like to do, what are your hobbies.
10.
MISS POKORNY: I don't much have time for hobbies. By the end of the day
11.
I maybe will sit and watch an hour and half of TV because there's no work involved.
12.
Basically I'm babysitting and chasing around -- I babysit fulltime for a two year old, there' s
13.
another baby on the way and then I drop off and pick up the others, the other grandchildren
14.
at sporting events and PSR and I have an 85 pound golden retriever so I do a lot of vacuuming
15.
and floor cleaning an untoward amount so I keep busy.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: These children that you're babysitting are your grandchildren?
17.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: Does Judge Tom help?
19.
MISS POKORNY: Yes absolutely.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Are you a sports fan?
21.
MISS POKORNY: Baseball mostly, basketball I like that because it moves fast.
22.
Football I have to ask somebody tell me if it was good for us or bad for us so it's not as
23.
much fun. I have no clue what' s going on.
24.
MR. SPELLACY: You are seated as an alternate juror.
25.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
113
1.
MR. SPELLACY: So like the relief pitcher in baseball, the backup quarterback
2.
who looks pretty on the sidelines with a baseball cap.
3.
MISS POKORNY: Um-hmm.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: You got to be ready to go into the game though if something
5.
should happen to one of the other jurors.
6.
MISS POKORNY: Right.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: You're still going to have to pay attention.
8.
MISS POKORNY: Oh understood, absolutely.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: And be ready to serve but there's a very good chance that you'll
10.
never get back in to deliberate on this case. Hopefully the jurors are okay and no health issues
11 .
or anything like that that would prevent anyone from finishing their service. But it's still an
12.
important role in case something would happen to a juror. So can you stay ready?
13.
MISS POKORNY: Yes absolutely.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: Listen to all the evidence?
15.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: And if called upon, will you base your decision based on the
17.
evidence and on the Judge's instructions oflaw?
18.
MISS POKORNY: Yes sir.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: I'm satisfied Judge, pass for cause.
20.
21.
THE COURT: Thanks Mr. Spellacy. Mr.

Gold?
22.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor. Good afternoon Miss Pokorny.
23.
MISS POKORNY: Good afternoon.
24.
MR. GOLD: UNINTELLIGIBLE. I thought that what you had said was that
25.
if somebody were using inappropriate or abusive language, I don't know what the word was
114
1.
exactly that you used, certain language that you could see the police asking them to leave,
2.
right?
3.
4.
MR. GOLD: Have you ever seen that happen?
5.
MISS POKORNY: No.
6.
MR. GOLD: But you could imagine that situation?
7.
MISS POKORNY: I guess I was just visualizing ifl was in a restaurant for
8.
example or a store and there were a lot of people around and someone was creating a major, a
9.
significant disturbance I mean making everyone around them unconformable I could
10.
understand if there was an officer present, him approaching them and just trying, not arresting
11 .
them but you know talking to them.
12.
13.
MR. GOLD: When you say making a major disturbance you're referring to things
other than just speech?
14.
MISS POKORNY: Making a -- I was thinking of being very loud and maybe
15.
threatening to the people around them, yes. Making the people around them feel threatened or
16.
very uncomfortable or concerned for their wellbeing.
17.
MR. GOLD: All right. So you would be looking at maybe the tone of the person?
18.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
19.
MR. GOLD: You'd be looking at the situation where the person is saying these
20.
things?
21.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
22.
MR. GOLD: So in determining whether you can anticipate a police officer asking
23.
somebody to leave who was using certain language, that would depend upon the environment
24.
that they' re in and what the police are doing, right?
25.
MISS POKORNY: Right, you have to look at all the factors.
115
1.
MR. GOLD: Would it depend on who the person is talking to ?
2.
MISS POKORNY: You mean if they were talking to the police?
3.
MR. GOLD: Well, like, for example I mean you know ifwe can all agree
4.
that I think there 's certain language that makes us uncomfortable. But if a person is speaking
5.
to the police, using that language in a conversation to the police themselves, do you, could
6.
you see a situation where that's happening where the police would ask that person to leave
7.
simply because other people were around?
8.
MISS POKORNY: Okay I had an answer up to that point.
9.
MR. GOLD: If you need me to rephrase the question I'll try. I guess, I'm trying
10.
to distinguish you know in your --
11.
MISS POKORNY: I can see where there would be, I would, again, I would have
12.
to see it in the framework of everything else that was going on. People get upset, people
13.
use bad language. People have meltdowns and it happens but I would have to see it in the
14.
framework.
15.
MR. GOLD: And are you willing to look at the entire framework --
16.
17.
MR. GOLD: Before determining whether particular language
18.
19.
MR. GOLD: By that rule?
20.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
21.
MR. GOLD: Yes?
22.
MISS POKORNY: Yes.
23.
MR. GOLD: Thank you very much Miss Pokorny I appreciate your time. Pass for
24.
25.
cause.
THE COURT: Thanks Mr. Gold. Mr.
116
1.
Spellacy?
2.
MR. SPELLACY: We' re satisfied, thank you Your Honor.
3.
4.
MR. GOLD : The Defendant is satisfied Your Honor.
5.
THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Gold. All
6.
right ladies and gentlemen we now have our full jury and the alternate. For the remaining of
7.
you we would like to thank you for being here this entire morning and part of the afternoon.
8.
We do know that this a huge sacrifice on your part to make arrangements with school and
9.
work and children and grandchildren so on behalf of the City, on behalf of the Judges, I am
10.
sure on behalf of Mr. Spellacy, Mr. Gold, Mr. Odolecki, we thank you for your time, we
11.
thank you for your patience we thank you for sitting here these many hours and listening.
12.
Your jury service is now complete. Again, we have no other jury trials at this point this
13.
week. You do not have to check in with anyone tomorrow, you do not have to call that
14.
hotline, your services are complete. If there's anyone that needs any assistance, if you need
15.
a letter for work, if there' s any documentation that you might need, I'm going to send you
16.
down to the Clerk's Office and they'll be able to assist you from there. Unless there's any
17.
questions from our pool out here. All right ladies and gentlemen, again, thank you, you are
18.
free to go. All right gentlemen please be seated. All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury
19.
before we go any further I'm going to have you sworn in by my bailiff if you would all please
20.
nse.
21 .
BAILIFF DESIMONE: Do each of you solemnly swear that you shall well and
22.
truly try true deliberance make in this case the City of Parma Ohio versus Douglas Odolecki,
23.
so help you God, if so, say I do.
24.
25.
JURORS: I do .
THE COURT: All right please
117
1.
be seated. Have a seat gentleman. All right ladies and gentlemen you have now been sworn
2.
in. I think we are going to take a lunch break, gentlemen is that what you wanted to do at
3.
this time? Okay. I will remind you again of this admonition and I will tell you that even if
4.
the Court were to forget to remind you, this admonition is going to stay with you until you
5.
are completed with your services. So again, please do not discuss this case with anyone,
6.
do not discuss it among yourselves, don' t form any opinions, you have not heard any
7.
evidence yet. Okay. We're going to break for 45 minutes. I don't know if anyone is staying
8.
here we can take you back into the jury room where will have coffee and water and tea for
9.
you. You can stay here and read or do whatever it is you want to do. If you want to run out
10.
for lunch, Parmatown or whatever it's called has a number ofrestaurants and fast food
11.
places. If you're going home, again we ask you to be back here within 45 minutes. If you are
12.
going home please do not discuss this case with your family. I know that, you know, I sat on
13 .
a jury and my kids were mom what's going on, what's going on. You can't tell them right
14.
now. When the case is over you can share everything that you want to share with them, okay.
15.
Mr. Gold did you have a question?
16.
MR. GOLD: No Your Honor.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
THE COURT: Did you have a question?

UNIDENTIFIED: No Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Spellacy?
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right so it's 1:30 if we
22.
can get back here in 45 minutes that would be great. Okay so when you get back if you want
23.
to just come back into the Courtroom, Kim will get you, we'll, you know, get your belongings.
24.
Once the Trial starts we can have you take your coats and purses and whatever you want to
25.
leave back in the jury room, that is a locked room so you should feel comfortable leaving
118
1.
whatever you need to leave there. Okay. Phones, cellphones have to be turned off during
2.
the Trial so make sure that you would do that or put it on mute or whatever the case may be.
3.
And again if you have any questions or problems please contact Kim. Do not discuss or
4.
speak with the attorneys or Mr. Odolecki until the case is over. Yes sir?
5.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: End of the day is there a certain time?
6.
THE COURT: That's a great question.
7.
We were hoping that because it's your first day that we would get you out of here no later
8.
than five o'clock unless somebody has an issue with that time. Is five o' clock okay?
9.
Anyone say no? You can tell me. So let's just say five o'clock today, tomorrow we're going
10.
to start up at nine o'clock so we' re going to ask you to be here about 8:30, quarter to nine,
11.
and again we' ll have you meet in here and then Kim will get you set in the jury room and then
12.
we' ll bring you out. Tomorrow we're hoping to go as long as we need to go. Is there
13.
anyone that has any problems for tomorrow going later into the evening and I'm talking six
14.
seven o' clock? Anybody have any problems with that?
15.
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: I have a problem driving after dark.
16.
17.
18.
19.
THE COURT: Okay what is the latest for

you?
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: I need surgery on this eye so it would have to be
like before it gets dark.
20.
21.
22.
THE COURT: So what is that time? Is

six too late?
MR. SPELLACY: 5:30 I think it's usually --
23.
THE COURT: So five, 5:30. Okay, so, and
24.
again we are not, we're not going to rush the parties in presenting their evidence and when it
25 .
comes time to deliberate we're certainly not going to rush you. But we're going to try to be
119
1.
as accommodating as possible, so if you want to leave at five o' clock each night that's going
2.
to be fine. Okay? Anything else? Again if you have any questions or problems just contact
3.
Kim, she'll be around and she will meet you in here and help with that. Okay. So we have
4.
everybody here, our jury is here, alternate is here, parties are all present. All right. Ladies
5.
and gentlemen at this time counsel for the parties are permitted to make what's called
6.
Opening Statements. These Opening Statements are concise and orderly descriptions of
7.
each sides claims and defenses and the evidence counsel expects to produce in support of
8.
those claims and defenses. Opening Statements are not evidence. Each side will be permitted
9.
to address you once during this Opening Statement. All right Mr. Spellacy?
10.
11.
12.
13.
OPENING STATEMENT
BY MR. SPELLACY:
May it please the Court. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. You've been
14.
selected to hear this case and decide the case based on the evidence. As stated previously
15.
you're here because this is your community. You get to decide the facts. You get to base
16.
your decision on the facts and the law that the Judge is going to give you. Opening Statement
17.
is my opportunity to preview the evidence with you. Mr. Gold and I each get to tell you what
18.
we think the evidence will show. But what we say, as the Judge has just indicated, is not
19.
evidence okay you're going to actually hear the evidence from the witness stand and watch the
20.
video which will be introduced as Exhibits in this particular case, which are evidence. I
21.
don't know how many of you remember Siskel and Ebert or Ebert and Roeber that give you
22.
the movie preview so to speak. And that's what we're here to do right now, okay. We think
23.
we know what the evidence is going to be, I think I know what the evidence is going to show,
24.
Mr. Gold thinks he knows what the evidence is going show and we' re going to give you our
25 .
preview, the thumbs up, thumbs down, version of that. I ask you to pay close attention to
120
1.
that because it is a preview and once you'll be able to see the evidence you ' ll be able to look
2.
back and see oh yeah that really does show that, okay. This case is really caught on video so
3.
the facts are not complicated. They are what they are. You're going to hear from the
4.
witnesses as to the effect of Mr. Odolecki's actions on them. We're here because of two
5.
separate dates, two separate events, okay. We' re here because there's a common theme
6.
between those two separate cases. And that is Douglas Odolecki' s purposeful interference
7.
with the police officers ability to do their jobs. On June 13, 2014 at an OVI checkpoint at
8.
the intersection of State and Tuxedo and then on July 29th of2015 at an emergency where a
9.
17 year old male, the son of Shaunda Hall was threatening to jump off the bridge at Snow
10.
and Southpark. You're going to hear from Shaunda Hall I imagine, I think about as a parent
11.
probably the worst day of a parent's life is something tragic happening to their child. I think
12.
about the threat of a child committing suicide. I think about this frantic woman calling 911
13.
for the police to some help her and you're going to hear from Shaunda Hall help her as she
14.
tries to hold her son back as he goes towards the bridge. You're going to hear that as she is
15.
holding him back that the police respond, that the response is quick and swift that fortunately
16.
Patrolman -- Sergeant Gillissie and Patrolman Tellings who were two motorcycle officers
17.
heard the call, they were on their way back from another call, rushed there with sirens,
18.
dismounted their bikes, to the point where I think Shaunda Hall will testify that she couldn't
19.
tell whether they even put the kickstand up. Rushed over to her aid and got him away from
20.
the bridge. You' re going to hear from Shaunda that she had her three daughters with her that
21 .
day. Ages seven and twin daughters six while their 17 year old brother was threatening to
22.
jump off the bridge. You're going to hear about how Patrolman Tellings and Sergeant
23.
Gillissie calmed this young man down. You're going to hear from Shaunda that this young
24.
man suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and some other psychological problems. And you're
25.
going to hear the manner and the means in which Sergeant Gillissie and Patrolman Tellings
121
1.
calm him down and got him away from the bridge, got him over to a guardrail to sit down
2.
on the guardrail. You ' re going to hear to the point where at one point Patrolman Tellings is
3.
rubbing this young man' s back to calm him down. To the point that the young man, at some
4.
point looks up and says can you stop rubbing my back please. You' re going to hear that all
5.
that happened before Douglas Odolecki decided to insert himself into an emergency
6.
situation. You' re going to see on the videotape when the Defendant arrives. You're going to
7.
see multiple officers and you're going to see Patrolman Tellings and Sergeant Gillissie with
8.
the young man, the young boy, talking to him. And by this time their actually conversing with
9.
him and trying to joke with him and talking about videogames and other things as they wait
10.
for an ambulance to arrive to take him to get the help that he needs. You're going to hear that
11.
Patrolman Kuchler is positioned further away with the mother of this poor young child with
12.
three daughters hugging onto her legs and you' ll see it and Patrolman Kuchler is trying to
13.
calm that situation down and you' re going to see that Mr. Odolecki decides that he' s going
14.
to videotape it, first from across the street, across the street, but that' s not good enough
15.
because that's not interfering or harassing the actions of the police so he makes the decision
16.
to cross the street, to assert himself, into the emergency situation and you're going to hear
17.
the effect of that and you're going to hear what Shaunda Hall says happened next. What
18.
happened next is this young man who had threatened to jump of a bridge, who wanted to take
19.
his own life, who was then calmed down, now goes back to wanting to go jump off the bridge.
20.
Now goes back to wanting to kill himself, I'm on YouTube I might as well go just do it.
21.
Why? Because of his actions, that's why. Because he chose to insert himself, and you're
22.
going to see it, into this situation. You' re going to see Sergeant Gillissie go tell him to get out
23.
of here. Before that Patrolman Kuchler says Doug is having a bad day now, get out of here,
24.
get away from here, he' s having a real bad day, can you just knock it off? Do you think he
25.
leaves? No . So Sergeant Gillissie goes off and goes you got to get out of here, he says, why,
122
1.
it's public -- the law doesn't apply to him. So eventually Sergeant Gillissie sends people
2.
across the street and Sergeant Gillissie then is able to go back to the aid of the young man.
3.
But what happens during that period of time? Because he chose to insert himself in the
4.
situation, into this emergency situation, two officers have to leave the protection of Dylan
5.
of the protection this young man and the protection of the mother and the three daughters to
6.
go deal with him. What would have happened if Dylan decided to make a beeline for the
7.
bridge now with only Patrolman Tellings standing in the way at that point in time and one
8.
other officer. You will hear from Shaunda Hall that this is the worst day of her life. You will
9.
hear that officers were doing their job at an emergency situation when Douglas Odolecki
10.
decided he was going to interfere. And this is a common plan and scheme because you're
11.
going to see videotape of his, I guess the purpose behind what he does with the police.
12.
Because he follows them around and he harasses them every chance he can and you'll see
13 .
videotape of Cop Block as to the purpose behind his actions, this is not some public service
14.
that he' s doing, his purpose is to interfere, to impede the police officers doing their jobs.
15 .
You know the videotape that you' re going to see interestingly enough is the Defendant' s
16.
videotape, it' s his own videotape evidence that was confiscated from him when he went
17.
across the street and then decided it was incumbent upon him to start yelling profanities
18 .
at the police officers without knowing what was going on, without knowing anything about
19.
the emergency situation. Because he thinks it' s his right. Because he thinks it's his right
20.
to do that. He had no regard for what was going on, no regard for the wellbeing of Dylan
21.
no regard for the wellbeing of Shaunda, no regard for the wellbeing of the officers, no regard
22.
for the wellbeing of anybody. His common plan, the common plan and scheme of Mr.
23 .
Odolecki will be evident from the evidence in this case. You're going to see, I told you there
24.
are two incidents, the incident at the checkpoint of June 13th of 2014. The officers are running
25.
a sobriety checkpoint in Parma. The purpose of the checkpoint, you'll hear from Captain
123
1.
Manning and Sergeant Gillissie is for deterrents, is for education and for apprehension.
2.
You're going to hear that you can only accomplish these goals if the cars actually got through
3.
the checkpoint. You can't accomplish these goals if the cars don't go through the checkpoint.
4.
So what does the Defendant do? The Defendant stands ahead of the checkpoint with a sign
5.
that reads checkpoint ahead, turn now. Checkpoint ahead, turn now. And you'll see
6.
videotape and this is their common motive and they say things to motorists and they tell them
7.
to turn now checkpoint ahead, turn now. You'll hear on this that several motorists are seen
8.
turning into a gas station and into side streets. You'll hear that the officers had had prior
9.
problems with this happening and had consulted with the Law Department. And you'll hear
10.
Captain Manning say that when he was at the checkpoint that day he saw what was going on,
11.
he saw the Defendant's actions and he advised the officers to advise Mr. Odolecki to remove
12.
the turn now portion of the side or he would be cited for Obstructing Official Business and
13.
you'll see the videotape of that encounter where Captain McCann walks up to him and says
14.
you know politely, you can remove the sign, if you remove the turn now portion of the sign,
15.
you can stay. He says I'm not removing anything, he says, if you don't remove the turn now
16.
portion of the sign, we're going to cite you for obstructing and confiscate the sign. And he
17.
refused to remove it, and he was given a citation and left. Again, it's caught on videotape,
18.
you're going see the evidence. As I indicated this is about a common plan and scheme of
19.
harassing police and attempting to interfere with police officers' ability to do their jobs. The
20.
charges in this particular case, you heard a lot through voir dire about what the charges are
21.
and we talked a little bit about elements of the offense. The charges in this case are
22.
Misconduct at Emergency, Obstructing Official Business and the Judge is going give you
23.
the elements but these are the statutes, Obstructing Official Business, no person without
24.
privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a
25.
public official of any authorized act within the public official's official capacity shall do
124
1.
any act that hampers or impedes a public official in a public official in the performance of
2.
lawful duties. The crime of Disorderly Conduct from the 2015 incident at the emergency
3.
no person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another by doing any
4.
of the following, and he was cited under number two, making unreasonable noise or
5.
offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly
6.
abusive language to any person. And then lastly, Misconduct at Emergency from the 2015
7.
incident. No person shall knowingly and number one, hamper the lawful operations of
8.
any law enforcement officer or other authorized person engaged in the persons' duties at
9.
the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot or emergency of any kind. Ladies and gentlemen
10.
this is your community, ladies and gentlemen the Judge is going to give you the law with
11.
respect to these elements. You're going to see the videotape, you're going see the actions
12.
of Mr. Odolecki and I'm confident as you're deciding the facts based upon the evidence,
13.
after listening to the law provided to you by the Judge, that you'll render a Guilty verdict on
14.
all counts. Thank you.

15 .
16.
17.
Mr. Gold?
18.
19.
20.
OPENING STATEMENT
BY MR. GOLD:
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. There's not a whole lot of factual dispute
21.
really as to what occurred either on June 13, 2014 at the intersection of State Road and
22.
Tuxedo. There is really not a whole lot of factual dispute as to what occurred on July 29,
23.
2015 where the bridge is that Mr. Spellacy had described. You see because during Mr.
24.
Spellacy's Opening I didn't hear a single fact alleged that Mr. Odolecki interfered with any
25.
police officers' duty or official business. Let's start with the checkpoint, Mr. Odolecki has
125
1.
an issue with the Parma checkpoints and so he's out there with a sign standing on the
2.
sidewalk several blocks away from the checkpoint as I think that the City submitted.
3.
Simply standing there, on the sidewalk with a sign that says checkpoint ahead, turn now.
4.
Now the interesting thing about this sign is that the sign doesn't really communicate
5.
any information that one, the public' s not already aware of. The evidence is going to show
6.
that these checkpoints are publicly circulated. In fact that's one of the regulations, that's the
7.
law that these checkpoints have to be advertised so to speak to the public, where they're
8.
going to be, what time they're going to be there. So he' s not putting the public, the motoring
9.
public on notice of anything that they're not on notice of already, number one. Number two,
10.
the suggestion on the sign that says turn now you know you're not going to hear any
11.
impediments that keeps anybody from proceeding on State Road that he interfered with any
12.
vehicles entering the checkpoint. He's nowhere near the checkpoint. The evidence is going
13.
to demonstrate that. There might be some testimony that, well, cars turned, cars went into
14.
the BP, cars went down side streets. Cars are allowed to do this. People are allowed to drive
15.
into a BP, people are allowed to turn down side streets. So even if Mr. Odolecki had some
16.
kind of control of these people, it' s not the case, he's not even suggesting that they do
17.
anything that they' re not lawfully entitled to do anyway. Where is the interference? I can
18.
see if the evidence were to show he was physically stopping, preventing cars from traveling
19.
State Road but that's not the case, that's not the evidence. And there's not going to be any
20.
evidence that Mr. Odolecki was at the checkpoint somehow interfering with the police who
21.
were actually operating the checkpoint. You see the official business of the Parma Police
22.
at an OVI checkpoint is conducted at the OVI checkpoint. There ' s not going to be any
23.
evidence that Mr. Odolecki was anywhere near that. We heard that in Mr. Spellacy' s
24.
Opening Statement. He's simply standing on the sidewalk holding a sign. That's it. That' s
25.
not a crime and we believe that when you get the instruction from the Court and you apply
126
1.
those facts, and those facts are not in dispute, that would leave only one result to come back
2.
with and that is a finding of Not Guilty with respect to the obstruction charge on June 13 ,
3.
2014. Very simple case. It is really that cut and dry. Let's go on to the July 29, 2015 bridge
4.
incident. Now I understand that you know there are emotions involved with this one to the
5.
extent that but you know a child, a troubled young man who I haven' t heard he's going to
6.
testify today but the video is going to show Mr. Odolecki riding his bicycle crossing the
7.
bridge and there are some police vehicles off the side of the road, had their lights on and Mr.
8.
Odolecki is crossing the bridge and nobody is on the bridge at this point, the biggest issue is
9.
nobody said Mr. Odolecki, for purposes of this Trial, is actually on the bridge. He' s simply
10.
riding his bicycle across the bridge, he' s recording what's happening. Nothing wrong with
11.
that. He's going to get to the intersection, the corner, he's still videotaping it and he's going
12.
to get off his bike, the video is going to show get off his bike and walk his bicycle across
13.
the crosswalk in an orderly fashion, okay, obeying the law and he's going to stop on the
14.
corner. He's going to discharge himselfright on the corner and videotape. Now let me set
15.
the scene for you of what this video is actually going to show, okay. The video is going to
16.
show that everybody else who is involved with this incident, which Mr. Odolecki has no
17.
knowledge of other than what he sees, is on the other side of a guardrail. He has no access
18.
to anybody. He' s not speaking to anybody. The young man, the would be jumper is sitting
19.
on the guardrail, hardly, when you look at this there's not going to be any evidence that's
20.
immediately discernable for anyone that there's an emergency going on, it's just, it's a
21.
gathering of people just standing around, literally, that' s what this video is going to show.
22.
And he's just recording it. And then you're going to hear a statement from a Parma Police
23.
Officer, hey Doug, see Parma Police know my client by his first name. Hey Doug, this
24.
guy's having a bad day could you stop that. He doesn't tell him to stop he just says, he's
25.
having a bad day, could you stop, asks him. Doug says no, since their on a first name
127
1.
basis, Doug says no, I'm in public, I have a right to video. At no point do any of these
2.
officers say we have an emergency here, you have to leave. At no point do any of these
3.
officers tell him there ' s a jumper situation, you have to leave. There ' s nothing on the video or
4.
nothing happening which would lead an ordinary person to believe that there even was a
5.
jumper because we ' re not even on the bridge at this point. There' s nobody talking anybody
6.
off a bridge, there ' s no firemen with trampoline down there to catch somebody, there' s
7.
nothing that we imagine, you know, somebody jumping that you would expect to see if that
8.
were the case. Just somebody's having a bad day. Well, when people, you know, when
9.
people interact with the police sometimes they have bad days and that's what Mr. Odolecki
10.
this common scene that Mr. Spellacy discusses, yeah, it's common that Mr. Odolecki
11.
videotapes police interactions with the public. It's what he does. We' re not going to
12.
apologize for that. And when people interact with the police sometimes they have bad days.
13 .
Someone' s bad day doesn't trump Mr. Odolecki's right to video as far as he's concerned.
14.
And so then you're going to see Sergeant Gillissie, he's going to testify. He's the head of the
15 .
traffic division here in Parma. He' s going to actually come up and put his hands on Mr.
16.
Odolecki. He's going to physically assault him and hit his camera, you're going to hear it,
17.
you're going to see it. He starts assaulting Douglas Odolecki because he has the audacity
18.
to simply stand, on the corner, and videotape the police engaged in their business. So then
19.
after Sergeant Gillissie in his unprovoked attack on Mr. Odolecki, Mr. Odolecki crossed the
20.
street, understandably upset. Somebody puts their hands on you; you're going to be upset.
21.
So he crosses the street, he says a couple things. One he says, say hello to YouTube
22.
motherfucker, he ' s angry. He wants people to see what just happened. And he also says
23 .
this guy likes to violate people' s rights, well, in Mr. Odolecki's defense when you look at it,
24.
it' s going to look like someone' s rights were violated. Again, I don't know that you know
25 .
when you take those two things, and that's all he says, that you get to intent elements that
128
1.
Mr. Spellacy was discussing in his Opening Statement. You're going to see banter between
2.
the police officers and Mr. Odolecki. These police officers who were so concerned about this
3.
young man and his mental state of being, in the presence of young children, they're sitting
4.
there barking at Mr. Odolecki from across the street. Mr. Odolecki is nowhere near these
5.
people now and the officers are still barking at him and getting into an argument. I can't
6.
imagine why, I mean, accept that I suggest that when you look at this the evidence is going
7.
to show that this really wasn't about the children, it was about Mr. Odolecki and the fact that
8.
he's videotaping. I mean those are the facts of the case. You don't have Mr. Odolecki --
9.
you're not going to hear Mr. Odolecki screaming his head off, acting out of control, you're not
10.
going to hear that. You're not going to hear him threatening anybody. You're not going to
11.
hear him threatening you know wanting to fight anybody, no fighting words. You're not going
12.
to hear any of that today. So when you look at those facts and the video is going to show what
13.
it shows and the video is going to show that. Where' s interference? You're not going to see
14.
any evidence that Mr. Odolecki was ever made aware it was an emergency, number one.
15.
Number two, even if it were, you're not going to see any evidence of any kind of misconduct
16.
because all he' s doing is just videotaping until Sergeant Gillissie engages in his unprovoked
17.
attack, which of course Parma Police UNINTELLIGIBLE. Apparently it's okay. And
18.
that's the case. What Mr. Odolecki has done when you receive the instructions from the
19.
Judge you will find that it is simply not a crime. And the City of Parma may find it an
20.
inconvenience that Mr. Odolecki choses to videotape them, that Mr. Odolecki choses to be
21.
vocal in his opinion of them. These aren't crimes either and to the extent that you hear any
22.
evidence of, you know, Mr. Odolecki's personal feelings about the police, personal feelings
23.
about the City of Parma and how police, you know, go about their business, I don't think
24.
he's wrong in that, but he's entitled, I mean this is the basis of a free country is that, you know,
25.
Mr. Odolecki is just making statements about how he feels. But that is not going to equate
129
1.
to an intention to interfere. They're not going to be able to connect those dots to he intended
2.
to somehow interfere. He intended to videotape, that's all he ever intended to do on July 29,
3.
2015. And even if every single one of you were to believe that the evidence will show that he
4.
has had intent, that he has to actually, there's not going to be any evidence that he actually
5.
interfered. Where is the interference? He' s not even talking to the police officers on July 29,
6.
2015 when they approach. He' s not inserting himself into that situation. He ' s nowhere near
7.
it. He' s on the other side of a guardrail. And in fact it's not even until he's across the street
8.
that we being to, you know, he says anything, you know, that would amount to charge
9.
language. There ' s no evidence in this case that he interfered with anything those police
10.
officers were doing. Had they just continued doing their job and doing what they have to do,
11.
there' s no problem. Instead they stop making it about their job and making it about the fact
12.
that Mr. Odolecki UNINTELLIGIBLE. And even the Prosecutor admits that by the time Mr.
13.
Odolecki got there, the young man was telling them, hey, could you stop rubbing my back, I'm
14.
okay. Well if he ' s okay to the point where he's telling the police, hey, leave me alone, I'm
15 .
okay, where' s the emergency? And how is Mr. Odolecki supposed to know that there ' s an
16.
emergency when the situation is to that point. There' s no evidence of an emergency in this
17.
case. And even ifthere were an emergency, if we were to just stretch it somehow to -- and
18.
you find that this is an emergency, the next question is, how is he supposed to know? The
19.
police don't tell him it's an emergency. The police just tell him, hey, he's having a bad day
20.
and ask him, don't command him, just ask him to stop videotaping. And he refuses and it' s
21 .
when he refuses that Sergeant Gillissie begins to engage in his violent behavior toward the
22.
Defendant. So as you're looking at all the evidence, I mean, those are really, I think, the
23.
core facts that you have to look at and I want you as you' re looking, look at number one,
24.
what did Mr. Odolecki do to actually interfere with the police checkpoint back on June 13,
25.
2014. Separately, at the bridge, what did Mr. Odolecki do to actually interfere, to stop these
130
1.
police officers from performing their duty. I believe that when you look at the evidence the
2.
answer will be nothing. We look forward to presenting the facts and I promise you every
3.
single statement that I made to you will in fact be proven through that videotape. Thank you.
4.
5.
THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Gold. Mr.

Spellacy, first witness?
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor we call Shaunda Hall.
7.
SHAUNDA HALL
8.
was thereupon called as a witness by the Plaintiff, was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth
9.
and nothing else but the truth, and testified as follows:
10.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
11.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
12.
Miss Hall please introduce yourself to the jury.
13.
My name is Shaunda Hall. I live here in Parma.
14.
And how long have you lived in Parma?
15.
We bought our house almost four years ago.
16.
And do you have children?
17.
Yes sir.
18 .
And how many?
19.
I have five.
20.
And how old are they?
21.
My oldest is 20, my son is 18 and then I have a seven year old and my twins are
22.
SlX.
23.
And the seven year old and the twin six year olds are girls?
24.
Yes.
25.
And the oldest?
131
1.
Is a girl.
2.
And you have one son.
3.
Yes the 18 year old.
4.
Okay.
5.
He was 17 at the time of this incident.
6.
Are you married?
7.
Yes.
8.
And on June 29 111 of2015 did you have the occasion to call 911 seeking help with
9.
the Parma Police?
10.
I did.
11.
Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury why you called 911.
12.
My son is autistic and we were having a pretty normal day, we had gotten a new
13.
movie and we were watching the movie and we were baking cookies and he had, he had got
14.
some measurements wrong in the cookies and he sometimes gets really, really angry and
15.
whatnot and he got really angry and was like I'm so tired of being, he used the word retarded,
16.
that --
17.
18.
THE COURT: What was your objection?
19.
MR. GOLD: Objection is hearsay.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: It's not being offered to the matter, it's being offered for
21.
why he
22.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go on ma'am.
23.
24.
baking and he made a mistake and he got really, really upset and he walked out of the house
25.
and when he walked out of the house he said he was going to jump off the bridge on Snow
Okay. So me and my three small girls we're all working together and we are
132
1.
Road.
2.
And what did you do as a result of that?
3.
Can I have a Kleenex please? Thank you sir. I immediately as he started going
4.
down our street, I went in the house, I turned off the oven and I grabbed my three small
5.
children, my seven year old and my two six year olds and I threw them into my car, none
6.
of them had shoes, we were all kind of just having a hanging out day, we were all in pajamas
7.
or you know we weren't dressed or anything and I walked out, I live on Parklane and we
8.
walked down Parklane and I had Daniel' s therapist to talk to him and try to get him to calm
9.
him down and we get to the street at the end of our road, I'm not sure of the name of, the
10.
name of the street evades me but it runs directly across the street when you get to the end
11.
of Parklane, when you get to the end of our street, it's like a cut through to get to our street.
12.
we get down there, I turn down there and there's a park on Snow Road next to, the park is
13.
here, the street is here, right here is a little like gravel turnaround. I parked my car here, I
14.
told my little ones stay in the car don' t get out of the car, I have to help your brother.
15.
Where was Dylan at this point?
16.
Daniel?
17.
Daniel.
18.
He was on the other side of the road and I had his therapist on the phone with us
19.
and we were on the speaker phone and he was trying to get Daniel to calm down and he wasn't
20.
he wasn' t in control of himself he wasn't capable of calming down. So he walked across the
21.
street to the other side of the street where the bridge is and I dialed 911 and I'm begging and
22.
begging for help because my son is bigger than I am and I can't stop him and if my son
23.
literally wanted to jump of the bridge, I couldn' t have stopped it.
24.
How big is your son?
25.
My son is approaching six foot three and he's 300 pounds and I'm five foot
133
1.
nine and I weigh about 145 pounds.
2.
And were you physically trying to stop him from getting towards the bridge?
3.
Yes I got in front of him and I was begging to please not leave us, that we loved
4.
him, and that we would help him and I'm on the phone with the 911 operator pleading please
5.
help me my son is too big to handle myself, I need help and the bridge that we're talking
6.
about is here and then there's a fence that's right here and there's a guardrail and the only
7.
thing that stopped, that stopped me losing my son that day was partly that guardrail because
8.
I wouldn't let him get over it. And the other thing that stopped it was that the motorcycle
9.
officers got there as quickly as they did.
10.
11.
they got there?
12.
13.
ahold of of his clothing and I had my hands wrapped around his clothing and I don't know
14.
where I had the strength but I wasn't letting him get over that guardrail, there was no way that
15.
my child was getting over that guardrail because if he got over that guardrail I couldn't do
16.
anything else. I'm backed up against the fence, I've got my hands wrapped in his clothes and
17.
I'm on the phone with the 911 operator. You know by this time the phone is on the floor and
18.
I'm begging for help.
19.
Can you explain what the officers did when they arrived?
20.
Two officers arrived on their motorcycles and they got off their -- they
21.
dismounted -- sorry sir it was the most horrible day of my life.
22.
That's okay, take your time.
23.
The officers dismounted and there were two men that I knew that were there to
24.
help me and you know within seconds of them getting there more people got there and my
25.
girls had gotten out of the car because they were afraid too so one of the officers had a really
So the police responded and when the police responded what was going on when
I had my hands, I had my hands wrapped around my son's clothing, like I grabbed
134
1.
good rapport with Daniel and he was talking to him and he was able to get Daniel away
2.
from, you know, further away from the bridge and sitting down on the guardrail and I was
3.
able to go to my girls and be with my girls and I called my husband because I needed my
4.
husband to come.
5.
Did the officers' actions help calm your son down?
6.
Hell yeah. I mean I don' t mean to be that way but if it wasn't for the man who took
7.
primary like there was he, he reached over and he started rubbing his back and talking to him
8.
and he was, he was, he was, got Daniel calmed down and he was telling him that you know
9.
things weren't that bad, they were there to help him and they were able to get him to start
10.
laughing and so at this point there wasn't any danger of him getting up from the, getting up
11.
from the stump that he was sitting on and jumping off the bridge. I felt confident that we, that
12.
there would be enough time for the ambulance to get there so we could go to the hospital
13.
without having to have a physical altercation with my son.
14.
15.
knew that an ambulance was in route?
16.
Yes sir.
17.
But the ambulance wasn't there yet, correct?
18.
Not yet, to the best of my knowledge -- no, the ambulance wasn't there.
19.
Now this, you said your son suffers from what condition?
20.
My son is autistic.
21.
What are the symptoms?
22.
My son today chronologically is 18 years old but on some levels he's much, much
23.
younger than that.
24.
25.
And at that point in time you were waiting for an ambulance to arrive and you
MR. GOLD: Objection, could we have a sidebar please Your Honor?

THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy is going to
135
1.
ask the question again because I forgot what the question last posed to you was, so I' m going
2.
to have him ask you a question.
3.
MISS HALL: Okay, so what' s going on?
4.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy is going to
5.
ask you another question.
6.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
7.
8.
disease, what have you observed in your son with respect to temper, I mean, start with that.
9.
10.
instead ofletting him go into some kind of facility. And he, I have observed the fact that
11.
he, his body is 18 years old but his mind is not and because of this and he has a hard time
12.
understanding how things work and operate and one very specific observation that I can
13.
give you is that when it's time to bathe I have to go down -- I have to go -- we built him
14.
a special shower to make him more comfortable because the shower that he was in he said
15.
it was too small and it made him uncomfortable so we made him a bigger shower because
16.
he's a big kid and I'll go downstairs and I will get his -- he'll pick out his clothes and I' ll
17.
get his little foofie together with his soap on it and on his dresser I'll put out his powder and
18.
his brush so he could get underneath so he doesn' t get any sores or anything because Daniel
19.
is a big kid and --
20.
What have you observed with respect to your -- the symptoms of your son's
Okay, I' m Daniel ' s primary caregiver and I chose to be his primary caregiver
MR. GOLD: Objection Your Honor move to strike on relevance.
21.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy asked her what
22.
she observes and she's explaining what she observes from her child while he's getting ready
23.
to take a shower what's the issue there?
24.
25.
MR. GOLD: The issue I have Your Honor is I don't see what this, what her
child's ability to shower has to do with the events of June 30 -- I'm sorry, July 29, 2015 of
136
1.
what he was doing that day. I understand she wants to testify as to what she observed that
2.
day, that would be fair, but I don't think that this child's entire background in terms of her
3.
observations is necessarily relevant to the elements of the offense that Mr. Odolecki has
4.
been charged.
THE COURT: All right thanks Mr. Gold
5.
6.
I'm going to give her a little bit ofleeway, so you're objection is going to be overruled.
THE WITNESS: So I may continue ma'am?
7.
8.
THE COURT: Yes you may.
9.
Okay my point in saying that is is that I needed people to understand that he may
10.
be chronologically -- he's just not capable of being independent and that another part of
11.
being autistic that sometimes my son gets very angry and he doesn't really understand why
12.
he's angry. We were having a wonderful day that day and out of nowhere he was just like
13.
I made a mistake, I'm never going to get any of this right, I'm never going to be able to live
14.
on my own, I'm never going to be able to have a wife and I'm never going to be able to have
15.
children and I want to have a career but and we've been working together with you know
16.
agencies and together him and I because like I said I chose to be responsible for his autism
17.
training and I chose to be responsible for him.
18.
So Shaunda when you said that the officers had calmed him down, right?
19.
Yes sir.
20.
So they got him calmed down.
21.
Um-hmm.
22.
Rubbing his back and he's sitting?
23.
He's sitting on the stump on the guardrail yes.
24.
Right and --
25.
They were laughing and they were joking and we were waiting for the ambulance.
137
1.
You were waiting for an ambulance to get there correct?
2.
Yes and my daughters and I were standing a little bit away from the situation
3.
where the officers were with my son, they were protecting him to make sure that he didn't get
4.
up and jump off this bridge.
5.
Okay. Now let me ask you, did you see the Defendant arrive on scene?
6.
I saw a man on a bike show up on scene across the street.
7.
All right. And you said he was across the street the first time you saw him?
8.
Yes.
9.
And when he arrived, was your son still nice and calmed down, everything was
10.
okay, while you were still waiting for the ambulance to get there though correct?
11.
Yes.
12.
And did you know whether or not your son was going to change his mind again
13 .
and then go back to the bridge, did you know whether or not he was going to do that at that
14.
point?
15.
16.
there ' d be any problem with Daniel getting into the ambulance sir.
17.
Did that change at some point in time?
18.
He had his back to the bicycle, the man on the bicycle in the beginning. I wanted
19.
to know who this person was filming us and I yelled across the street that I didn't want him
20.
filming my family that they were minors and I didn't want to be on, I didn't want him filming
21.
us.
22.
So you said something to this individual that you saw across the street, correct?
23.
With the phone, with a video phone videoing us, yes.
24.
And at this point in time, he's across the street, correct?
25.
He's on the other side of Snow Road, yes.
At that -- before the man came down the street on the bicycle I didn' t see that
138
1.
And you tell him you don' t want him videotaping, correct?
2.
More than once.
3.
And what happens next?
4.
He came across the street to, even closer to where we were and that's when Daniel
5.
realized that this man was videotaping him.
6.
7.
8.
THE COURT: Overruled. It's on the record.

Go on Mr. Spellacy.
9.
10.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
11.
So, and, you observed Daniel at that point in time, correct?
12.
He, Daniel got really upset, really agitated, really upset because he didn't want one
13.
ofhis
14.
15.
MR. GOLD: Objection. Objection move to strike. This witness is now testifying
as to Daniel's state of mind. It's hearsay.
16.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor it's not being offered to the truth of the matter
18.
it's offered for what happened next and her state of mind and the officers state of mind.
19.
THE COURT: That objection will be
20.
sustained.
21.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
22.
23.
tell the jury what your son was thinking, okay?
24.
Can I tell them how he was behaving?
25.
Yes, without telling them what he was thinking, explain to the ladies and gentlemen
Ma' am without saying what your son is thinking, okay, without saying, you can't
139
1.
of the jury how his demeanor changed once he realized
2.
3.
-- that he was being videotaped.
4.
5.
THE COURT: Hold on a second.
Once he realized he was being videotaped.
6.
THE COURT: Now you have an objection
7.
and I'm going to sustain that Mr. Spellacy. Rephrase your question for your witness .
8.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
9.
10.
of you, was he within vision of everybody at this point in time?
11.
He was as close to me and that officer.
12.
Did your son's demeanor change at that point in time?
13.
Drastically.
14.
And explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how your son's demeanor
15.
changed.
16.
Did it become apparent to you that Daniel was able to see, was he within vision
He was -THE COURT: What did you see?
17.
What I saw was my son being, he was hollering about how he didn't want to be
18.
19.
on videotape, he didn't want to be on YouTube, he didn't want to be on Vine and he wanted
20.
this man to stop --
21.
MR. GOLD: Objection, move to strike, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.
22.
23.
24.
25.
He' s telling me these things.

THE COURT: Your next question Mr.
Sepllacy?
140
1.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
2.
Did you see his -- did he become visibly agitated?
3.
Yes sir he wanted it stopped.

4.
5.
6.
Did he become visibly upset?

MR. GOLD : Objection, Objection, move to strike.
7.
THE COURT: Sustained. Okay, listen to
8.
what Mr. Spellacy is asking you. You can' t tell us what you think your son was thinking or
9.
feeling. Mr. Spellacy is asking you to explain to us, the jury, the Court, Counsel, what you
10.
observed, what did you see; do you understand that?
11.
12.
was going to be --
13.
My son was very, very upset, very, very agitated. He, he, he was scared that he
14.
15 .
THE COURT: She saw her son be scared,

she saw her son be agitated --
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Can we approach?
17.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I don' t understand the rules.
18.
THE COURT: That' s okay, hold on, Mr.
19.
Spellacy he ' s going to ask you a question.
20.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
21.
22.
when Mr. Odolecki showed up on that street corner in close proximity.
23.
24.
started.
25.
Just explain what you witnessed with respect to his demeanor and how it changed
His demeanor changed from being laughing and joking to right back where we
Ma' am I want to draw your attention to --
141
1.
It's really hard for me to see.
2.
Turn around and face that board, okay, and what I' ve previously marked as
3.
Exhibit 1
4.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy hold on. Mr.
5.
Gold if you need to move over here to see better.
6.
MR. GOLD : Thank you Your Honor.
7.
THE WITNESS: So we're going to watch the whole video first?
8.
MR. SPELLACY: We're going to watch the video and I'll have some questions
9.
for you, okay. I'll probably stop at some point.
10.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
11.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen we
12.
have a little bit of a technical difficulty as you can see so we ' re going to call a detective up
13.
here who can hopefully get us up and running. In the meantime, why don't we just take a five
14.
minute break. Does anyone here need to use the restroom? No, okay, Mr. Spellacy I'm going
15.
to let your witness use the restroom real quick.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Okay.
17.
18.
THE COURT: Okay, back on the record.

Mr. Spellacy?
MR. SPELLACY: Thank You Your Honor.
19.
20.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
21.
22.
and I'm going to play this videotape and I may have some questions for you throughout it,
23.
okay? If at any time you need to take a break just let me know and we'll take a break, okay?
24.
I don' t even hear that.
25.
Okay, let me ask you, I'm going to ask you questions okay?
Ma'am I'm going to show you what' s been previously marked as Exhibit 1, okay,
142
1.
Okay.
2.
Just so we don't have any more objections, I'm going to ask you some questions
3.
about what is taking place, okay?
4.
Okay.
5.
All right. Now is this the intersection where you and your son are?
6.
Yes this is my son over here; he's sitting on the stump with the two officers.
7.
Sitting on the guardrail?
8.
Yes it' s, it looks like a cut off telephone pole and then I'm over here with my
9.
seven year old and my twins that are six and I've got an officer over, an officer or two over
10.
here with me.
11.
12.
the officers had already calmed down your son?
13.
Yes Daniel was completely calm and we were just waiting for the ambulance.
14.
Okay. And you see there ' s still flashing lights, correct?
15.
Yes. If you could pause it for a second.
16.
Okay. So I pause it now. At this point in time are you aware of his presence
17.
across the street?
18.
Yes I just noticed that he was on a bike across the street filming us.
19.
Okay. And did you say anything to him?
20.
Yes I hollered across the street to him saying that I had four minor children and
21.
I didn' t want to be videotaped.
22.
And --
23.
I said please.
24.
Your son is seated on the guardrail?
25.
Yes my son is right there where the pointer is.
Okay so you can go ahead and have a seat again, okay. So by this point in time
143
1.
Okay. And --
2.
I don't think he's aware at that point because he was talking to the officer.
3.
And you see one officer, see the red
4.
Yes.
5.
One officer up here.
6.
And then --
7.
Another officer over here?
8.
Right.
9.
And then who is in the back there?
10.
That's me there and the small people huddled around me are my three small
11 .
children and there ' s an officer with me.
12.
Okay. All right. See that fence?
13.
Yes.
14.
Is that the fence that your son had you pushed up against before?
15.
The exact spot is over a little bit, but yes, that is the fence, right in this
16.
So right in there?
17.
We were right here.
18.
Okay.
19.
And I had ahold of him, he was going to have to take my fingers with him to
20.
get across this guardrail to get here to jump.
21.
So that's when the officers, when the officers arrived he was over here with you?
22.
Yes he was struggling with me.
23.
Okay. And then they got him to come over here and sit down, correct.
24.
Yes and the officer that took charge with Daniel was really wonderful he must
25.
have had some kind of experience.
144
1.
2.
THE COURT: Ma'am just answer the

question that Mr. Spellacy asks you okay. Don't add anything else.
3.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
4.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
5.
6.
filmed from now?
7.
I don't -- walk, I think he rode his bike.
8.
Okay. And did you see him come over to where you were?
9.
Yes.
10.
Okay. And did you see when, strike that, did you see your son's behavior change
11.
at that point?
12.
Yes.
13 .
That's what you described for us previously, correct?
14.
Yes.
15.
All right. Did you hear, did you hear the officer say you're not helping, your
16.
presences isn't helping or you're not helping or something to that effect?
17.
He said that, yes.
18.
Okay.
19.
And I had also at that time asked for him to stop.
20.
Had you already seen your son's behavior change from being calm to being upset
21.
again once he got there?
22.
He was upset again, yes.
23.
Did you hear him yelling across the street towards where you were and your
24.
three daughters and your son?
25.
Did you see the Defendant walk across the street to this position where it's being
Yes.
145
1.
Did you hear him use the F word on multiple occasions?
2.
Yes sir.
3.
And were your daughters hugging your legs when that occurred?
4.
Yes sir.
5.
And could you, could you hear clearly?
6.
Yes.
7.
And can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury your daughters'
8.
behavior at that point in time or demeanor at that point in time?
9.
10.
We don't speak like that in our family and my girls became nervous and scared.
11.
12.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
13.
14.
ambulance upset you?
15.
Yes.
16.
Did you hear the officers ask him to leave?
17.
Multiple times. I asked him to leave multiple times. I just wanted, I just wanted
18.
our family to be able to work out our problems without it being on Y ouTube or Vine or
19.
for other people to watch our family going through a terrible time. I just wanted our lives
20.
to not be on the internet.
21.
Okay. Were you fearful of the Defendant's actions?
22.
I had no idea what he was going to do, I didn't know.
23.
Did the Defendant's language cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to you?
24.
Yes. I didn't know what he was going to -- I didn't know ifhe was going to
25.
because I was so adamant about him not taping my children that I didn't know ifhe was
Did Mr. Odolecki' s presence at that corner while you were waiting for that
146
1.
going to want to come over and fight me or, I mean, I knew there was officers there and so he
2.
probably wouldn' t have been able to hurt me but he was so aggressive.
3.
What did you want to do him?
4.
I just wanted him to leave. I just wanted him to leave us alone and let my son get
5.
the help that he needed.
6.
7.
cause officers to move from the aid of your son to deal with him?
8.
Yes sir.
9.
Explain that to the jury.
10.
After I asked him multiple times to stop taping us and the profanity that he was
11.
using, I was so uncomfortable, I was scared, I was scared for my son because he was getting
12.
angry again and I know I' m not allowed to tell you what he said but the girls were scared,
13.
we were already having a really hard time as it was and I just wanted him to go away and
14.
leave us alone and stop screaming at us.
15.
Okay.
16.
I'm sorry, I forgot the question.
17.
That's okay, you've answered it. I'm going to play the rest of the video, okay.
18.
The officer with the helmet on ended up leaving me and I'm by myself.
19.
Okay. While the officers left to deal with him on multiple occasions were less
20.
officers left with your son to help your son.
21.
Yes.
22.
Did your son go in the ambulance that day?
23.
He did.
24.
And to the best of your knowledge did this occur in the City of Parma?
25.
Of course it's Snow Road.
Based upon Mr. Odolecki's, what you witnessed of his conduct, did his conduct
147
1.
And do you see the person that did this in the Courtroom here today?
2.
To be honest with you he doesn' t appear the same, the person that's in this
3.
Courtroom doesn't appear the same as the day that this happened. But it was the man that
4.
was arrested on this tape.
5.
He doesn't look the same way, not dressed the same as he was that day?
6.
Yes.
7.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: One moment Your Honor. No further questions Your Honor
thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Gentlemen. Mr.
9.
10.
Gold.
11.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
12.
13.
BYMR. GOLD:
14.
15.
lawsuit or the criminal law prosecution regarding the incident that you just described here
16.
on the video. I want to start, first, I believe your testimony was that while Mr. Odolecki
17.
was still across -- while his person was still across the street on Snow Road you had
18.
observed him filming, is that your testimony -- that was your testimony, right?
19.
Correct.
20.
How did you know that he was filming?
21.
He had his phone up filming me and my children.
22.
So you saw his phone up?
23.
Yes sir.
24.
And it's your testimony that you asked him from across the street to stop filming
25.
you and your children?
Good afternoon. I'm Attorney John Gold, I represent Douglas Odolecki in the
148
1.
Yes.
2.
Okay. Can you explain to me why we can't hear that on the video?
3.
Because he 's across the street and there's traffic, he might not have heard me from
4.
across the street.
5.
And you also testified that you asked him several times to stop using profanity?
6.
I asked him several times to stop filming my children.
7.
Did you ask him at any time when he crossed the street.
8.
Yes.
9.
Why can't we hear that on the video?
10.
Well there's sirens, there's traffic, there's all of that. I am underneath the tree
11.
and he's far away from me so I am not a technical expert on phones but the speaker is on his
12.
phone, not, I don't have a bullhorn sir.
13.
But you don't know that he heard you.
14.
No he said fuck you to me when I asked him to stop.
15 .
Well when was that, when did he say that on the video, show me where he told
16.
you fuck you after you asked him to stop.
17.
18.
officer was down by him.
19.
I don't know which part you' re talking about.
20.
Okay it was when the officer walked over, the guy with the sunglasses walked
21.
over.
22.
23.
sure I understand. Is this you right here?
24.
Yes that's me.
25.
Okay you're on the phone right now aren't you?
It was during the part when the officer was asking him to stop. When the other
Let's stop right here real quick, okay, let's back up a little bit. I want to make
149
I'm on my phone trying, explaining to my husband what' s going on so he can
1.
2.
come home from work to take the small children so I can go to the hospital with my son.
3.
Right.
4.
Now I'm not necessarily on the phone having a conversation, I'm waiting for him
5.
to go to his boss to find out if he can leave or not. I'm particularly on hold waiting to get the
6.
answer if I need to go home, get the girls properly dressed because obviously I'm not either
7.
and neither are the children, to go to the hospital.
8.
9.
are you?
10.
11.
do when he comes across there, I' m standing by the police officer to be protected.
12.
So --
13 .
Like I have no idea what this
14.
Did he say he was going to come across?
15.
He was already crossing the street. I have no idea what this man is going to do
16.
to me or my family. He's got a video, he shows up out of nowhere on a bicycle with a
17.
video camera taping my family. For all I know he ' s got a gun in his waistband.
18.
So because -- I want to make sure I understand --
19.
I'm afraid.
20.
You' re afraid of a man who crossed the street with a bicycle and a cellphone,
21.
right?
22.
Videotaping me after I asked him to stop.
23.
At what point did you ask him to stop here, I don' t see you even speaking to him,
24.
I guess is what I' m trying to understand. Show me where you address him if you can.
25.
You' re not even looking at Mr. Odolecki right now as we look at this video,
I'm not looking at him at that time, no, because I'm afraid of what he' s going to
Well you can't see me now.
150
1.
Okay. You're still not looking at him.
2.
I was, when he' s talking to him --
3.
You' re still not looking, okay, we agree that you're still not looking at him
4.
right here, right?
5.
6.
understand that I'm telling you that there is a man I don 't know approaching me and my
7.
four children, my son is having a hard time, I don't know who this is, I have no idea what
8.
he 's going to do to us, the only thing that I know is that I have officers around me that are
9.
going to protect me and I don't want my children to be videotaped and I have asked over and
10.
over and over again for him to stop videotaping me and if it isn't picked up on the microphone
11.
from his phone, it's not my fault.
12.
13.
to stop videotaping?
14.
And I just explained it to you and you're being mean to me.
15.
I'm just simply trying to understand.
16.
Okay see I am not on camera, you can see my, if you go back about two frames
17.
you can see where my arm turns around right, go back very slowly, no, where I am out of
18.
frame and you can see where I move to turn to talk to him. When he comes over here, you
19.
can see where I move around to talk to him. See right before the camera starts moving I am
20.
facing him, telling him, I do not want my children on film, I' m afraid, I want you to leave.
21.
And at this point Sergeant Gillissie is already confronting my client, right?
22.
He is asking him to leave also because I have asked him to leave numerous times.
23.
I' m afraid, my son is afraid, my six year olds and my seven year old are afraid. This is a very
24.
horrible day for my family and there is no reason why anybody should be videotaping this day.
25.
How do I know that this videotape is not on Y ouTube and every single person in the entire
I am not, I'm afraid, do you understand what I'm saying to you, do you
I'm just trying to figure out looking at this for you to tell me when you asked him
151
1.
world can watch one of the most horrible days of our lives on YouTube. How do I know this?
2.
Can you guarantee me that? Did you client put this on, did your client put this on YouTube?
3.
4.
you asking Mr. Odolecki not to
5.
So my question, the answer to my question is, we can't hear a single incidence of
But you can see -THE COURT: Miss Hall, Miss Hall, I' m
6.
7.
going to have to stop you and you' re going to have to listen to Mr. Gold' s questions and
8.
you' re going to have to answer only the question that he asks. So Mr. Gold would you repeat
9.
that last question for Miss Hall please.
10.
BY MR. GOLD :
11.
12.
hear you asking Mr. Odolecki to stop filming, right?
At no point on this video did we hear you, I'm going to play it again, okay, do we
THE COURT: Did you hear on this video
13 .
14.
we just listened to? Did you hear yourself on the video? That's all he asked.
15.
THE WITNESS: No I did not hear myself.

THE COURT: Okay.
16.
17.
BYMR. GOLD:
18.
And up to this point at what point do we see you looking
19.
That' s not true.
20.
-- towards Mr. Odolecki?
21.
That's not true. We can go back and we can look.
22.
MR. GOLD : The video speaks for itself.

THE COURT: I'm going to give her an
23.
24.
opportunity to go through it one more time Mr. Gold.
25.
So I'm standing right here -- can we go slow?
152
1.
I can' t do it; I don' t know how to do that.
2.
You don' t know how to do that? Okay well can you get somebody? I, right there,
3.
right before, right now I' m looking at him asking him to stop because I have two police
4.
officers standing in front of me, I feel safe, I feel, if you go back and you look, you can
5.
obviously see me standing there just before his head comes into view I'm am -- my phone
6.
is down, I' m standing in front of him and I'm saying please leave us alone, please stop
7.
videotaping us. I don't want this, my children are minors, I don' t want this and while he's
8.
standing -- an while your client is standing here he's taking away officers from helping
9.
us.
10.
11.
see you tum in Mr. Odolecki' s direction; is that a fair statement?
12.
I was afraid sir.
13.
I understand. You kept saying that and we understand you were afraid but the
14.
question was up until Sergeant Gillissie then enters the frame , we didn't see you looking
15 .
in Mr. Odolecki' s direction on this video, right?
16.
I didn' t know what this man's intentions were for my family.
17.
And you and your family are on the other side of the guardrail, right?
18.
There is no guardrail between where he is standing and -- the guardrail ends sir.
19.
So this isn't a guardrail right here? That' s not a guardrail right there? You're not
20.
standing behind a guardrail ma' am?
21.
22.
I could be, I could very well be incorrect sir but all I know is that there is a strange man
23.
videotaping my family, I have three young girls, how do we know that we're not going to
24.
Photoshop on some sex website or put it on some vigilante police site and now my son is
25.
upset because there ' s a man taping him and all I want -- all of this could have just as
So up to this point it' s not until Sergeant Gillissie enters the frame that we actually
The way the frame is set up, he does, he does move himself past the guardrail.
153
1.
simply been avoided when the first officer said, he was having a hard day, please stop
2.
taping.
3.
4.
you and your small children, correct?
5.
6.
So the answer to my question is, there's a guardrail in between Mr. Odolecki and
I'm unsure.
MR. SPELLACY: We'll stipulate.
7.
THE COURT: Okay. Stipulation is made.
8.
9.
MR. GOLD: Thank you.

A
I'm unsure.
10.
THE COURT: Okay.
11.
BY MR. GOLD:
12.
Here is your son sitting here, right? He's not looking at Mr. Odolecki either is he?
13.
No because he doesn't want to --
14.
THE COURT: All right ma'am just answer
15.
the question, is he looking at Mr. Odolecki?
16.
THE WITNESS: No.
17.
18.
19.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. Is

he looking at Mr. Odolecki?
20.
THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: In that frame right there.
21.
22.
THE WITNESS: He's not looking at him, no.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Gold your next

question?
154
1.
BY MR. GOLD:
2.
3.
son acting out in any way?
4.
5.
this man his face so people wouldn't recognize him.
6.
But he ' s just, the video just showed he's just sitting there, right?
7.
He's sitting there -- before the video started Daniel was standing with the officers
8.
and they were laughing, the one guy was patting him on the back, they were joking, they were
9.
waiting for the ambulance and once the video started, the videotaping started, my son's
10.
shoulder' s slumped, his head went down, he was trying to hide his face.
11.
12.
your son that you believe that there wasn' t any danger of him getting up from the stump,
13.
correct?
14.
15.
to the small children. The officers were able to handle my son while we were waiting for
16.
EMS and there was no danger at that point of him getting up. Until your client decided to
17.
show up.
18.
Okay. Show up and videotape.
19.
Yes.
20.
All right. So there' s no danger because there ' s one, two, three, four, officers
21 .
standing around him, right?
22.
At this very frame in this tape yes sir.
23.
So then -- and he ' s calmed down, right?
24.
He' s not calm. You can -- you can tell and with his head slumped down he's,
25.
you could see that my daughter has got her head rested up against me, the other one's got
It's -- up to this point, what we see in the video is there any, do we see your
My son' s shoulders are slumped, he's got his head down, he doesn't want to show
And you also had testified that once the officers arrived on the scene and talking to
Um-hmm. Why we were waiting -- there was no danger, I was able to move away
155
1.
her arms crossed. This man was gravely upsetting us.
2.
Your son is just sitting there with his shoulders slouched and his head down, right?
3.
Right because he is trying --
4.
Okay, now he looks over here, okay, let's keep an eye on your son, so he ' s just
5.
sitting there still, right?
6.
7.
concerned about being put on Y ouTube.
8.
9.
at this point Sergeant Gillissie is talking to my client and you still have three -
10.
No there's not three over there sir.
11.
Well there were four before and one of them walked up here.
12.
Right and if you don' t mind this is, you said this is Sergeant Gillissie?
13.
Yes he is.
14.
He was standing, he's now walking towards your client.
15.
Um-hmm.
16.
Now there's only two officers left standing with my son. This officer walked
17.
over here to back up the Sergeant in case something happened. So we went from having
18.
two officers, we went from having four officers to having two officers. My son is six foot
19.
three, going you know, getting to be just about six foot three, 300 pounds. If he decided at
20.
that point he was going to get up, he did not have the protection that he had two seconds
21.
earlier because of your client.
22.
So there's four officers around him, right?
23.
This officer goes over the guardrail, this officer walks over here, which only leaves
24.
these two officers to be with my son, who is now very agitated and upset.
25.
The other officer stepped in front of him so he could, because he was very
All right fair enough. So then Sergeant Gillissie hurdles the guardrail there so
He's still sitting there right?
156
He's still sitting there and he's very agitated and upset and that' s why the other
1.
2.
officer, the one officer stood in front of my son because he didn' t want to be videotaped
3.
anymore.
4.
5.
Show me where he tells you fuck you. Where did Mr. Odolecki say, tell you fuck you?
6.
Keep going, keep going sir.
7.
Okay you heard that right?
8.
Okay.
9.
He didn't say fuck you to you did he?
10.
Can you pause that please and let me answer the question. Can you pause that
11 .
please and let me --
12.
Very simple, yes or no, did he say fuck you to you right there?
13 .
Sir I' m hearing impaired and as far as I'm concerned what I heard your client say
14.
to me was fuck you.
15.
So you' re hearing impaired, I'd like to talk about that a little bit.
16.
Let's talk about it.
17.
How long have you been hearing impaired?
18.
My entire life.
19.
Your entire life. When was the last time you've been tested?
20.
Six weeks ago.
21.
And what is the level of the impairment if you don't mind me asking.
22.
I do not have an Eustachian Tube in my ear.
23.
So how does that effect your hearing?
24.
Okay I will explain that to you if you like.
25.
Yes.
Now you testified that Mr. Odolecki told you, fuck you, is that your testimony?
157
1.
Am I allowed?
2.
Yes.
3.
Okay what the Eustachian Tube does in your ear is it drains the fluid that naturally
4.
builds up behind your eardrum and because I was born with a birth defect that does not allow
5.
the fluid to drain behind my ear, I have a permanent perforation in my eardrum so it comes out
6.
instead of staying behind my eardrum. Now, we have sirens, screaming, yelling and the
7.
dramatic of all of this happening and the profanity that is being screamed at me, I can't be
8.
exactly sure where --
9.
Tell me when you hear a siren.
10.
Well by this time their gone.
11.
Just at any point -- okay, so there are no sirens.
12.
You're putting words in my mouth.
13 .
You're the one that testified that there were sirens and that's the reason that you
14.
had a difficult time hearing. I don't hear any sirens right now, do you?
15.
Okay at this point I don't but there is still traffic.
16.
Okay there's traffic.
17.
Either way he 's screaming profanities at me.
18.
I want to know, show me in the video, pause it when it happens, tell me when to
19.
pause it when he screams profanities at you. Let me pause it right here. He' s across the street
20.
now and you're still looking this way, you' re not even looking at him, right?
21.
Do you not understand that I' m afraid?
22.
I know you keep saying that but you' re not even looking at Mr. Odolecki at this
23.
point, right.
24 .
25 .
man can do, I don' t know if this man is one of those types of people that shoot up movie
I don' t know this m an, I' m afraid, I don't know this man, I don't know what this
158
1.
theaters or do anything like that. I don' t know what this man intends to do. I called 911, I
2.
called and asked for police to come. He shows up on a bicycle with a camera, how do I know
3.
that he's not armed, how do I know that he' s not going to hurt us? This is why I have the
4.
officer standing with me because I want to be protected.
5.
6.
Sergeant Gillissie, the video show that you' re not looking in his direction; is that an accurate
7.
statement, yes or no?
8.
When I am on video I don't appear to be looking in his direction.
9.
All right. So now I'm still waiting to hear when he told you fuck you.
10.
My question is when Mr. Odolecki crosses the street after he is confronted by
MR. SPELLACY: Objection, asked and answered.
11 .
12.
THE COURT: Overruled Mr. Spellacy.

This tape is almost over right Mr. Gold?
13.
MR. GOLD: Yes it is Your Honor.
14.
What are we going to do motherfucker that just --
15.
Excuse me?
16.
What are you going to do motherfucker that just come out of his mouth. All this
17.
type of stuff that that's coming out of his mouth in front of my kids.
18.
19.
say what are you going to do motherfucker?
20.
He's threatening.
21.
What threat is he making against you right now ma'am and why can't we hear any
22.
of that on his video?
So he said whatever, you're upsetting people with your presence, when did he
THE COURT: As up to this point.
23.
24.
BY MR. GOLD:
25.
Up to this point, what threats, there are no threats that Mr. Odolecki's made
159
1.
toward you are there?
2.
Yes sir there is.
3.
THE COURT: Up to that point ma'am.
4.
Yes sir there is. Physically he was making threats towards me and my children.
5.
His mere presence was threat to me.
6.
7.
toward you, right?
8.
What are you going to do?
9.
When did he say that?
10.
It was on the tape. And if you're going to hear what are you going to do, you have
11.
to rewind it. Say hello to Y ouTube motherfucker.
12.
Well he didn't threaten you, right?
13.
He -- my son was obviously -- my son was obviously upset about being on
14.
YouTube. He didn't threaten; he said he was putting my son on YouTube.
15.
So --
16.
So his whole presence was unnecessary, his whole presence was unwanted, he
17.
was aggressive, he was vulgar, there was no need for that. The first time I asked him to please
18.
leave, that my family needed to be okay and my family needed to be safe. He should have
19.
pedaled his little motorcycle or little bicycle and left us alone and left my family to deal with
20.
my family ' s problems. It's none of his business. We don' t know him. I don't know what he
21.
was going to do to us. I knew that I had police officers that would protect us if he tried to
22.
become any more aggressive towards us.
23.
24.
and that's hearing impairment, correct.
25.
His mere presence was a threat to you but he didn't make any verbal threats
Going back to your hearing impairment, that effects your ability to hear, correct
That's exactly what a hearing impairment means sir.
160
1.
Does it causes you to hear things that weren't said?
2.
No.
3.
Does it cause you to hear sirens that aren't there?
4.
You know what you're being very combative to me, you're being very nasty
5.
and it's inappropriate.
6.
MR. GOLD: I have no further questions Your Honor.
7.
8.
THE COURT: I have no further questions

Your Honor. Thank you Mr. Gold. Mr. Spellacy?
9.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
10.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
11.
Ma'am your son had threatened to commit suicide, correct, that day?
12.
Yes.
13.
And the officers had calmed him down before Mr. Odolecki got there?
14.
Yes.
15.
Did your son threaten to kill himself again after Mr. Odolecki got on scene?
16.
When he said, say hello to YouTube my son said, I might as well jump off the
17.
fucking bridge now.
18.
MR. SPELLACY: No further questions thank you.
19.
MR. GOLD: Can I have a briefre-cross only based on that Your Honor?
20.
THE COURT: Yes.
21.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
22.
BY MR. GOLD:
23 .
24.
all the way over here and you're son is over here surrounded by two police officers, but
25.
you heard him say that crystal clear, right?
So ma'am just so I understand you and your hearing impairment were standing
161
1.
He's my son, he was screaming it, he was scared.
2.
I don't hear him screaming on the video.
3.
He's across the --
4.
5.
MR. SPELLACY: Objection -A
The guy is filming, he' s across the street.

THE COURT: Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am
6.
7.
hold on a second, hold on a second. Mr. Spellacy your objection?
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Objection as to what Mr. Gold hears.
9.
10.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold would you rephrase

your question.
11.
MR. GOLD: Yes Your Honor.
12.
BYMR. GOLD:
13.
Are you able to hear, on this video, your son screaming?
14.
He's my son -THE COURT: No, no, ma'am.
15.
16.
Of course I can hear my children.

THE COURT: On this video can you hear
17.
18.
your son screaming?
19.
20.
going to be on Y ouTube.
I can hear my son saying that he might as well jump off the bridge ifhe was
21.
THE COURT: On this video, that we're
22.
all watching, can you hear, can we, can you hear it on this video?
23.
Can I hear it on the physical video?
24.
25.
THE COURT: On this video right here that

we're watching?
162
1.
No.
2.
3.
THE COURT: Okay.
I heard him --
4.
THE COURT: Hold on a second, hold on a
5.
second. Mr. Gold your question.
6.
BY MR. GOLD:
7.
8.
saying from his vantage point, on this video, but you were clearly able to hear what your son
9.
was saying all the way over here on the stump; is that your testimony?
10.
Can I explain please?
11.
No my question is this.
12.
I will answer your question but I would like to give you detail.
13.
The question --
So just so we're clear, you were unable to clearly hear what Mr. Odolecki was
14.
15.
THE COURT: Hold on a second.

Q
it is a yes or no
16.
THE COURT: Hold on Mr. Gold.

question.
17.
18.
It's not a yes or no answer.
19.
Were you or were you not able to barely hear what your son was saying all the
20.
way over here on the stump.
21.
It's not all the way over there, it's relatively close.
22.
23.
THE COURT: Ma'am, ma'am.

A
Yes I heard what my son said.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Okay, it's your son and you

heard what your son said.
163
1.
Yes.
2.
THE COURT: Okay stop right there.
3.
Mr. Gold?
4.
BYMR. GOLD:
5.
6.
yelling across the street; is that fair?
But you weren' t able to clearly hear what Mr. Odolecki was saying but he was
THE WITNESS: I think they' re putting words in my mouth.
7.
8.
THE COURT: Just answer his question,
9.
were you able to hear Mr. Odolecki and what he was saying when he was over in this area,
10.
were you able to hear what he was saying?
11.
12.
13.
THE COURT: You're objecting to the

Judge?
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor I think the question is when Mr. Odolecki is
14.
15 .
across the street, not when he was on that side.

THE COURT: When Mr. Odolecki was
16.
17.
across the street, away from Miss Hall, correct, were you able to hear what Mr. Odolecki was
18.
saying?
19.
20.
YouTube.
I was hearing profanities come out of his mouth. I was hearing the threat about
21.
THE COURT: Okay so that' s what she was
22.
hearing Mr. Gold.
23.
BYMR. GOLD:
24.
Mr. Odolecki was, his voice was raised, correct.
25.
I don't know, I don't know this man, I don't know if his voice was raise.
164
1.
Was he yelling?
2.
I don' t know if that is his normal tone or not.
3.
MR. GOLD: No further questions.
4.
5.
What' s the distance between you and your son that we are in this frame right here?
6.
7.
Stop me when I get to about the distance.
8.
I would say from me to the officer, maybe even closer.
9.
Okay. So somewhere like where I am right now?
10.
That would be the closest, the farthest would be the other Court officer.
11.
Okay. So --
12.
We' re not very far apart.
13.
So you could hear what he was saying, correct?
14.
Of course I could because I needed to be that close to if I needed to jump in and
15 .
help.
THE COURT: He being her son?
16.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes, yes.
18.
THE COURT: Okay.
19.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
20.
Your son, your son was close to you, correct about the distance
21.
Yes I needed to know what was going on.
22.
About this distance.
23.
Yes.
24.
He was about the distance
25.
That was the furthest away that we were.
165
1.
Now Mr. Odolecki was all the way across four lanes of traffic.
2.
It's two lanes of traffic.
3.
Two lanes of traffic, plus the grassy area on the other side of the street, correct.
4.
With traffic going by, correct.

MR. SPELLACY: I have no further questions.
5.
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Gold?
6.
MR. GOLD: Nothing further Your Honor.
7.
8.
9.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Spellacy

we' re done with this witness?
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you you're excused.
11.
12.
THE COURT: Now when you leave

ma'am watch your step, watch all these cords over here okay.
13.
THE WITNESS: Thank you for listening.
14.
15.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy, Mr. Gold it' s

4:22 do we want to start with another witness or do we want to wait until tomorrow?
16.
MR. SPELLACY: It's up to the Court I guess.
17.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the
18.
jury, no sense in taking a break because we're only going to be here until five, do you want
19.
to stop now and start up again tomorrow morning with a new witness; or do you want to start
20.
with a witness now until about five o'clock?
21.
22.
UNIDENTIFIED: Does it matter to you if they don't get the witness finished
today?
23.
THE COURT: No because that witness
24.
will be brought back tomorrow and the day after and the day after until they' re done with
25.
the witness. So it's more convenient for you folks whatever you want. If you want to go
166
1.
for another half an hour we will do that, if you want to call it a day, come back tomorrow
2.
morning, a show of hands, does anybody want to continue to five o ' clock today? Okay.
3.
All right. Mr. Spellacy call your next witness.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor we call Sergeant Ken Gillissie.
5.
SERGEANT KEN GILLISSIE
6.
was thereupon called as a witness by the Plaintiff, was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth,
7.
8.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
9.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
10.
Sergeant, please introduce yourself to the jury.
11.
My name is Ken Gillissie.
12.
Where are you employed?
13.
Currently the City of Parma as a bailiff.
14.
How long have you been so employed?
15.
This is week two.
16.
Prior to week two as a bailiff here at the Court, where were you employed?
17.
I was employed with the City of Parma as a police officer for almost 30 years.
18.
I retired in October.
19.
So you retired as a Sergeant in the police department in October?
20.
Yes sir.
21.
In 2015?
22.
Yes.
23 .
And you said approximately 30 years?
24.
29 and 10 months. I bought my military so that' s why I got out early.
25.
On July 29, 2015 were you on duty?
167
1.
Yes I was.
2.
And were you in uniform?
3.
Yes I was.
4.
And what were your duties?
5.
I was supervisor of the motorcycle or the traffic unit.
6.
And as supervisor of the motorcycle traffic unit, what were your duties?
7.
To supervise on the traffic unit, but also to enforce traffic laws within the City
8.
in Parma.
9.
And were you also responsible for responding to any 911 or emergency calls?
10.
If we 're in the location and yes sir we will if it's an emergency.
11.
Okay. Did you have the occasion on July 29, 2015 to respond to a 911 call
12.
concerning an individual who was attempting to harm himself at a bridge?
13.
Yes sir I did.
14.
And explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what information your received
15.
and what you did when you received that information?
16.
17.
Tellings and Patrolman Kuchler and we were, just crossed over Brookpark Road southbound
18.
on State Road when dispatch gave out to a couple of units or actually I don't even know if
19.
they even assigned anybody. A lot of times if it's an emergency like that they'll just ask any
20.
unit in the area. They put out that a young male was going to attempt to jump off the bridge
21.
and commit suicide and that his mother was trying to hold him back when he was about
22.
six foot 300 some pounds and she was having difficulty retraining him from trying
23.
to jump over the bridge.
24.
Were you familiar with that location?
25.
Yes sir I have been.
We had just returned from Southeast Harley, it was myself and I believe Patrolman
168
1.
And how were you familiar with that location?
2.
Well it's Southpark and Snow Road and they're within the City of Parma
3.
and there ' s a big ravine there. A lot of people don' t think it's that steep, it' s about 50 to
4.
60 feet and the only reason I know that is because we' ve had other people jump and we' ve
5.
had to investigate it and measure the distance from if they go over the sidewalk to the ground.
6.
7.
the call?
8.
9.
about State and Walter so then we just lit up our emergency equipment or lights and sirens
10.
on our motorcycles and we responded right there.
11.
And describe the scene when you got there.
12.
As we pulled up there was a female, which later turned out to be the mother
13.
standing in front of the male who was the son that was going to jump and he was a big
14.
male, again I'd say he was about six foot, 300 some pounds and there was then there was
15.
three little girls actually behind him. She was trying to, it looked like she was trying to keep
16.
him back, hold him back so we pulled up, parked our bikes, got off and walked up. Right
17.
away as we walked up, she kind of stepped out of the way and we got between him.
18.
So you got between him and the bridge?
19.
Him and where you would have walked to try to get to the bridge to jump.
20.
What was the mother' s demeanor?
21.
She was emotional, upset and shaken up. At that time Patrolman Kuchler actually
22.
walked with her away and myself and Patrolman Tellings walked the young man over to the
23.
guardrail and got him to sit down and Patrolman Tellings kept, you know, was talking to him
24.
trying to calm him down.
25.
And so did you respond -- or how far were you from that location when you got
At that time we were -- when they finished given it out we were probably at
And what was, when you first arrived, what was the young man's, the son's,
169
1.
emotional state?
2.
3.
wanted to jump off the bridge and we were trying to find out why, what upset him and again
4.
you know Officer Tellings was actually doing most of the talking with him at that time.
5.
You don't want to have two people trying to talk to him at the same time because it confuses
6.
him so I pretty much Officer Tellings was doing the conversation with the young man.
7.
8.
until the that Patrolman Tellings was able to get him seated on the guardrail?
9.
10.
know one of the I can't tell you exactly, remember what set him off but he says he was in the
11.
basement playing videogames before he got upset and when he, he started talking about
12.
videogames, show and tell and he pointed to me and said you' re going to talk about
13.
videogames he plays all the time, so.
14.
Talking about you?
15.
Yes sir.
16.
You a gamer?
17.
Madden.
18.
So did he get calmed down?
19.
Yeah he started to calm down you know at first right away.
20.
And what were you -- had an ambulance been called?
21.
The ambulance was already on the way, I believe dispatch when they put out that
22.
any unit in the area also I don't remember if they said the ambulance had been already called
23.
or not but I knew an ambulance was on the way.
24.
25.
in route already.
He was upset, agitated, you know and he was talking about you know that he
Were you able to see a change in his demeanor from the time that you got there
It didn't take long. You could see that he started to calm down because you
So to the best of your knowledge you knew that an ambulance was on it' s
170
1.
Correct.
2.
And did other officers respond?
3.
I don't remember who, when they showed up exactly but I believe Patrolman
4.
O'Grady and Patrolman Jezior showed up and at that point I don't know because again we
5.
were kind of concentrating on the young man.
6.
7.
Tellings, correct?
8.
We were the first three there, yes sir.
9.
You were the first three there and then Jezior and O'Grady?
10.
Showed up, yes and again I couldn't tell you exactly when they showed up at
11 .
what point.
12.
At some point in time did you see Defendant Odolecki arrive on scene?
13.
Yes actually I believe Officer Tellings pointed over to him that, you know, hey
14.
he's over there videotaping and I could actually hear Officer Kuchler state, hey, Doug, you
15.
know he's having a bad day, you know, can you not do this right now. I couldn't tell you
16.
exactly what he said, but I know he continued to videotape at that time.
17.
18.
I'll stop it there. At this point in time do you even know that Odolecki is present?
19.
No sir I do not.
20.
Okay Sergeant, at the point in time that you first realized Odolecki was there,
21.
what was the condition of the juvenile that was threatening to jump off the bridge?
22.
23.
whatever and then at that time, like I said, I heard Officer Kuchler, I can't tell you exactly
24.
what he said about hey it's not a good time, he's having a bad day. At the same time Officer
25.
Tellings pointed out that hey you know Doug's over there videotaping well at this time the
So it was the three motorcycle officers, Patrolman Kuchler, yourself and Patrolman
I want to play for you Plaintiffs Exhibit 1; and I' 11 have some questions for you.
As I stated, he had started to calm down again we talked about the videogame or
171
1.
young man actually heard that and his exact words I can't tell you it was a comment about
2.
I might as well go jump now I' m going to be a videotape and you could see that he started
3.
to get agitated.
4.
MR. GOLD: Objection move to strike, hearsay.
5.
6.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
7.
As a result of that, as a result of being told that
8.
I wasn't told that, I actually heard.
9.
As a result of hearing that, hearing the juvenile say that, what did you do?
10.
That's why I walked over to approach him and to try and cover the camera, I
11.
actually not lied to him but I tried to bullshit him and tell him that he' s a juvenile you can't
12.
videotape him without his parents' permission even knowing that in the public you can
13.
videotape.
14.
But you can't interfere with the actions of a police officer, correct?
15.
Correct.
16.
And you can't interfere with the actions of a police officer at an emergency,
17.
correct?
18.
Correct.
19.
Now was this an emergency situation?
20.
Yes sir.
21.
And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury why it was an emergency situation.
22.
Again he was a big boy, he was, you know, six foot, 300 some pounds. Even with
23.
all ofus there or two or three of us ifhe really wanted to fight and try to run for that bridge
24.
it would be a struggle to try to stop him and again he was agitated, calmed down, then when
25.
he realized that somebody was videotaping him he started getting agitated again so my main
172
1.
thing was I was trying to get him away, Mr. Odolecki, from the scene so we can calm him\
2.
down again.
3.
Were you waiting for an ambulance for this guy?
4.
We were waiting for an ambulance this whole time, yes sir.
5.
And what was your understanding why you were waiting for an ambulance?
6.
It just takes them longer to get there than us.
7.
You thought he was going to be taken to the hospital?
8.
Well they were going to check him out and take him to the hospital yes probably to
9.
get evaluated or again I don't know if he, ifhe needed meds or whatever I can't remember but
10.
we were waiting for an ambulance for transport.
11.
12.
not saying anything just videotaping, correct?
13.
Correct.
14.
Was that a violation for misconduct at an emergency?
15.
No he wasn't interfering in any way.
16.
Okay. When he walked across the street and got close to the scene and you asked
17.
him to leave, did he leave?
18.
19.
not to do it this time by Officer Kuchler then I went up and asked him, first told him he
20.
couldn't take because he was a juvenile then told him to leave.
21.
Then you told him to go across the street, correct?
22.
Yes. I told him take a walk.
23.
Take a walk.
24.
Yes.
25.
He said no.
So you saw early on in the videotape where the Defendant's across the street
No he didn't. I actually -- no, first it was he wasn't asked to leave he was asked
173
1.
Yes. Yes sir.
2.
His response was this is public property.
Property, right.
4.
I can do what I want, correct?
5.
Correct.
6.
So did you -- was that a command that you gave him to leave the scene of
7.
the emergency?
8.
Pretty much, take a walk.
9.
Did he listen to or obey your command?
10.
Not until about the third time then he started to walk away.
11.
And why did you let him just go walk across the street?
12.
I actually kind of thought he was maybe going to leave and then I also wanted to
13.
get back to the young man to you know so he didn't think about jumping again because we
14.
had him calmed down, then when he found out that he was over there taping, then he started
15.
to get agitated again.
16.
17.
immediately prior to Odolecki's arrival?
18.
19.
when we got there myself and Officer Tellings were dealing with the young man and Officer
20.
Kuchler was dealing more with the parents and the little -- mom and the little girls.
21.
22.
calmed down?
23.
Yes sir.
24.
And did he interfere with your ability to do your job at that emergency?
25.
I believe so because I had to , again, I had to go over there to try to get him away
,.,
.)
What was the emotional condition of Shaunda the mother and the three daughters
I know they were all pretty upset and I could hear them crying but again like I said,
Did Mr. Odolecki's presence interfere with your ability to keep the juvenile
174
1.
because it was upsetting the young man at first and then I had to get back to him so you know
2.
he wouldn't decide to try to take a jump.
'1
.)
Did -- once he walked across the street you heard him yelling vulgarities, correct?
4.
C01Tect.
5.
And could you hear that clearly from where you were?
6.
Yes.
7.
And you were about the same distance from the Defendant as the three young
8.
children, correct?
9.
Correct.
10.
And about the same distance because you were right next to, at that point, the
11.
juvenile who had tried to harm himself, correct?
12.
Correct.
13.
Mr. -- did the Defendant's actions pose a potential safety hazard to you, the
14.
juvenile, the four juveniles there or the mother?
15.
16.
just more taunting or you know just --
17.
I'm not talking about when he was across the street, when he was on scene.
18.
Correct. Because again our attention was drawn over to him instead of what we
19.
should have been doing.
20.
Okay. Did the Defendant's actions interfere with your ability to do your job?
21.
It slowed it down.
22.
Why didn't you, why didn't you place him under arrest at this time?
23.
Again because he started walking away so I was hoping he was actually going to
24.
leave all together and I wanted to get back over to the young man to make sure he was
25.
calmed down again.
I wouldn' t really say it was a safety hazard when he was across the street it was
175
1.
Did you know who the Defendant was?
2.
Yes, I've dealt with Mr. Odolecki before.
3.
And how did you know who he was?
4.
Mostly from our checkpoints you know he comes and videotapes our checkpoints
5.
and likes to protest at them.
6.
So did you know him, did you know where he lived, his identity?
7.
I know who he is, yes sir.
8.
Okay. And so if you wanted to cite him at a later date
9.
I could --
10.
-- could you do that?
11.
-- yes
12.
Do you see the Defendant in the Courtroom here today?
13.
Yes I do.
14.
Please identify the individual who you saw on videotape and who you described
15.
his actions to the jury to.
16.
17.
striped tie.
At the Defendant's table, actually to my right, white shirt and purple striped, grey
MR. SPELLACY: May the record reflect the Defendant' s been identified Your
18.
19.
SIL
Honor.
20.
THE COURT: The record will reflect the
21.
identification of the Defendant.
22.
BYMR. SPELLACY:
23.
This intersection, this incident, did it all occur in the City of Parma?
24.
Yes sir.
25 .
State of Ohio?
176
1.
2.
Yes it did.
MR. SPELLACY: One moment Your Honor.
3.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
4.
Sergeant you mentioned that you knew him from checkpoints, correct?
5.
Yes sir.
6.
And you knew him -- explain to the jury how you knew him from checkpoints.
7.
Our City is funded by NHTSA which is National and Traffic Highway Safety
8.
Program and we receive money from them, grant money, to run anywhere from three to
9.
five checkpoints a year. That and saturation patrols to try to deter drunk driving. We
10.
usually hold three to -- depending on how much they have, we have three to five a year. I
11.
was in charge of the traffic unit and I was also in charge of setting up them so he would come
12.
and film, protest with his signs. Actually one of the first ones he showed on I talked to the
13.
Captain that was in charge and actually had him invite him into our checkpoint on the side
14.
of diversionary where most people don't go unless you get diverted there to let him film
15.
what was going on inside. So I mean I'd seen him before.
16.
So you knew he was, correct.
17.
Yes sir.
18.
And as Sergeant in the traffic unit was it your responsibility to run the checkpoints?
19.
Yes it was.
20.
And what are the, what is the purpose of the checkpoints.
21.
Checkpoints, believe it or not, most people think they're against drunk drivers.
22.
They are not to catch drunk drivers. They' re to try to educate and deter people from drunk
23.
driving. The cars, there will be a certain number and that can changed depending on the
24.
traffic usually you try -- even NHTSA came out a couple years ago, said, checkpoints
25.
should be run from, anywhere from six o' clock to midnight because that's when there's more
177
1.
traffic, more people that will be educated, more people that will see it. When they come
2.
through the checkpoint it can be anywhere from five to even every car is checked. I mean by
3.
it' s checked, it' s diverted into one lane where there ' s checkers, officers that are trained in
4.
detecting OVI's, it's supposed to be about a 45 minute, no 45 second encounter. They ask
5.
them we ' re they' re going, how they ' re doing, try to see if there's anything if they' ve been
6.
drinking or not or if they ' re on drugs. As long as everything is okay they' re usually given
7.
literature about OVI ' s and they' re sent on their way. If there's anything that might be wrong
8.
another violation or something, then they are deterred into the diversion area which is were
9.
one of the first ones I had Mr. Odolecki invited in to see, again that, you, most people can't
10.
come in there unless they're actually diverted coming through there but we invited him in
11.
to see it and again you know the biggest part is to educate people. It's not to catch drunk
12.
drivers.
13.
Are you aware of Mr. Odolecki's actions on June
14.
I would imagine this would be when he was cited for Obstructing Official
15 .
Business then also?
16.
Correct.
17.
Yes.
18.
Okay. Are you aware of his actions that day?
19.
I personally wasn't there.
20.
Okay.
21.
It's just what I was told.
22.
25.
of2014 at a checkpoint?
MR. GOLD: Objection move to strike.
23 .
24.
13th
THE COURT: He didn't say

anything.
178
1.
THE COURT: What did he say?
2.
MR. GOLD: Well what he said was I' m aware of it because of what I was told.
3.
THE COURT: Okay.
4.
5.
MR. GOLD: And it's -- this witness doesn't have any firsthand knowledge
of what occurred that day and I don't think it' s appropriate for him to be giving any testimony.
6.
7.
THE COURT: So why is he not going to

tell us anything. I'm not going to let him say anything, he didn't say anything yet.
8.
9.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor I just didn't want it to get on the record and
then blow my chances to object.
10.
THE COURT: Got you.
11.
BYMR. SPELLACY:
12.
Were you present at that checkpoint that day?
13.
Yes sir I was.
14.
So can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you were doing
15.
that day at that checkpoint.
16.
17.
another supervisor that's considered the checkpoint commander and then he, the checkpoint
18.
commander usually selects how many, you know, cars are going to be checked at what time
19.
whatever but I'm the one that' s usually in charge of setting it up, having the personnel that's
20.
there to be trained for it. Checkpoints are actually set up by law the signs have to be a certain
21.
distance depending on the speed limit that they're set up on and the City of Parma, I can tell
22.
you because I was probably involved in probably almost every one they've had since they
23 .
came out. We originally set them up for a 35 mile an hour speed limit and even when we
24.
move to a 25 mile an hour speed limit we still use the same distances so if somebody was
25.
in a 25 mile an hour distance, they were actually getting more advance warning that there
Again I'm usually the one that sets it up, has it there even though there's usually
179
1.
was a checkpoint ahead.
2.
So are there -- do you post signs that say checkpoint ahead?
3.
Yeah the very first, the very first sign is checkpoint ahead.
4.
Are there NHTSA regulations or are there regulations that you abide by when
5.
setting up these checkpoints?
6.
7.
street signs and again that's why I'm saying it depends on the speed limit that they're being
8.
set up on depends on actually how big the sign has to be and how far back the notice has
9.
to be.
10.
And did you comply with those regulations?
11.
Yes I did. Like I said ours were always set up for 35 mile an hour speed limits
12.
even though we set them up in 25 mile an hour speed limits so our signs were actually
13 .
further than, you know, than was required by law.
14.
And that's for safety purposes?
15.
Yes for the public and police officers that are there.
16.
And then the procedures that you used on June 13 , 2014, were they the same
17.
procedures that you explained to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury before with respect to
18.
what you did at a checkpoint?
19.
Yes.
20.
So in other words you just you divert a certain number in, correct?
21.
Correct.
22.
And the purpose is for the same purpose that you described to the ladies and
23.
gentlemen of the jury before?
24.
25.
handed a pamphlet on OVI, it's now called OVI not DUI's, information and then, I mean,
They're not NHTSA regulations, they're the State regulations for signage for
Yeah again it's more of an educational thing, it's the people that are diverted are
180
1.
and just passing through and seeing the signs that say checkpoint ahead they know what it is.
2.
You mentioned that these are usually between six and midnight; correct?
3.
Correct.
4.
So you never run them until 2:00 a.m. or when the bars close?
5.
When they first started they did, okay, but then they changed their policies or
6.
procedures for checkpoints and they and NHTSA came out that if you' re going to do a
7.
checkpoint, again, it should be between six and midnight because that' s when there's more
8.
people on the road to actually get the education or to see what' s going on. Where as at
9.
2:00 in the morning there's not that many people on the road. That's when you're supposed
10.
to use a saturation patrol.
11.
Do you keep statistics with respect to the number of OVI's that are given?
12.
Yes.
13.
Without getting into the statistics, do you know if it's a small number of --
14.
I could probably say the most we ever had was probably three from one of them.
15 .
16.
MR. SPELLACY: One moment Your Honor. Nothing further at this time,
thank you.
17.
18.
19.
20.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Gold we' re

going to stop here.
MR. GOLD: That will be fine Your Honor, thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. All right so ladies
21.
and gentlemen of the jury we are going to stop here this evening. We'll pick up again
22.
tomorrow morning. I'm going to ask everyone to get here about quarter to nine. So if you
23.
would just meet here in this room Kim will then get you back in the jury room where you
24.
can take your coats off, we' ll get you some coffee and whatever you need to do. We ' re
25.
going to start testimony sharp, nine o'clock sharp. All right. I'll remind everyone of the
181
1.
admonition. Again please do not discuss this case with anyone. You' re going to be going
2.
home and your family probably knows that you are not -- I went to a seminar one time for
3.
three days and my children had no idea that I was even gone, I don't know how that works
4.
but I'm assuming that your family knows that you're gone from home today. When you
5.
come back they might want to ask you questions. You cannot think about this case. You
6.
can't tell your family about it, you can't answer any questions, you can't go on the internet
7.
and Google and try to get any information. It' s very, very improper for you at this time to
8.
do that. You can't form any opinions on the limited testimony that you've heard, okay.
9.
Again we want you back here tomorrow at quarter to nine. Are there any issues with staying
10.
until five o' clock tomorrow? Do we have any issues? So that's what we're going to
11 .
assume. I know that one of our jurors needed to be on the road before it gets dark so we're
12.
going to accommodate that. If you want to bring a lunch we can do that and we can cut
13.
it, we can cut lunch hour a little bit so that we can try to get through as quickly as possible.
14.
Mr. Spellacy anything that you want to discuss in front of the jury at this time?
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further Your Honor.
16.
17.

MR. GOLD: No Your Honor.
18.
THE COURT: All right so I'm going to
19.
have jurors excused at this point. All right gentlemen have a seat. Let's talk about this
20.
18 year old child. Mr. Spellacy do we need to bring this child in? What' s the purpose of
21.
bringing this child in Mr. Gold?
22.
MR. GOLD: I think that a lot of my objections initially were overruled with
23.
respect to I think some of the hearsay issues and the knowledge issues of the mother so I think
24.
it might be moot at this point. I don't need him at this point.
25.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Spellacy do
182
1.
2.
you need the 18 year old child brought in here?

MR. SPELLACY: I'm going to talk to mom and see what mom's wishes are.
3.
THE COURT: I' ll tell you that I don't want
4.
the child in here. He' s an autistic child, we don't need him here, your objections are noted,
5.
they' re on the record, do with them what you may but unless you're telling me you absolutely
6.
need this child I certainly don't want to see him here.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: I didn't either Your Honor that's why I did not plan on
8.
calling him as a witness and that's why I consulted with mother before I even planned what
9.
I was going to do. I had no intention of calling him until there was some objections and
10.
rulings and frankly at that point in time I think I have an obligation to consult with mom,
11.
you know how strongly mom feels about this case.
12.
THE COURT: All right. Well then
13 .
gentlemen let's meet here tomorrow morning at 8:30 and we can discuss that issue. We' ll
14.
go back in chambers.
15 .
MR. GOLD: Your Honor just briefly on the issue of having the child testify,
16.
we did preponed written discovery requests to the City and we were provided with a witness
17.
list. He was not on that witness list.
18.
19.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD: So --
20.
THE COURT: And that' s on the record and
21.
I'm going to tell you something, I'm going to be very hard pressed to be convinced that this
22.
18 year old autistic child needs to testify.
23.
24.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: Understood Judge.

THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SPELLACY: If I could just respond to that point. He's been given, he's been
183
1.
provided with a copy of the police report, we have open discovery here which includes anyone
2.
involved in the case, those are all fair game and playing the game of we didn't give a witness
3.
list, he ' s been given the identity of every witness that could potentially be called in either of
4.
these cases.
5.
MR. GOLD: That's a different thing than, okay, number one, I appreciate that
6.
there' s open discovery but you know there are rules with respect to discovery also and when
7.
I ask a City to identify the witnesses, and they provide a list of witnesses, I'm entitled to
8.
rely on the witnesses that have been provided in preparing my case. So that's a very different
9.
thing than just saying hey you know see the police report and if we took no further action
10.
but I mean when we specifically request who is going to testify, and we're told, these are
11.
the people that are going to testify, I don't think that the City could come back now and say
12.
well because he was in the police report, you were on notice. I mean we're relying on the
13.
representations of who your Trial witnesses are going to be in that written discovery response.
14.
15.
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy anything else?

MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further.
16.
17.
18.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything

else Mr. Gold?
MR. GOLD: Nothing else Your Honor.
19.
20.
21.
THE COURT: Okay gentlemen thank you

see you tomorrow at 8:30.
22.
THE COURT: Good morning ladies and
23.
gentlemen, please be seated. All right we are back on the record. Officer Gillissie is on
24.
the stand I believe Mr. Gold, it's your turn, correct sir?
25.
MR. GOLD: Yes.
184
1.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
2.
BYMR. GOLD:
3.
Good morning Officer Gillissie.
4.
Good morning.
5.
My name is Attorney John Gold, I represent the Defendant, Mr. Odolecki in this
6.
matter in which you' re testifying. I don't think that we've actually met, I may have seen
7.
you with the security, have you ever been upfront security as a bailiff?
8.
Like I said, I started last week so
9.
Oh, just last week.
10.
Yes.
11.
Okay then I apologize sir. I thought maybe we had a chat before. Well
12.
nevertheless just so I can formally introduce myself. Before we begin you were sworn in
13 .
under oath before you took the stand, correct?
14.
Yes sir.
15.
Okay. And did you speak to anybody about this case after the recess yesterday?
16.
No sir. Well, the Prosecutor.
17.
You did speak to the Prosecutor as to your testimony?
18.
Not as to my testimony, I spoke to him yesterday after we were done here, yes
19.
sir about when to come back and for this morning.
20.
Okay did you speak to him about any of your testimony yesterday?
21.
No sir.
22.
Did you speak to him about your testimony anticipated today?
23.
No sir.
24.
Did you do anything to prepare for cross-examination between the end of the
25 .
proceedings yesterday and this morning?
185
1.
No sir.
2.
Okay. So you were just asking Mr. Spellacy just administrative questions,
3.
logistical questions.
4.
Correct what time I needed to be back for today.
5.
Okay, very good. So as I understand, prior to your retirement you were the head
6.
of the traffic, the traffic unit supervisor?
7.
For my last five years, yes sir.
8.
Your last five years. If you know, there's a way to answer this, on an average day
9.
do you know how many tickets the State of Parma writes?
10.
I couldn't really answer that, no sir not an average.
11.
Do you know how many maybe in a month? I understand I'm not going to nail
12.
you down for a number I'm just trying to get a ballpark idea of on an average month, say in
13 .
the summer time, how many tickets the City of Parma writes, you know, for motor vehicle
14.
stops.
15.
16.
really tell you.
17.
Would it be more than 100?
18.
Yes sir.
19.
Would it be more than 500?
20.
It could be probably between 500 and 1,000 depending on the month, what's going
21.
on.
22.
So 1,000 would be pretty high though, that would be on the high end?
23 .
I would say yes.
24.
Do you know -- now for fines for those tickets are you aware of whether the City
25 .
of Parma collects any revenue from those fines?
I'm trying to recall because I mean I used to look at stats but offhand I couldn't
186
MR. SPELLACY: Obj ection.
1.
THE COURT: How would he know that?
2.
3.
Do you know that officer?

THE WITNESS : I don' t have knowledge of that.
4.
THE COURT: He doesn't have knowledge.
5.
6.
Okay.
7.
I know with these citations it's broken down into different things. A portion of it
8.
9.
goes to the Court, a portion of it goes to the County, a portion of it goes to the State and yes
10.
the City does get fines if they' re fined.
11.
12.
A, Defendant' s Exhibit A.
Okay. I'm going to hand you a copy of what's been previously marked as Exhibit
13.
14.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold I am going to move

so that I can see.
15 .
MR. GOLD: I' m sorry?

THE COURT: I'm going to move so that
16.
17.
I can see.
18.
19.
MR. GOLD: What this is on the screen is just an electronic version of Exhibit A,
which I provided to the Court Your Honor.
20.
21.
BY MR. GOLD :
22.
Officer, Officer Gillissie have you seen Exhibit A before?
23.
Yes I have.
24.
Okay, what is Exhibit A?
25.
It' s the Parma Police Department' s Sobriety Checkpoint procedure.
187
And we talked a little bit about this procedure I think on direct with Mr.
1.
2.
Spellacy, correct?
3.
I believe it was mentioned, yes sir.
4.
Okay. Do you recall saying that your procedure had to comply with State law?
5.
Yes sir.
6.
And is it your understanding that the City of Parma' s OVI checkpoint procedures
7.
comply with the State Law.
8.
9.
way they're setup, which is how the distance that the signs have to be set up, I believe that's
10.
what we talked about.
11.
Okay. What about Federal law, does it have to comply with Federal law?
12.
Yes sir it has to comply with what the, you know, the Federal law states that in
13 .
order to run sobriety checkpoints.
14.
15.
have to necessarily catch drunk drivers, you had to educate the public, correct?
16.
That's the purpose of checkpoints.
17.
Okay so your testimony is that the purpose of the City of Parma' s checkpoint is
18 .
to educate the public and deter but not to actually catch drunk drivers.
19.
20.
Yes sir I mean when we were discussing State law we were talking about the
And it was your testimony that, that in order to comply with the law you didn't
I didn' t say it' s not to catch them

21.
22.
23 .
24.
25.
THE COURT: Hold on, hold on a second,

did I hear an objection?
THE COURT: What is the objection.
MR. SPELLACY: The objection was that he mischaracterizes his testimony.
188
1.
THE COURT: Do you want to rephrase
2.
your question.
3.
BY MR. GOLD:
4.
5.
drivers?
6.
7.
catch an OVI or a drunk driver at the time then it happens but the purpose is not to catch
8.
drunk drivers.
9.
10.
these OVI checkpoints in order to run a checkpoint that complies with State and Federal
11.
law?
12.
I didn' t understand the question. Can you repeat it?
13.
I'll rephrase it. Do you have a belief or understanding as to whether the City of
14.
Parma is required to catch any drunk drivers or issue an OVI citations at its OVI checkpoints
15.
in order to comply with State or Federal law?
16.
17.
by NHTSA, okay, and so a lot of their -- NHTSA is the one that came down a few years
18.
ago with their standards or what they wanted done for checkpoints and one of them being that
19.
they should be run between six and midnight, again, between six and midnight because that's
20.
when more people are out and the purpose is again to educate the public, to distract and deter
21.
drunk driving because I could actually probably tell you in our last four, if not more,
22.
checkpoints that we had I don't believe we even had an OVI, you know, a drunk driver, in
23.
the last four or five that we ran.
24.
25.
and it says reference U.S. Supreme Court, I mean it's on your copy also.
Is one of the purposes of the Parma Police OVI checkpoint policy to catch drunk
The purpose of an OVI checkpoint is to educate the public. If you happen to
But is it your understanding that you don't have to catch any drunk drivers at
I believe what I said yesterday was that most of our OVI checkpoints are funded
I'd like to direct your attention to, do you see the line that says reference,
189
1.
Michigan v. Sitz?
2.
Yes.
3.
Yes, sir.
4.
Have you read that case?
5.
Years ago, yes sir.
6.
Okay, so you have seen it before.
7.
I couldn't tell you what was in it. I know when we started to do, to get into doing
8.
checkpoints when we first started them this is one of the references that was used.
9.
And this is referenced because -- that's a U.S. Supreme Court case isn't it?
10.
I believe it was, yes sir.
11.
And that's Federal law?
12.
Yes sir.
13 .
All right. And we agree that these OVI checkpoints have to also comply with
14.
Federal law.
15.
Yes sir.
16.
So the purpose for referencing this is to, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going
17.
to assume that the purpose for referencing this is to demonstrate that this sobriety checkpoint
18.
complies with Federal law.

19.
20.
21.
22.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, did I hear an

objection?
MR. SPELLACY: Yes. Can we approach?
THE COURT: Sure. There' s to be no
23.
24.
talking in this Courtroom while Court is in session.
25.
BY MR. GOLD:
190
1.
Okay Officer Gillissie I' ve handed you a copy of an opinion published by Lexis
2.
Nexis from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Michigan Department of State Police
3.
versus Sitz. Do you agree that that' s the case that I've handed you?
4.
That' s what it looks like, yes sir.
5.
I'm just going to direct your attention to , we 're looking at Page 4, subparagraph
6.
D of the syllabus.
THE COURT: First column, last paragraph?
7.
MR. GOLD: First column, last paragraph, yes.
8.
9.
BYMR. GOLD:
10.
And have you ever read this before?
11.
Again its back in the 90 ' s I couldn' t tell you what it said now.
12.
Okay. I'm going to ask you to just read this paragraph to yourself, okay, and then
13.
I'm going to ask you some questions about that, okay? Is that fair? Let me know when
14.
you' re ready.
15.
Okay.
16.
Do you see where the Court' s discussing an effectiveness prong?
17.

THE COURT: Okay. We're going to take
18.
19.
a break right now. Ladies and gentlemen we 're going to put you back into the jury room.
20.
Kim are we on?
21.
BAILIFF DESIMONE: Yes.

THE COURT: Where are we going on this?
22.
23.
MR. GOLD: Here' s where we' re going on this Your Honor. One of the
24.
requirements in six is that there has to be an effectiveness there has to be a showing that the
25.
intru -- the 4th Amendment intrusion --
191
1.
THE COURT: We are not here to determine
2.
whether or not -- hold on -- we are not here to determine whether or not an OVI checkpoint
3.
is constitutional or not. That's not why we 're here. You are going well beyond the purpose
4.
of this Trial.
5.
MR. GOLD: I'm not attempting to establish that these are unconstitutional; I'm
6.
simply trying to demonstrate that contrary to what their own policy -- the case cited by
7.
their own policy states that you know there has to be some showing of effectiveness where,
8.
you know, it' s very well threshold only .5%.
9.
THE COURT: We' re not here to determine
10.
whether or not their OVI is right. That's not why we' re here. We' re here to determine
11.
whether or not your client obstructed, that's all, it's a very simple case. We ' re not going to
12.
have this officer testify to what this Supreme Court says and doesn't say. We' re not going
13.
to have this officer testify to what a Court of Appeals says. That's not his responsibility, that's
14.
not his job, I'm not going to allow it. We are not here to test the constitutionality of the
15.
checkpoint. I will not allow it.
16.
MR. GOLD: Your Honor there' s a secondary reason, I think that this disregard for
17.
the law and their own policy would demonstrate a bias in attitude towards the Defendant and
18.
so -THE COURT: Overruled.
19.
20.
21.
22.
THE COURT: You' re welcome. Can we

bring the jury back out.
MR. GOLD: I'd like to -- before we bring the jury back out, may I make an offer
23.
24.
25.
of proof?
THE COURT: Go on.
192
1.
2.
THE COURT: Hold the jury.
3.
MR. GOLD: Officer Gillissie we' re doing right now what's known as making an
4.
offer of proof so that a reviewing Court, if necessary, can have an opportunity to review the
5.
excluded evidence.
6.
7.
THE COURT: Your objection is noted
8.
Mr. Spellacy.
9.
BY MR. GOLD:
10.
11.
effectiveness prong.
12.
Yeah at the bottom of it, yes sir.
13.
Okay.
14.
About 5% about illegally aliens.
15.
And what the Court also said was that in this case .5% if you had a citation rate
16.
of .5% that was sufficient to establish the effectiveness prong. Would you agree with that?
17.
Do you see Officer Gillissie where the, where the Sitz case is talking about an

THE COURT: How does this officer know
18.
19.
20.
this? How is he supposed to know this? Are you giving him a law lesson right now?
MR. GOLD: It's his policy.
21.
22.
THE COURT: It's not his policy.

MR. GOLD: It's the City of Parma's policy.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: So you're testing him on

the City's policy.
MR. GOLD: He testified on the policy and I'm trying to -- and what he testified
193
1.
to was that arrests don't matter and they do, they absolutely do matter under Sitz Your
2.
Honor.
3.
MR. SPELLACY: If you wanted to subpoena, you know, someone from the
4.
Law Department, it's not relevant to the case regardless but he's not the proper person. He's
5.
not a lawyer, he didn't draft it. It says Law Department up on top, you know, it' s not
6.
probative for any issue in this particular case.
7.
8.
9.
THE COURT: I'm still stuck on that Mr.

Gold and still stuck on why we are entering into this territory.
MR. GOLD: Because he already testified that it complies. The jury is under the
10.
impression that the business being conducted by the City of Parma at that OVI checkpoint
11.
complied with all applicable Federal and State law and I have the case that's absolute
12.
integrated into their own policy that says otherwise. Based on his own testimony. They' ve
13 .
been finding zero DUI's at these checkpoints. They're writing tons of tickets for everything
14.
else but DUI' s. What Sitz says is that there has to be some showing, not much, but some
15.
showing that the public interest in deterring and preventing drunk driving is being advanced
16.
and in the Sitz case it says .5% of all cars being detained, that's acceptable. They're not even
17.
close to that here in the City of Parma Your Honor.
18.
19.
20.
THE COURT: But again you're challenging

the constitutionality of this checkpoint.
MR. GOLD : I' m challenging his testimony.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: I disagree with you Mr. Gold,

I disagree with you.
MR. GOLD: How can he testify to this jury that they complied with all the
applicable law and I don't get to cross-examine him on that issue?
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy do you have
194
1.
a response?
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes Your Honor they' ve never -- the proper challenge to
3.
the statute would be if somebody gets an OVI at the checkpoint and you wanted to challenge
4.
the constitutionality of the checkpoint, then a Court would make the determination and a
5.
Court would weigh and balance all the factors, not just the one paragraph of a syllabus from
6.
a Supreme Court case that really doesn't say exactly what he wants the Court to believe or
7.
what he wants to convince the jury to believe, it's an effort to throw something out there,
8.
to distract the jury from the real issue of this particular case. The real issue of this particular
9.
case are these officers doing their jobs pursuant to the policy, even if the policy was wrong,
10.
it wouldn't matter. The officers are doing their jobs in accordance with the policy at the
11.
time it's there, it's never been found to be unconstitutional, it's deemed to be constitutional
12.
it is constitutional and his attempt to deflect the attention of the jury to something that it really
13.
doesn't even say and I'll read you and I just got this today because really it's not an issue in
14.
the case so I had no reason to really look at this but one of the final paragraph in that case is
15 .
in sum the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunk driving the extent to which this
16.
system can reasonably be to advance that interest and the degree of intrusion upon individual
17.
motorists who are briefly stopped weighs in favor of the State program. That's what the
18.
last paragraph of this opinion says. So his attempt to take one portion from the syllabus and
19.
I don't even understand frankly what that one syllabus says when he starts talking about some
20.
prong, much less ask a Sergeant who didn't argue the case in the Supreme Court, is following
21.
the policies and procedures as determined to be lawful by everyone including the Law
22.
Department and it's never been challenged in Court to the best of my knowledge.
23.
24.
25.

Mr. Gold?
MR. GOLD: Two things Your Honor. Number one, if this didn't matter and
195
1.
whether the policy complied with the law or not didn't matter in this case then Mr. Spellacy
2.
shouldn't have been asking questions about that on direct. I'm being prejudiced if he gets
3.
to testify that yes we are running a checkpoint compliant with with law and then you know I
4.
don't even get to cast doubt upon that with the same jury. I' m being prejudiced by that
5.
number one. Number two, the fact that my client believes that this, incorrectly believes that
6.
this checkpoint doesn't comply with the law, is the reason he's there in the first place. He ' s
7.
protesting this. The jury has to understand that he's, he's not protesting, he' s not some
8.
advocate for drunk driving, the issue here is that this doesn't comply with the law and that's
9.
the purpose of the protest and so you know without getting those things across the jury is
10.
not getting the complete picture particularly in light of the fact that Officer Gillissie yesterday
11.
already testified that we're complying with the law.
12.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor the elements of obstructing official
14.
business are without privilege to do so with the purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the
15 .
performance by a public official of any authorized act within his or her official capacity and
16.
do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public officials
17.
lawful duties. The purpose of my questioning of him was was this a lawful duty? Absolutely.
18.
It' s a lawful duty. It's never been determined not to be a lawful duty, number one. Number
19.
two --
20.
THE COURT: Stop right there. Mr. Gold
21.
and that' s where I'm hung up on. It's not whether or, the statute doesn't require a
22.
constitutional determination, it requires whether or not the officer is by law allowed to do what
23.
he or she is doing. They are allowed, by law, to set up a checkpoint. To go beyond that I
24.
think we're getting into territory that has nothing to do with your client's situation.
25.
MR. GOLD: Ifl may Your Honor.
196
1.
2.
3.
THE COURT: Sure.

MR. GOLD: Except that, you know, and I think it was the very first bit of the
statute the essence of this case is without privilege to do so.
4.
5.
6.
THE COURT: They' re privileged to -they are allowed to set up a checkpoint.

MR. GOLD: No I'm talking about my client, my client without privilege to do so
7.
cannot interfere obstruct, yada, yada. Okay. The privilege here is that he is protesting a
8.
noncompliant checkpoint, that' s his privilege, that's his constitutional right there. I mean
9.
that's the entire essence of our defense in this case is that he had a privilege to do what he
10.
was doing by expressing his voice and exercising his First Amendment Right and I think
11.
it's important for the jury at least without having to have him get up and testify and waive
12.
another fundamental right to have an understanding --
13.
14.
15.
THE COURT: Which no one is forcing

him to do Mr. Gold.
MR. GOLD: Right. To have an understanding of why someone might be out
16.
there protesting, I mean that's -- the privilege is the essence of this case and he' s
17.
privileged to do that and I don't think that the jury without understanding the inherent, at
18.
least the inherent disagreements over the compliance -- what the compliance of Parma's
19.
policy without having an understanding at least there' s a genuine dispute. They may not
20.
find the privilege to speak out. That' s my fear, that' s my biggest concern right now. Had
21.
he not talked about this policy, had Officer Gillissie not said that it complies with the law,
22.
and that it's good, I mean, this would be, we might be doing this, we wouldn't be doing
23.
this right now.
24.
25.

MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor it serves no -- it' s irrelevant to the elements of
197
1.
the crime or the facts of this particular case what the Supreme Court case says in Sitz and
2.
to cross-examine a Sergeant from the police department regarding a Supreme Court case
3.
that he' s never read, he' s never seen, he ' s not a lawyer, is frankly ridiculous.
4.
THE COURT: I have to agree Mr. Gold.
5.
We' re not going to do this to a Sergeant; I'm not going to put him on in this position. There
6.
is other individuals that you could have had brought in here, I'm not going to have the
7.
Sergeant sit through this and go through a law school examination with you.
8.
MR. GOLD : So I can't finish my offer of proof then?

THE COURT: That's correct, you can't.
9.
10.
MR. GOLD: Understood.

THE COURT: It's on the record for you.
11.
12.
THE COURT: You're welcome. Thank
13.
14.
you ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. All right Mr. Gold we'll continue with you.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor. For this portion of the cross-examination
15.
16.
I think I will use the video .

THE COURT: Okay.
17.
18.
BYMR. GOLD:
19.
20.
2015 at the bridge. We're going to play this video and I'm going to pause it at a certain
21.
point and ask you some questions. And if your answer requires me to play a little more
22.
video, just let me know and I'll be happy to do that. Okay.
23.
Okay.
24.
At this point, if you recall, do we see this person where the mouse is sitting here on
25.
the guardrail.
I'd like to talk a little bit about, Officer Gillissie about the events of July 29,
198
1.
Yes sir.
2.
Do you know who that is?
3.
That's the young man.
4.
That's the young man. And at this point do you know whether you were aware
5.
of whether Mr. Odolecki was across Snow Road on his bicycle?
6.
7.
over there.
8.
9.
first become aware of Mr. Odolecki's presence. It seemed at this point after this officer, who
10.
is this officer here?
11.
That's Officer Kuchler.
12.
And Officer Kuchler says hey Doug he's having a bad day don't do this right now;
13.
is that roughly at the point that you became aware that Douglas Odolecki was on site.
14.
15.
Doug is over there taping and it's almost instantaneous that the young man, again, I don't
16.
remember his exact words, made the comment about I might as well jump, I' m going to be
17.
on video.
18.
So which one is Officer Tellings.
19.
Right there. He was the one talking to the young man most of the time.
20.
Okay so the young man didn't even see Mr. Odolecki, wasn't even aware, that
21.
you ' re aware of, of Mr. Odolecki's presence until somebody said hey Douglas Odolecki
22.
is over there taping; so is that fair to say?
23.
No sir I didn't know he was present until he crossed the street and was standing
What I want you to do for me is watch this and let me know at what point you
It was about the same time that he stated that that Officer Tellings also said hey
THE COURT: Wait, hold on one second,
24.
25.
did I hear an objection?
199
MR. SPELLACY: Yes.
1.
2.
3.
THE COURT: How would the young man

know -- how would the officer know what the young man knows.
4.
5.
MR. GOLD: I believe the testimony yesterday was that at some point he became
aware that Mr. Odolecki is there.
6.
THE COURT: That the officer did?
7.
MR. GOLD: No that the young man did.
8.
THE COURT: The young man did?
9.
MR. GOLD: Yes.

THE COURT: So your question to the
10.
11.
Sergeant is what? I' m sorry.
12.
MR. GOLD : I'll rephrase it.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: I'll withdraw Your Honor.
14.
THE COURT: Okay.
15.
MR. GOLD : I' ll rephrase that.
16.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
17.
BY MR. GOLD:
18.
19.
is that his name?
20.
Yes.
21.
Officer Tellings said Douglas Odolecki's over there taping; is that fair to say?
22.
I don' t know when the young man became aware that he was there. I mean,
23.
that's when I became aware when I heard Officer Kuchler made the comment and Officer
24.
Tellings said you know Doug' s over there taping.
25.
The young man wasn' t aware of Mr. Odolecki presence until Officer Tellings,
Prior to those statements though did, the young man didn't make, this young
200
1.
man didn't make any comments that to you that would indicate he was aware that Mr.
2.
Odolecki was taping, correct?
3.
He didn't make any comments then no .
4.
So it wasn't until after your officer said something that he became upset.
5.
It was about simultaneous, around the same time. I couldn't tell you exactly.
6.
But he was made aware by your officers that Mr. Odolecki was there.
7.
Again I don't know when he became aware, I couldn't tell you exactly when he
8.
knew that Doug was over there, or Mr. Odolecki, I do know that he made that comment after
9.
Officer Tellings said Doug is over there taping.
10.
11.
taping, what else, what is he doing to interfere with the performance of your duties?
12.
13.
I'm going to be on video.
14.
15.
interference here.
16.
17.
after we calmed him down, actually Officer Tellings calmed him down, he did most of the
18.
talking.
19.
So Mr. Odolecki didn't say anything to this young man, correct?
20.
No sir.
21.
Okay. He didn't say anything to any of the police officers.
22.
At that time, no, I don't believe so.
23.
He's just standing there videotaping.
24.
Yes.
25 .
I'd like you to watch something. Okay, so he's having a real bad -- this officer
So Mr. Odolecki's -- Doug's sitting here taping right now, is he, other than his
Again the comment by the young man that I might as well go jump now, since
So it's just the fact that he's standing there taping that you believe caused the
Well that and then he -- the young man became more agitated or upset again
201
1.
with the helmet is stating that he's having a real bad day. At no point, up to this point did
2.
anybody tell Douglas Odolecki we have an emergency did they?
3.
Well we wouldn't have been there otherwise, but, no we never told him that.
4.
Okay never told him this. Well everywhere you go isn' t necessarily an emergency,
5.
right?
6.
Not every time, no sir.
7.
Okay. But at this point no one had, no one's telling Doug Odolecki that there's
8.
an emergency.
9.
No nobody said there 's an emergency no sir.
10.
He's just saying that this person' s having a real bad day.
11.
Yes sir.
12.
Doesn't say why, right?
13 .
Well we' re not going to put that out just like ifwe were interacting with Mr.
14.
Odolecki and you came up and asked what was going on, I mean, we're not going to tell you
15.
either.
16.
That's all going to be public record though isn't it?
17.
Well if you want to go get the public record then yes sir.
18.
Don't you think it would be important, if there ' s an emergency and somebody's
19.
videotaping at the emergency that you might want to at least tell them, hey, this is an
20.
emergency, we can' t have you here. Don't you think that information would be helpful to
21.
Mr. Odolecki?
22.
He was asked to stop taping.
23.
My question though is don't you think it would have been helpful for Mr.
24.
Odolecki' s understanding of whether an emergency existed to tell him there ' s an emergency
25.
here, don't you think that would have been helpful?
202
1.
It could have been, but again, he was asked to stop taping.
2.
All right. Instead what did you do?
3.
I told him to leave. I actually tried to block his camera.
4.
Okay. I think that what you said yesterday was that you tried to bullshit him.
5.
I did try to BS him, yes sir.
6.
You said bullshit.
7.
I said bullshitting yes sir, yes sir, I tried to bullshit him, I told him he couldn't
8.
tape a juvenile without his parents' permission hoping that that would stop him.
9.
Do you think that that language is appropriate in a Court of law?
10.
In a Court of law?
11.
This is we agree that this is a Court of law.
12.
THE COURT: The word bullshit?

13.
14.
15.
THE COURT: The word bullshit is that

what you' re asking him?
16.
17.
MR. GOLD: Yes, was his use of the word bullshit yesterday appropriate in a
Court of law?
MR. SPELLACY: Objection. I guess that would be up to the Judge.
18.
19.
20.
21.
THE COURT: Would that be up to the

Judge.
MR. GOLD: I'm asking him if he thinks it's appropriate. I mean this is a case
22.
about, partially about inappropriate language and I find it, at least ironic that this witness
23.
comes in here on the stand --
24.
25.
MR. SPELLACY: I' ll withdraw the objection.

THE COURT: Okay, withdrawn. Go on
203
1.
Mr. Gold, go on.
2.
MR. GOLD: -- and use said language.
3.
BYMR. GOLD:
4.
5.
here in front of the jury, in front of the attorneys, in front of the Defendant, in front of the
6.
public is appropriate?
7.
8.
lie I' m going to tell you the truth I was trying to bullshit him.
9.
So my question mister, Officer Gillissie is do you think that using that language
Yes sir, at that time, yes sir because I believe my statement was, I'm not going to
So your answer is it's okay to use that language.
10.
11.
12.
BYMR. GOLD:
13.
14.
emergency, you thought it was a better idea to bullshit him, right?
15.
16.
you know, not a good time do this, you know, stop, but he continued. So then I tried to
17.
come up
18.
So you try to bullshit him.
19.
-- yes sir I try to bullshit him with saying that because he is a juvenile, you need
20.
his parents' permission, which I know in public you don't know because I shoot photography,
21.
it's a hobby.
22.
23.
him the truth that there' s an emergency.
24.
25.
five police officers there, three motorcycles and two cruisers, how do you not now that's
So just so we're clear, rather than tell Mr. Odolecki the truth that there' s an
Again, he was already asked by Officer Kuchler that he was having a bad day,
So the answer is you thought it was a better idea to bullshit my client then to tell
Again I can't see how he didn' t know there was an emergency when there was
204
1.
an emergency there.
2.
3.
4.
He just got there, he doesn' t know what's going on, he' s just filming, right?
How do you know --
5.
6.
THE COURT: Hold on a second Mr. Gold,

for the record Mr. Spellacy?
MR. SPELLACY: Objection, if he's got a question, he can ask the question but
7.
8.
to say what his client knew or didn' t know, to make a statement like that is inappropriate.
9.
THE COURT: One question at a time
10.
Mr. Gold and then let the Sergeant answer.
11.
BYMR. GOLD:
12.
13.
was an emergency.
14.
Yes sir.
15 .
But if you had told him it was an emergency he definitely would have known
16.
that it was an emergency, right?
17.
So your answer is you don' t understand how he could not have known that this

THE COURT: Overruled. Your question is
18.
19.
if the officer said this is an emergency then Mr. Odolecki would know it was an emergency.
20.
MR. GOLD: He would at least be on notice it's an emergency, right?

THE COURT: Ifhe used the magic word
21.
22.
emergency then Mr. Odolecki would have known it was an emergency.
23 .
24.
25.
MR. GOLD: Correct.

A
Yes.
THE COURT: Does that make sense to you
205
1.
Sergeant?
2.
3.
BY MR. GOLD:
4.
But instead you chose to bullshit him.
5.
Yes sir.
6.
Okay. Is that something that you're trained to do?
7.
What's that?
8.
Bullshit people to get what you want.
9.
No sir.
10.
No. So Captain Manning or the City of Parma, that's not part of your training
11.
to lie to people -- by bullshit you mean lie don't you.
12.
I guess you could say that yes sir.
13.
Okay. So it's not part of your training to lie to the public to get them to do what
14.
you want?
15.
No sir.
16.
Your training would be to give them the information they need to comply,
17.
wouldn't it?
18.
Yes sir.
19.
And the information that Mr. Odolecki needed in this situation was to know that
20.
this was an emergency, correct?
21.
Yes.
22.
23.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question sir?
24.
BYMR. GOLD:
25 .
The information that Mr. Odolecki needed at this point was to know that this was
206
1.
an emergency, correct?
2.
3.
there was an emergency there.
4.
5.
your orders?
6.
Again I can't see how anybody, you know, a common person wouldn't realize
DO you think it's okay to bullshit the public in order to get them to comply with

THE COURT: Mr. Gold this has been
7.
8.
asked and answered a number of times now so I'm going to sustain the objection and you're
9.
going to move along please.
10.
BY MR. GOLD:
11.
12.
of emergency, correct?
13.
Yes sir.
14.
You charged him because you believe he committed that crime.
15.
Yes sir.
16.
And because you believe he committed that crime you want to see him convicted
17.
don't you.
You charged Mr. Odolecki with, among other things, misconduct at the scene
18.
THE COURT: Sustained. Move on Mr.
19.
20.
Gold.
21.
BY MR. GOLD:
22.
23.
bullshit the public yet we shouldn' t this jury shouldn't believe that you're bullshitting them
24.
right now about what happened that day?
25.
I guess if it came right down to it, apparently in some situations it's okay to
207
1.
THE COURT: Come on up guys.
2.
BYMR. GOLD:
3.
I'm going to ask you Officer Gillissie what are you doing right there?
4.
Putting my hand up in front of his camera.
5.
Did you make contact with the camera?
6.
Yes sir with the camera, I believe I did touch it.
7.
And the camera was in his hand?
8.
Yes.
9.
Is it possible you might have made contact with his body also?
10.
No sir.
11.
Okay so you just put your hands on his property.
12.
Yes sir.
13.
Do you believe you have a right to do that?
14.
Excuse me?
15.
Did you believe you had a right to do that at that point?
16.
Yes sir.
17.
What gave you the right to seize my client's property?
18.
I didn' t try to seize it, I put my hand in front of it to block him.
19.
But you touched it correct?
20.
Yes sir.
21.
Now at this point you advise him that if he doesn' t leave you're going to arrest him
22.
for obstructing, right?
23.
Yes sir.
24.
Okay so you told him that if you don't comply, this is the law that I'm going to
25.
arrest you for, right?
208
1.
Yes sir that he'd be arrested for obstructing, yes sir.
2.
Okay. At no point did you indicate that you were going to arrest him for
3.
misconduct at the scene of an emergency, right?
4.
No sir.
5.
Okay. And at no point here did you advise him that there was an emergency.
6.
No sir.
7.
Okay. You just simply stated that ifhe didn't take a walk, you would arrest
8.
him for obstruction.
9.
Yes sir.
10.
And after you even said that, after you gave him that information, he took a walk,
11.
correct?
12.
13.
would have been over with.
14.
15.
continued to do what he was doing is your issue now at this point that Mr. Odolecki is still
16.
filming from across the street. Do you understand my question? You said he continued to
17.
do what he was doing, what was he continuing to do?
18.
19.
thought it was over with. I went back to the young man with Officer Tellings to try to
20.
calm him back down again, which we did and at this time Mr. Odolecki went across the
21.
street, continued to film and right away started throwing, you know, a couple "F" bombs.
22.
23.
on why he' s been cited or arrested in this situation. So ifl understand correctly that because
24.
he continued to film that's one of the reasons that he was arrested and cited with misconduct
25.
at the scene of an emergency?
Across the street but continued to do what he was doing. Had he walked then that
Okay, so he crossed the street, he's still filming though so when you say he
After he took his walk across the street I actually thought he was leaving, so I
We'll get to the " F" bombs in a moment, but I just want to make sure I'm clear
209
I actually didn' t, I don't believe made the cites, I believe Officer Kuchler cited
1.
2.
him for the violations, but as you know yourself you might get arrested for one thing but when
3.
you get there, you look at the other ordinances or laws that you may have violated and you
4.
get, you also get cited with them.
5.
6.
just told him to take a walk, correct?
7.
Yes sir.
8.
Okay. So the fact that he's still filming over here that's okay isn' t it?
9.
No sir.
10.
Okay but you didn' t tell him that.
11.
Well he was, it was pretty much told to him before when Officer Kuchler said
12.
hey, he' s not having a good day, not a good thing to do, when I walked up, again, there
13.
wasn't you know the truth it's not the law that you can't film him in public because he is a
14.
juvie, okay.
15.
16.
street, how many feet away do you think that is by the way.
17.
18.
little wider there.
19.
20.
probably at least 35 to 50 feet away from Douglas Odolecki at this point?
21.
Probably, yes sir.
22.
Would that be a fair estimate, close enough UNINTELLIGIBLE.
23.
Yes.
24.
So is it your understand that because Mr. Odolecki now is continuing to film
25.
from over 50 feet away that he's interfering with your management of that emergency?
But when you were telling him to take a walk you didn't say stop filming, you
But I guess my question is, do you believe that his filming from across the
The normal street and side street in Parma is 24 feet, so it's actually probably a
So the street' s about 24 feet and then UNINTELLIGIBLE a little further in so he's
210
1.
2.
that I might as well jump because I'm going to be on video, okay, so to continue filming
3.
after he was asked not directly asked but pretty much indicated, hey, stop filming, he's
4.
having a bad day.
5.
6.
Yes sir because the initial filming brought the comment from the young man
What if he was 100 feet away?

7.
BY MR. GOLD:
8.
Would it matter to you?
9.
THE COURT: Overruled Mr. Spellacy
10.
you can answer that Sergeant.
11 .
BY MR. GOLD:
12.
Would it matter to you if he's 100 feet away and still filming?
13.
Even if he went across the street, probably didn't open his mouth and started
14.
yelling "F" bombs to draw attention to himself, so again now the young man knows he's still
15.
there filming, yes sir.
16.
17.
ability to manage the scene.
18.
The filming is the interference, the "F" bombs is the disorderly.
19.
Okay, all right. I just wanted to make sure you clarify that, thank you. I'm going
20.
to continue to play the video now. Okay, I' m going to stop right there. Is that the "F" bomb
21.
to which you're referring?
22.
I believe that was the first one, yes sir.
23.
That was the first one, okay. And do you know who he was directing that towards?
24.
Do I know, no.
25.
Did that statement in and of itself cause you to want to enter into a physical
So is it the filming or the "F" bombs that are interfering at this point with your
211
1.
altercation with Mr. Odolecki?
2.
3.
to be offended by that kind of language. It was more for the three young girls that were over
4.
there.
5.
6.
didn't cause, didn't cause you -- incite you with violence, correct?
7.
Again, we're supposed to put up with that.
8.
But you don't know who he 's actually directing this comment toward.
9.
Again it wasn't about who he directed it to, it was that there were three little
10.
girls around the area that could hear him also.
11.
12.
who he was directing that comment to.
13.
No sir I told you I didn't know who he was saying that to.
14.
All right there 's a second "F" bomb. Now do you know who Mr. Odolecki is
15.
directing that comment toward?
16.
No sir.
17.
So other than the two "F" bombs, is there anything else based upon your review
18.
of this video that you believe amounts to disorderly conduct at this point?
19.
No sir.
20.
So it's the "F" bombs that you believe serve as the basis for a disorderly conduct
21.
charge.
22.
Yes sir.
23.
So he was arrested for disorderly conduct, isn't disorderly conduct a minor
24.
misdemeanor?
25.
The disorderly wasn't for us because technically, you know, we're not supposed
All right so the answer to my question is his use of that language towards you
I understand that that's your opinion but my question is factual, you don't know
212
1.
THE COURT: Your objection is?
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Misstatement oflaw Your Honor. Can we approach?

THE COURT: Yes. So you're going to
3.
4.
withdraw that question.
5.
MR. GOLD: I' ll withdraw that question.
6.
7.
MR. GOLD : I'll withdraw that question.
8.
BY MR. GOLD:
9.
10.
being filmed, at any point do you relay that information to Mr. Odolecki?
11.
As far as?
12.
As far as that he wanted to kill himself because Mr. Odolecki was filming him?
13.
Again as I stated before, even if I was dealing with you and something was going
14.
on and somebody wanted to come over I'm not going to tell them what we're dealing with
15.
and I' m not going tell him that this young man wanted to jump over the bridge.
16.
17.
because Mr. Odolecki was videotaping him, wouldn't that be good information for Mr.
18.
Odolecki to have?
19.
Officer Gillissie at any point after the young man became aware that he was
But if there's a concern that this young man is going to kill himself specifically

THE COURT: I think that the Sergeant
20.
21.
has answered that question a number of times also so the objection is sustained and Mr. Gold
22.
we' 11 move on.
23.
BYMR. GOLD:
24.
25.
emergency. At some point this young man sat down on either a stoop or this guardrail,
I'd like to discuss a little bit about the emergency and what constitutes the
213
1.
right?
2.
Yes sir.
3.
And the police officers calmed him down.
4.
Yes sir.
5.
At that time did you believe that there was a danger of having him escaping
6.
the four of you and jumping off the bridge?
7.
At first when he was calmed down, no sir.
8.
Okay. And then Mr. Odolecki arrived on the scene, how far away from the young
9.
man was Mr. Odolecki?
10.
The first time?
11.
The first time when he was across the street from the bridge.
12.
I'm going to guess maybe 20, 25 feet.
13.
And so when Mr. Odolecki actually began filming
14.
You mean on the other side of the bridge when he was pulling up?
15.
When he was on the other side of the bridge and he actually began filming, there
16.
wasn't, you don't believe that there was a danger of this young man jumping off the bridge.
17.
18.
don' t know at what point we were with the young man, I don't know ifhe was sitting down
19.
by then or I don't know you know whether he was calmed down or was still agitated.
20.
21.
sometime after one of your officers --
22.
He didn't become agitated --
23.
Listen to my question just for the sake of the record.
24.
Okay.
25.
I think we agreed earlier that the young man didn't become agitated until at least
Again I didn' t realize when Mr. Odolecki -- until he came across the street so I
But we agree that he didn' t become agitated again until it was the same time or
214
1.
the same time or sometime after one of your officers said hey that's Douglas Odolecki
2.
filming over there; is that a correct statement of what your previous testimony was?
3.
4.
he was there, okay, but I know that he became agitated when, you know, when the comment
5.
was made that hey Doug's over there filming. Again I don't know if that' s when he became
6.
aware or he knew before that.
7.
But he didn't become agitated until the comment was made
8.
And again I believe I stated before it was around the same time.
9.
Okay so it was around the same time so we agree that Mr. Odolecki started
10.
filming before your officer said, hey, that's Douglas Odolecki over there filming.
11.
12.
the bridge and nobody knew he was there.
13 .
14.
was going to jump off the bridge.
15.
16.
young man, I don' t know ifwe had just arrived, I don't know ifhe was still standing up, I
17.
don' t know if he was sitting down when he started filming.
18.
At the point that you got this young man to calm down initially
19.
Yes sir and it was more, again, Officer Tellings than me because he did most of the
20.
talking.
21.
22.
he told the officer stop rubbing his back he's fine, do you recall him making this statement?
23.
He did state that to Officer Tellings yes sir.
24.
Now as I understand the emergency of the situation was there was a young man
25.
who was going to jump off the bridge, correct?
No sir. I stated that I'm not exactly sure when the young man became aware
Yes sir it's on video, he started filming when he was across the street, crossing
So when he started filming, there was no danger in your mind that this young man
Again when he started filming, I don't know at what point we were with that
There was a comment made I think from the mother yesterday that at some point
215
1.
Yes sir.
2.
Okay.
3.
That's the call that we received.
4.
That's the call you received. And then once you got him calmed down, you
5.
didn't believe that he was going to jump off the bridge, correct?
6.
I was hoping he wouldn't get agitated again.
7.
Did you think there was a genuine danger of him escaping four Parma Police
8.
Officers and jumping off that bridge?
9.
10.
you have no idea what they're going to do from one second to the next.
11.
12.
that he's autistic, right?
13.
I actually didn' t find that out until yesterday sir.
14.
But you just were aware that he was somebody that was very agitated.
15.
Yes sir.
16.
But he was agitated before you got there.
17.
Yes.
18.
Once you arrived you got him to calm down.
19.
Yes sir.
20.
And he 's no longer agitated.
21.
Until he was made aware or found out that he was being filmed, then he started
22.
getting agitated again.
23.
You have no idea what they're going to do and part of the reason are you aware
MR. GOLD: That's all the questions I have Your Honor.
24.
25.
And again when you deal with somebody that's, you know, agitated or you know

Spellacy?
216
1.
2.
3.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
4.
5.
interfere with your ability to do your job?
6.
Yes sir.
7.
And I heard I think multiple occasions you ask him get out of here or leave or
8.
something to that effect.
9.
Take a walk.
10.
Take a hike, right or take a walk?
11.
Yes sir.
12.
Take a walk and he says no I'm not, right?
13.
Yes sir.
14.
So you gave him an order and he refused, correct?
15.
I believe I told him three times before he started to walk.
16.
You heard some questions by Mr. Gold that wouldn't it be helpful if Doug
17.
Odolecki, did you hear him say that repeatedly, wouldn't it have been helpful to Doug
18.
Odolecki, remember those questions?
19.
Yes sir.
20.
Were you there for Doug Odolecki?
21.
No sir.
22.
Why were you called there?
23.
For the young man that was going to attempt suicide.
24.
Now there were other motorists going by, pedestrians going by, that situation,
25.
correct?
Sergeant did Mr. Odolecki' s presence at the corner that we see on video, did that
217
1.
I know there were motorists, I don' t know about pedestrians.
2.
Did anyone else stop?
3.
No sir.
4.
Did anyone else walk up on that emergency situation?
5.
No sir.
6.
Is there a difference between stabilizing an emergency and an emergency being
7.
over?
8.
Yes sir.
9.
Okay. Can you explain that the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
10.
What it means by stabilizes there's an incident going on and again especially with
11.
him when we first got there you know it was volatile, that he wanted to jump, he was trying
12.
to get through his mom and she was doing everything she could to keep him. Then once we
13.
got there and started talking to him and got him to sit down and calm down it was stabilized
14.
but it wasn't over, it really wasn' t over until the ambulance arrived, we got him in the
15.
ambulance and they transported him, then it' s over.
16.
How did you -- how many officers were present?
17.
I believe by the end, I think there was five of us.
18.
So five officers were present, correct?
19.
Yes sir.
20.
How man vehicles had flashing lights on them?
21.
All five, three motorcycles and I believe there was a car and a SUV.
22.
So you had five vehicles with flashing lights.
23.
Yes.
24.
You had five police officers, four dealing with the juvenile who was attempting
25.
to harm himself, correct?
218
1.
Yes.
2.
And then one dealing with the mother and her three daughters, correct?
3.
Yes.
4.
And you were all in uniform, correct?
5.
Yes sir.
6.
How do you, what do you do to signify an emergency.
7.
You mean if we're responding to one?
8.
Yes.
9.
You use your lights and siren.
10.
Based upon your training and experience was it obvious that there was an
11.
emergency situation going on?
12.
Yes sir.
13 .
You mentioned that you heard the juvenile say something to the effect that well
14.
I'm going to be on Y ouTube I might as well just go kill myself, correct?
15.
16.
I'm being videotaped I might as well just jump.
17.
18.
you when he used the "F" word the first time and then the second time when he said, say
19.
hello to YouTube mother f-r, you were asked whether that incited; do you remember that
20.
question?
21.
Yes sir.
22.
And your response was, well, we have to take that, right.
23.
Yes sir.
24.
As a police officer, correct?
25.
Yes sir.
Again his exact words I don't remember, I know he did say something about
Did -- you were asked questions about whether or not that language incited
219
1.
Well with that language did you see a change of the demeanor of the juvenile?
2.
He became agitated again, started to.
3.
Did you have a fear that he may try to harm himself again?
4.
Again you don't know what they're going to do. Once he became agitated again
5.
you don' t know if he' s going to get up or you know still sit there again he' s I say, you know
6.
he was 17 but he ' s six something, three hundred some pounds.
7.
Did that language change his demeanor?
8.
At first yes sir.
9.
Did you have an opportunity to see the demeanor of his mother?
10.
Again I really wasn' t paying attention to her, I was more focused on him.
11.
Did his presence and his actions have an effect on this emergency situation?
12.
Mr. Odolecki's?
13.
Yes.
14.
Yes sir.
15.
And describe that.
16.
Again when he first came across the street and was filming and the young man
17.
became aware of it after we had him calmed down one time he became agitated again and
18.
that' s when, you know, when he made the comment about, you know, I might as well
19.
jump, I'm being videotaped, that's basically when I went over and put my hand on his
20.
phone and again b.s. him trying to get him to leave, when he, you know, didn't leave with
21.
that, that's when I told him take a walk. When he started to walk away across the street
22.
I actually thought he was leaving so I thought we were done with him and went back to the
23 .
young man but then he, you know, basically went across the street and you know after the
24.
couple "F" bombs, and this is probably when I really realized that there were you know the
25.
other two officers were there so again I figured now that it was, you know, more officers
220
1.
then just Officer Tellings with him so that's why we went and arrested him at that time.
2.
Now you knew Doug Odolecki, you knew who he was, correct?
3.
I met him before, yes sir.
4.
And you knew this was an emergency situation, correct?
5.
Yes sir.
6.
You told him to leave on several occasions and he refused to leave, correct?
7.
Yes sir.
8.
And that was after walking from across the street to the emergency situation,
9.
correct?
10.
Yes sir.
11.
And he refused to obey your command, correct?
12.
Correct.
13.
What was your focus on, what were your duties at that emergency situation,
14.
what were your responsibilities, your primary responsibilities?
15.
16.
bridge.
17.
And why did you have to deal with Douglas Odolecki?
18.
Again because when the young man first became aware that he was there, he
19.
became agitated again and again you know the comment about wanting to jump if he's being
20.
videotaped.
21.
22.
emergency or not, anyone else from the public?
23.
24.
25.
My primary responsibility was to try to keep the young man from jumping off the
Did anyone else ask you or come to the situation to see whether or not it was an
THE COURT: What's your objection?

MR. GOLD: My objection is relevance. It doesn' t matter whether someone, what
221
1.
someone else did at that scene or didn't do , it matters what Mr. Odolecki did or did not do.
2.
THE COURT: Thanks Mr. Gold, oven-uled.
3.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
4.
Go ahead, you can answer.
5.
No sir, nobody else stopped.

MR. SPELLACY: No further questions.
6.
7.

MR. GOLD: I do have very brief --
8.
9.
THE COURT: Sure.
10.
MR. GOLD: -- re-cross based off of that.
11.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
12.
BY MR. GOLD:
13 .
14.
here on re-direct, correct?
15.
Yes sir.
16.
Where do you know him previously from?
17.
Again I believe I stated yesterday that, you know, he's been showing up at the
18.
checkpoints and he comes through and videotapes and again I believe I stated at one our
19.
first ones that he started coming around at I had the commander that day invite him into
20.
the diversion area that most people don't go in unless they're actually diverted from the
21.
checkpoint because we don' t let people in the diversion area, that' s where, if when you' re
22.
getting through they detect anything or find something else wrong you're diverted into
23.
there so they can further inspect it without holding everybody else in the street. I had
24.
the commander of that, which was Captain Blair invite him in into the diversion area, so I
25.
said, hey let him videotape everything in here, show him what' s going on because at that
Officer Gillissie you testified that you knew Douglas Odolecki from previously
222
1.
time we had a OVI van that was donated from our OVI taskforce for the Cuyahoga County
2.
Task Force that I said, you know, show him the van, show him how it works, show him what's
3.
done. So at that time Captain Blair did invite him in.
4.
5.
whether we agree with it or not, is filming police in performance of their duties.
6.
Yes sir.
7.
It' s something he takes very seriously, correct?
And so you' re aware that Douglas is somebody who, one of the things he does,
8.
THE COURT: Overruled, you can answer
9.
10.
that Sergeant.
11.
I would imagine. I can' t tell.
12.
And in fact you've had the opportunities, you said at the OVI checkpoints to
13.
actually interact with Douglas Odolecki when you invited him in
14.
Yes sir.
15.
-- to those checkpoints.
16.
And have you ever had a problem with him actually misconduct at those
17.
checkpoints at those times when you invited him in.
18.
19.
day, I mean, he could videotape me all day long, I don't care.
20.
21.
you didn't have an antagonistic relationship with Mr. Odolecki?
22.
23.
one of the other ones in which we had a sign at the end of it that showed that last year there
24.
was 319 people killed in Ohio, 50 some in Cuyahoga County so I made the comment to him,
25 .
well if you' re videotaping it make sure you get what's on those signs too.
We only invited him in once and I don' t believe we really had a problem that
Okay. So prior to this incident would it be fair to say you know you' ve had
Not that I know of. I mean I've talked to him at other ones too he was videotaping
223
So you've been able to have conversations with Mr. Odolecki while he 's been
1.
2.
filming the police.
3.
Yes sir.
4.
Okay. And those conversations they weren't hostile were they?
5.
Not on my part. I mean as far as I know not on his .
6.
Okay. So would it be fair to say that at least you two have a pretty good at least
7.
arm ' s length professional relationship interacting with each other?
8.
I think we put up with each other.
9.
Okay. And you've never had an issue being able to communicate with Mr.
10.
Odolecki in the past.
11.
12.
No, I mean, whenever he showed up and talked, no sir.

MR. GOLD: Nothing further, thank you.
13.
14.
THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Gold.

Mr. Spellacy?
15.
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further thank you Sergeant.
16.
THE COURT: Thank you Sergeant.
17.
Ladies and gentlemen are you doing okay? Does anyone need a break? Mr. Spellacy,
18.
break?
19.
MR. SPELLACY: Bathroom break.
20.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a five
21.
10 minute break, we'll get you back into the jury room, you can get some coffee, water,
22.
whatever you need, you are allowed to bring it out here, there's restrooms back there for
23.
you also .
24.
25.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen
224
1.
thank you, please be seated.

MR. SPELLACY: Next witness?
2.
3.
THE COURT: Please.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor we would call Patrolman Tellings.
OFFICER MICHAEL TELLINGS
5.
6.
7.
8.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
9.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
10.
Good morning officer.
11.
Hi, good morning.
12.
Please introduce yourself to the jury.
13.
Name is Officer Michael Tellings, Badge #542.
14.
And where are you employed?
15.
Employed with the Parma Police Department.
16.
In what capacity?
17.
I'm a traffic officer.
18 .
And how long have you been a traffic officer?
19.
Thirty and a half years.
20.
And do you as a traffic officer have an occasion to respond to calls, emergency
21.
calls?
22.
That's correct.
23.
And explain what types of emergency calls you may have an occasion to respond to
24.
Most of the time it's regarding traffic accidents, serious injuries, fatalities because
25.
we enforce traffic laws, so that's basically what I do now because I'm a traffic officer but back
225
1.
in the day we used to respond to all types of emergency.
2.
On July 29, 20 15 were you on duty?
3.
Yes sir.
4.
In uniform?
5.
Yes sir.
6.
On a marked police vehicle?
7.
A police motorcycle, yes.
8.
And did you have the occasion to respond to an emergency call?
9.
That's correct.
10.
Explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the emergency call was,
11.
what information was provided to you?
12.
13 .
Southeast Harley, we were on our police motorcycles, we just returned back into the City
14.
when it came over the air that there was a boy or a juvenile that was attempting to jump off
15.
the bridge.
16.
And did you along with your partners respond to that call?
17.
That' s correct.
18.
Why is it that a traffic officer would respond to that call?
19.
Well when something that serious usually everybody gets involved and we were
20.
pretty close we were at the intersection of State and Brookpark and the incident was at Snow
21.
and Southpark so we were really close and I looked at my Sergeant and said let's go.
22.
And explain what you did.
23 .
Well obviously we responded red lights and sirens, emergency, and we got there
24.
pretty quick. We were the first ones that got there on the scene.
25 .
All right myself and my Sergeant and another officer we were coming back from
Explain the scene when you first got there.
226
1.
When we first got there we rolled up again it's a little bit different when you're
2.
not in a cruiser but you're on a police bike so now you got to watch to get off the bike and
3.
I do remember I reached for my mic and asked for a description of the male that was
4.
attempting to jump off the bridge.
5.
And did you, when you arrived on scene what did you see?
6.
I seen a boy, and I'm not going to continue calling him a boy or a juvenile, his
7.
name is Daniel so I'm going to call him Daniel, he was, he was by the bridge, it looked like
8.
he was attempting to jump off the bridge. Morn was there with him, fighting, fighting with
9.
him or attempting to try to stop him from jumping off the bridge.
10.
And what did you do?
11.
I immediately jumped off the bike, I ran over because, again, the description
12.
was like a I think it was like an orange or red top on, more of a bigger boy, so I went over
13.
and I immediately jumped over one of the guardrails to get to him because morn was
14.
definitely struggling with him and I immediately grabbed him, tried to get him off the
15.
bridge, I brought him off the bridge to get him to safety.
16.
And what did -- were you able to calm him down?
17.
Well what I did was, once I grabbed him I brought off the bridge so he wouldn' t
18.
try to jump off the bridge. He was hysterical, he was crying, I hear morn in the background
19.
please I need your help . I got him off the bridge, we brought him over, I' m going to say
20.
at least maybe 25 , 50 feet away from the bridge and I sat him down on another guardrail that
21 .
was there and I positioned myself so if he did try to jump or go back to the bridge he would,
22.
you know, I would stop him.
23.
You say you positioned yourself between him and where the bridge was?
24.
Correct.
25.
And what -- were you able to calm him down?
227
1.
Yeah, it took a little bit, took a while. He was hysterical, he was crying, he was
2.
telling me that I don' t understand, nobody loves me anymore. I hear mom again in the
3.
background and I'm trying to talk to him, trying to calm him down to try to maybe get a
4.
rapport with him so I can talk to him to the point where I was rubbing his back trying to
5.
calm him down. Again, he was crying crazy just telling me I don't understand, nobody loves
6.
me anymore.
7.
Were you able to calm him down?
8.
Yeah I did, I calmed him down to the point where we were able to talk, asking him,
9.
you know, what's the problem here, nobody loves me. I told him well your mom's here she's
10.
trying to prevent you from hurting yourself and then I did mention because I seen three little
11 .
girls that were with mom and I asked him who are the little girls and he said them are my
12.
sisters. They were all crying so I said, well, they love you, they' re here for you, you know,
13.
so once I brought that all to his, you know, to him, he kind of like calmed down he quit
14.
crying so it was easy like you know I was able to talk to him.
15 .
At some point did you become aware that Mr. Doug Odolecki was on the scene?
16.
That's correct I did see Doug, I'm familiar with Mr. Odolecki, I did see him
17.
arrive, I seen him start to videotape, he made some kind of comment it was kind hard for
18.
me to hear, I still had my helmet on but I do remember taking it off because it was getting
19.
hot, I'm starting to sweat and everything because I was kind of nervous I wanted to help
20.
this kid out. I took my helmet off and I did overhear him say, something to the part or
21.
he cited some kind of violent behavior like I'll see you on YouTube.
22.
23.
1; and ask you questions. Is that you up in this area with the helmet on?
24.
That's correct.
25.
Now your helmets off?
Okay. I want to play for you what's been previously marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit
228
1.
That' s correct.
2.
Is that the point in time that you became aware of Odolecki?
3.
Well I did see him prior to that because I'm familiar with him and then he started
4.
talking.
5.
6.
Mr. Odolecki.
7.
8.
on the other side of the guardrail so he wouldn' t run across the street or whatever but once
9.
that started yeah they left to take care of that problem and I stayed with Daniel.
10.
Was this an emergency situation?
11.
Oh, most definitely.
12.
Were you waiting for an ambulance at that point to take Daniel?
13.
14.
that was going to happen that maybe he needed maybe if he was on some type of medication
15.
maybe he can look into his medication and what's the problem, what made you snap today
16.
so yeah we were waiting for an ambulance to respond.
17.
18.
up?
19.
Correct.
20.
Were you able to overhear what Sergeant Gillissie and Mr. Odolecki were saying
21.
to each other when Sergeant Gillissie walked over to him?
22.
23.
once this started, Daniel made a comment, he made a comment that I might as well jump
24.
now it's going to be on video and once he said that then he started to start reacting again and
25.
start crying again. I said, Dan, don't worry about it, you know, we' ll, I have other options,
Did Mr. Odolecki ' s presence cause Sergeant Gillissie or other officers to go to
Most definitely, again, I had Sergeant Gillissie and another officer standing around
Normally that's what happens you know I do remember telling Daniel that
And you were waiting for the ambulance to respond when Mr. Odolecki showed
Again my attention was with Daniel, again to try to keep him, calm him down so
229
1.
taking care of that problem, you know, just take it easy and there was one point like I said
2.
I was rubbing his back so much because I'm trying to calm him down because he just got
3.
crazy again because this was happening and he told me please stop rubbing my back. I don't
4.
know why, but he did but yeah there was a problem once that started.
5.
Are you still with Daniel back there?
6.
Yeah, I never, even the problems that were over there with Mr. Odolecki, I figured
7.
Sergeant Gillissie and whoever else was going there to take care of that problem, I'm staying
8.
with Daniel, there' s no way I was going to leave Daniel.
9.
Do you hear him use profanities there?
10.
Yes sir.
11.
Did you hear it, as you were seated where Daniel was, did you hear that, him
12.
using vulgarities from across the street?
13.
14.
the swearing but I did overhear morn because morn was behind us, she was probably 10, 15
15.
feet away and I know Officer Kuchler was with her at one point and I heard her say, why do
16.
my kids have to hear this?
There' s no did you hear him, he was screaming. Daniel didn't say anything about
MR. GOLD: Objection hearsay.
17.
18.
19.
BYMR. SPELLACY:
20.
21.
Daniel's demeanor when certain things were said.
22.
23.
now, because I'm on video, I might as well jump off the bridge. Then he started getting
24.
back that he was getting crazy again.
25.
Let me play the rest of this, okay. Before I do that, did you see a change in
Yeah, immediately. Once he made that comment about I might as well do it
MR. GOLD: Your Honor I'm sorry before the next question is asked can we
230
1.
have a brief sidebar?
2.
THE COURT: Sure.
3.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
4.
Is that the comment that you' re referring to, say hello to YouTube M-F'r.
5.
That's correct. And I believe he said it before or whatever but that is one of the
6.
words that he said see you on Y ouTube.
7.
8.
was made?
9.
10.
as well jump and nobody loves me and maybe he seen his mom started crying and kids starting
11.
to cry that they, I don't know, but he did escalate up again for me to calm him down.
12.
13.
Did you see a change in Daniel and a change in his mother when that comment
Most definitely. Again he started escalating back to where he's you know I might
MR. GOLD: Objection move to strike the last portion regarding maybe he saw
his mother Your Honor.
14.
THE COURT: Come on up gentlemen.
15.
All right the last question and answer will be sustained and stricken from the record. The
16.
jury is directed to disregard.
17.
BYMR. SPELLACY:
18.
19.
behavior of his mother when those comments were made?
20.
Yes both of them.
21.
Did those comments incite both Daniel and his mother?
22.
Definitely because I already had him calmed down to where I was able to talk to
23.
him.
24.
25.
the juvenile or anyone else at that emergency situation?
Did you see a change in the behavior of Daniel and did you see a change in the
Did Mr. Odolecki's presence and his actions pose a potential safety hazard for
231
1.
Most definitely.
2.
Was that in fact an emergency situation?
3.
It was. I think if we didn't get there as fast as we did, we probably wouldn't
4.
be here.
5.
Even after you calmed Daniel down, was it still an emergency scene?
6.
Oh yes.
7.
How as it still an emergency scene?
8.
Again, the paramedics haven' t arrived yet so I stayed with him the whole time
9.
until the paramedics got there and the ambulance got there. I escorted him to the ambulance
10.
just to be with him the whole time and once he got in the ambulance then I didn't talk with
11.
him anymore I let the paramedics take care of him.
12.
Did the ambulance come and take Daniel from the scene eventually?
13.
Yes.
MR. SPELLACY: One moment Your Honor. I have no further questions, thank
14.
15.
you Your Honor.
16.
17.
THE COURT: Thanks Mr. Spellacy. Mr.

Gold?
18.
19.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
20.
BY MR. GOLD:
21.
Good morning Officer Tellings.
22.
Good morning.
23.
There' s been previous testimony, I believe that you' re heard on the video actually
24.
stating that Douglas Odolecki is filming ; is that correct?
25.
That's correct.
232
1.
Okay. So Daniel's demeanor changed after you said that, right?
2.
He changed when Daniel probably seen or heard him and that's when he made the
3.
comment that I might as well jump now I'll be on video. So his demeanor definitely changed
4.
after that.
5.
But you don't know what Daniel heard, do you?
6.
No sir.
7.
Okay. So when you say he probably heard, when he probably heard that Douglas
8.
Odolecki was filming, you don' t know whether he actually knew based upon his independent
9.
knowledge that Douglas Odolecki was filming, right?
10.
11.
the comment.
12.
But he made the comment after you said Douglas Odolecki is filming.
13.
I never said Douglas was filming.
14.
You just testified that you stated, Douglas Odolecki is filming.
15.
No I never said that all, I know Douglas, I knew he was filming but I never said
16.
that to Daniel at all.
17.
So you never made the comment on the video that Douglas Odolecki is filming.
18.
That is correct. I never said nothing, no.
19.
Okay so Officer Gillissie ' s previous testimony he made a comment that Douglas
20.
Odolecki is filming was he mistaken about that?
21.
Like I said I don't remember saying anything about him filming at all.
22.
Is this you here?
23.
That' s correct.
24.
Now previously in his testimony Officer Gillissie said that you made the comment
25.
that Douglas Odolecki is filming, do you deny it now making that comment.
Oh there' s no doubt in my mind he knew that he was being filmed because he made
233
I don't know why I would even say that because my concern is with Daniel,
1.
2.
why would I even get him all upset by saying something like that so whatever my main
3.
concern is with Daniel.
4.
5.
testimony that you stated, he said you stated verbally that Douglas Odolecki's filming.
6.
7.
know.
8.
If that were his testimony he would be mistaken?
9.
Probably would, yes.
10.
At some point the young man indicates that if, you know, if I'm going to be on
11.
Y ouTube I might as well jump or words to that effect?
12.
13 .
videoed, if it's being videoed, I might as well jump.
14.
15.
tell me at what point does he say that? Let' s stop it. Is it before or after Mr. Odolecki
16.
crosses the street?
17.
18.
there right now.
19.
Correct. Because in fact Daniel is facing the opposite direction, right?
20.
Correct.
21.
Okay. You said you had a chance to observe mom, right?
22.
Oh yeah.
23.
Okay so Mr. Odolecki ' s crossing the street there now you're over with Daniel,
24.
is it your testimony that you' re able to observe Daniel's demeanor as well as mom's
25.
demeanor?
So then your answer would be that Officer Gillissie is mistaken in his previous
I don't know what Officer -- Sergeant Gillissie said in his testimony so I don't
He didn't say anything about YouTube he said I might as well jump if it's being
All right. I want you to take a look at this video if you can and I want you to
It's got to be when he crosses the street. I don' t think Daniel even knows he' s
234
Well occasionally I would look over, you know, because I hear her crying and
1.
2.
asking for help.
3.
4.
and asking for help?
5.
6.
Let's see where you turn your head.
7.
Right there.
8.
Okay you looked over there for a second. Now while you're looking at her, she's
9.
on the phone, correct?
10.
I'm not looking at her.
11.
Okay but you looked over for a second.
12.
Sure.
13.
You said you turned your head.
14.
Sure.
15.
This whole time she's on her phone, right?
16.
Well I probably couldn't see it from that angle.
17.
But we see now that she's on the phone.
18.
Okay.
19.
Okay. She's not asking you for help is she?
20.
I never said asking me. She's probably asking the officers there, Officer Kuchler,
21.
help, I can hear her in the background.
22.
Right now she's on the telephone, right?
23.
Yeah she is.
24.
Okay. So at what point here please tell me to pause the video, at what point does
25.
Mr.
Can you hear her crying or asking for help at any -- tell at what point she's crying
You can see I turn my head already.
does the young man indicate that he might as well jump because he's being filmed?
235
1.
Right now, at that point he ' s not even looking over at Mr. Odolecki, right?
2.
Well if you keep going with the video you're going to see him look over.
3.
Okay.
4.
Right there.
5.
All right so it' s not until this officer, who is this officer here?
6.
Officer Kuchler.
7.
It's not until Officer Kuchler says to Mr. Odolecki, hey, he's having a real bad
8.
day, could you forgo this right now that the young man actually looks over toward the
9.
camera.
10.
You can see he looked over to the camera.
11.
Okay. After --
12.
Sees him videotaping.
13.
-- after your officer said, hey, Mr., hey Doug could you forgo this, he' s having a
14.
real bad day, right?
15 .
Sure.
16.
Okay. So it was after this officer engaged in a discussion with Mr. Odolecki that
17.
the young man's demeanor changed.
18.
19.
THE COURT: Let him finish. Go on, go on.
20.
BYMR. GOLD :
21.
That the young man's demeanor changed.
22.
I don' t think it changed right then, it changed when he made that comment that I
23.
might as well jump now and then it started to get worse you can see him putting his head
24.
down probably starting you know almost start crying again.
25.
But that wasn't until after this frame right here.
236
1.
Okay, yeah.
2.
Is that accurate?
3.
Yes.
4.
Okay. Now Officer Tellings at this point after Officer Gillissie steps walks over
5.
the guardrail and confronts Mr. Odolecki, was the comment made by the young man before
6.
or after this happened?
7.
Before.
8.
So it was sometime after the officer in the helmet states hey Doug could you forgo
9.
this for now he 's having a bad day and before Officer Gillissie confronts Mr. Odolecki.
10.
That's what I said, it was before.
11.
Was it before or after Officer Gillissie leapt over the guardrail?
12.
It was before that yes sir.
13.
Prior to the young man's comments that I might as well jump because I'm being
14.
filmed, was Mr. Odolecki engaging in any activity other than videotaping, which you believe
15.
interfered with your ability to manage the scene?
16.
17.
to calm him down so I wasn' t really looking at him until, you know, we heard some of the
18.
comments but my main concern was on Daniel the whole time.
19.
So then you're not -- but you were aware that Mr. Odolecki was filming.
20.
Oh, yeah.
21.
Okay. Other than filming are you aware of anything else that Mr. Odolecki was
22.
doing.
Again my main concern is with Daniel so I was more concerned with him, trying
THE COURT: Mr. Gold excuse me one
23.
24.
25.
moment. Go on.
237
1.
BY MR. GOLD:
2.
3.
up to that point to interfere with your ability to manage, to perform your duties managing
4.
the scene?
5.
6.
his safety and taking care of him. So whatever happened after or before that, I concentrated
7.
on him.
8.
So you' re not aware of anything other than Mr. Odolecki filming is that fair?
9.
Again my main concern was with Daniel to take care of him to calm him down and
10.
I stayed with him the entire time.
11.
Now you stated that you looked over at the mother and that she was upset.
12.
She was definitely upset.
13 .
She was upset from the moment you got there, wasn't she?
14.
Sure.
15.
So when you got there, she was already upset.
16.
Sure, she was crying, her son's going to be jumping off the bridge.
17.
So as you' re standing over there paying attention to her son, you're not aware
18.
specifically, you're not aware that it's Mr. Odolecki's presence that's causing her distress.
19.
You just know that she' s upset, right?
20.
She's definitely upset. Her kids are crying.
21.
There ' s a lot ofreasons she could have been upset.
22.
She's upset for what happened that day.
23.
What happened that day was her son had an episode where he apparently attempted
24.
to jump off a bridge.
25.
Other than filming are you aware of anything else that Mr. Odolecki had done
Well whatever is happening at the scene, again, my main concern was Daniel and
Wouldn't you be?
238
1.
Yes absolutely I think that's my point.
2.
Yes sir.
3.
Okay.
4.
MR. GOLD: I have no further questions Your Honor.
5.
6.

Spellacy?
7.
MR. SPELLACY: Briefly Your Honor.
8.
9.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
10.
11.
with your ability to manage the scene, do you remember those questions?
12.
Yes.
13.
Were you the only officer that was managing the scene or were you working in
14.
concert with other officers?
15.
16.
to help Daniel.
17.
And did -- at one point we see several officers surrounding Daniel, correct?
18.
Yes.
19.
Sergeant Gillissie, yourself, there's two other officers, correct?
20.
That's correct.
21.
And when Mr. Odolecki arrives at that corner, you see officers leaving your
22.
presence, correct?
23.
That's correct.
24.
Did Mr. Odolecki's presence at that corner interfere with the officers -- your
25.
collective efforts to maintain that scene?
You were asked questions about whether or not Mr. Odolecki's presence interfered
Yeah the other officers were taking care of the scene. Again my main concern was
239
1.
2.
3.
4.
try to calm somebody down, to do most of the talking, you know if you got two or three
5.
officers just yelling at them or trying to calm them down it's just very confusing so I took
6.
that because I was the first one to grab Daniel so I was the main person talking with Daniel.
7.
The other officers were probably there to prevent him, who would have known if he would
8.
have got off that guardrail and tried to jump or go into a line of traffic so that' s probably
9.
basically the reason why we surrounded him. So when the other officers had to leave, there's
10.
no way I was going to leave, you know, ifl would left Daniel and he would have jumped off
11.
the bridge I could never live with myself. So that' s the reason why I stayed there.
12.
Did -- you watched the videotape right?
13.
Numerous times, yes.
14.
And you see where Sergeant Gillissie asked him, tells him, doesn't ask him, gives
15 .
him a command to take a walk, correct?
16.
That's correct.
17.
And you see where he says no I'm not.
18.
Yes.
19.
Right?
20.
Yes, yes.
21.
Were you able to hear that interaction on that day or just watching it on the
22.
videotape?
23.
24.
there was a little bit, not a lot of conversation with Daniel because he was probably listen too
25 .
but whatever Mr. Odolecki said it was probably kind of hard to hear.
The whole reason we -- in any incident you try to get at least one officer to
I heard Sergeant Gillissie yelling there' s no doubt it because when he was yelling
240
Now you were asked earlier what Daniel heard by Mr. Gold, how far away from
1.
2.
Daniel were you?
3.
4.
I felt that was something more comforting to hey I'm concerned here, I'm not just b .s.-ing him
5.
you know I'm here to comfort him, I do it with my own kids.
I was two feet away from him. Again to the point where I was able to rub his back.
MR. SPELLACY: I have no further questions Your Honor.
6.
7.

MR. GOLD: Nothing Your Honor thank you.
8.
9.
10.
Spellacy your next witness?

MR. SPELLACY: Call Captain Manning.
11.
12.
CAPTAIN JOSEPH MANNING
13.
14.
and nothing else but the truth and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
15.
16.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
17.
Please introduce yourself to the jury.
18.
My name is Joe Manning, I'm the Administrative Commander at the Parma Police
19.
Department. I've worked here since 1987, which is approximately 29 years, just under.
20.
21.
responsibilities?
22.
23.
property, the jail, however for 27 years I was in uniform patrol and I worked the patrol, I was
24.
a patrolman for 13 years, I was a Sergeant for three years in charge of, assisting with the shift,
25.
I was an officer in charge of a shift for eight years and then I was a uniform patrol commander
When you say Administrative Commander what are your duties and
At this time I'm in charge of the duties of the vehicles, the building, evidence,
241
1.
for three years.
2.
Okay and when were you uniform patrol commander?
3.
From 2011 to 2014.
4.
Were you uniform patrol commander on June 13, 2014?
5.
Yes.
6.
And what were your duties as a uniform patrol commander?
7.
As a uniform patrol commander I oversaw the workings of the entire uniform
8.
patrol, which includes the traffic unit, canine unit and all of the officers in black and white
9.
cars patrolling. The night you're talking about I was also the commander of a checkpoint
10.
at State and Tuxedo.
11.
12.
of a patrolman are.
13.
14.
or anything he observes and when he's not -- his unobligated time as it's called is his patrol
15.
time when he drives around. At that point he drives around with hopefully his presence to
16.
deter crime, he checks on the businesses, checks side streets, checks the residences, tries to
17.
make sure basically to deter any crime or any problems that would happen in the area included
18.
in that would be enforcing any traffic laws he might see although that's not his main concern.
19.
When he is called to a complaint as we call it, he has to handle that complaint. A complaint
20.
can be anything as simple as somebody threw a brick through a window or somebody's got a
21.
bat in their house, or somebody feels there's a prowler in the backyard and it could be as
22.
serious as the recent ones we've had where we had a robbery where a man was shot, we've
23.
had home invasions, we've had drug incidences, many overdoses with heroin, so it varies,
24.
it's a whole multitude of things they do but basically anything the public calls for we try to
25.
take care of.
Can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the official duties
A patrolman on patrol he has two basic duties he answers the calls, the radio calls
242
1.
We' re here today and you sat through this Trial.
2.
Yes so far.
3.
And you' ve had the opportunity to see the Exhibits and view witness testimony
4.
concerning two incidents, one in June 13, 2014, one on July 29, 2015; correct?
5.
Yes.
6.
All right. You've heard conversation or questions about what is an emergency,
7.
correct?
8.
Yes.
9.
Can you explain to the jury as a patrolman, as a Captain in the Police Department,
10.
as Administrative Commander, what is an emergency?

MR. GOLD: Objection. Can we have a sidebar please Your Honor.
11.
THE COURT: Sure.
12.
13.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
14.
Captain do you know what a call to duty is for an officer?
15.
Yes.
16.
What's a call to duty? What's your understanding of what a call to duty for a
17.
patrolman is?
18.
19.
handle the duty or the incident to the best of his ability.
20.
What -- can you describe what some of those calls to duties are for.
21.
Some very minor, some not.
22.
The July 29, 2015 incident where police received a 911 call concerning an
23.
individual who was going to attempt to harm himself by jumping off a bridge, was that a call
24.
to duty?
25.
A Patrolman' s call to duty is he has to respond to anywhere he is needed and
Yes.
243
1.
And the -- was that an emergency situation?
2.
Yes.
3.
And explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury why that was an emergency
4.
situation.
5.
It involved a threat of death or serious injury to a person.
6.
Did -- and what are the officers duties to do at an emergency situation?
7.
There' s no flowchart to follow because situations are dynamic they go in several
8.
different directions but the quick answer to that is to try to stabilize the situation as quick
9.
as you can and in a manner that would lead to the safety of all persons involved, being the
10.
persons involved in the immediate incident and those surrounding it.
11.
And once an emergency situation is stabilized is it over?
12.
It can't be considered over until its completely done and the situation is completely
13.
removed.
14.
15.
well, he wasn't in any distress, you calmed him down, did you not?
16.
Yes I heard those.
17.
Just because Daniel was calmed down, does that mean that based upon, well from
18.
your perspective as a police officer as the Commander of the Police Department, was that
19.
emergency over?
20.
21.
problems or somebody that's severely upset, they can calm down momentarily and then they
22.
can get just as angry or excited or upset again and just as violent again. They can start and
23.
stop almost instantly.
24.
25.
or access video of Doug Odolecki?
You sat through questions by Mr. Gold before about you heard the questions about,
It would not be because whenever you're dealing with somebody with emotional
Now Captain as Administrative Commander did you have an occasion to review
244
1.
Yes.
2.
And did you do that at my request or at other officers' request?
3.
Initially I did it after the June
4.
website, the CopBlock Website, and that led to several other videos, I made those, I taped
5.
or had some of those put on a disc, I gave them to you, and after that you asked me to compile
6.
some other videos, some more recent ones for the Trial.
7.
8.
actions at different police actions?
9.
Yes.
10.
I' m going to play for you Exhibit 5
13th
checkpoint because the video is posted on his
And did you have an opportunity to compile a video of Doug Odolecki and his
THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy, Mr. Gold.
11.
12.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
13.
14.
is Doug Odolecki present in the videotapes?
15.
Yes.
16.
Is he either videotaping, seen videotaping or seen in the videos?
17.
Yes.
18.
You were specifically asked to only include the videos depicting of which he's a
19.
participant in those actions, correct?
20.
Yes.
21.
And where did you pull these videos from?
22.
They either came from YouTube or CopBlock.org., most of them came from
23.
YouTube.
24.
25.
Captain all these videos that pertain to this Exhibit that the jury' s about to see,
Now this is July 29t\ this is the date of -THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy.
245
1.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
2.
This is the date of the attempted suicide at the bridge; correct?
3.
Yes it's the date of the bridge incident and it's apparently after he gets out of jail
4.
by the dialogue.
5.
6.
where did you obtain this videotape?
7.
This came from Y ouTube.
8.
You didn't need any password or anything to get in there to obtain, it was in the
9.
public domain?
10.
Yes it was.
11.
And we see Doug Odolecki the Defendant in this case, in this videotape?
12.
Yes we do.
13.
This next video, where did you pull this from?
14.
This also came from -- initially it came from CopBlock.org but it's also posted
15.
on YouTube.
16.
17.
sitting on the guardrail and the actions of the police, was that posted?
18.
I did see that on the internet.
19.
Did you find that in the public domain?
20.
I did.
21.
Where did you find that?
22.
I believe it was Y ouTube and I believe it was also on CopBlock for a while.
23.
And that was the video that was taken off of --
24.
Mr. Odolecki's phone.
25.
And that was provided, the phone was provided back to Mr. Odolecki, correct?
And what is this that you see this CopBlock.org live where was this videotaped,
By the way that we've been watching previously, the video of the juvenile
246
1.
Yes it was.
2.
Through a Court order?
3.
Yes it was.
4.
And you found that video on a public domain?
5.
On Y ouTube public domain.
6.
So this was taken off of the public domain?
7.
This one also was, yes.
8.
You found it?
9.
Yes.
10.
Where is Doug Odolecki?
11.
He's filming right now, there will be a picture of him here shortly.
12.
But he's present on scene?
13.
Yes he is.
14.
Do you know what's going on at this traffic, what the officers with their overhead
15.
lights on?
16.
17.
second part of that, there was actually in this video we
18.
This is the same day?
19.
This is the same day, this was just down the street a little later.
20.
And this is the date, 7/18 of 2015, a couple weeks before the incident at the bridge?
21.
Yes it was before the incident at the bridge.
22.
Whose voice is that?
23.
That is Mr. Odolecki.
24.
Where is Doug at this point?
25.
He's the one filming.
It's a routine traffic stop at that point. There's Mr. Odolecki there. This is the
247
1.
This next video, where did you pull it from?
2.
This one came from YouTube, public domain. That's Mr. Odolecki right there.
3.
The date is 4/17/2015 ?
4.
I believe so , yes.
5.
Let me stop it there for a minute. Okay I'm going to ask you some questions about
6.
the video from the checkpoint. Did you pull that off of the public domain?
7.
Yes.
8.
And that shows a checkpoint --
9.
In Cleveland.
10.
And you see Doug Odolecki at that checkpoint, correct?
11.
Yes.
12.
Do you hear on there that they were trying to deter people from going through the
13.
checkpoint, correct?
14.
Yes.
15.
And it looks like 4/13 of 2015 ?
16.
Yes in this one Mr. Odolecki there ' s a banner down the side, he is standing right
17.
next to that banner so he ' s only visible for a second.
18.
Did you see -- where did you obtain this from?
19.
Y ouTube again.
20.
And was he seen in the video?
21.
Yes.
22.
Show me where Mr. Odolecki is.
23.
Right over in this area here.
24.
Can you see Mr. Odolecki at all?
25.
He just walked past the car.
248
1.
I want you to tell me when you see him.
2.
Now, that's him.
3.
That' s Mr. Odolecki. The next video is from May 12 h of 2015; where did you
4.
obtain this video from?
5.
YouTube.
6.
And from the public domain?
7.
Yes.
8.
You did not need any password or anything to obtain it?
9.
No I didn' t.
10.
Does it depict Doug Odolecki?
11.
Yes.
12.
Where is Doug Odolecki?
13 .
He's in the passenger seat.
14.
Was that Mr. Odolecki?
15.
Yes sir.
16.
Do you know who that is?
17.
That' s Doug Odolecki.
18.
All those videos were they all taken off the public domain?
19.
Yes .
20.
Off the internet?
21.
Yes .
22.
You don't need a password to get in there to obtain them?
23.
No.
24.
They all depict the actions of Douglas Odolecki?
25.
Yes.
249
You mentioned earlier that on June
of 2014 you were involved in the OVI
1.
2.
checkpoint, correct?
3.
Yes.
4.
What were your duties regarding the OVI checkpoint?
5.
I was the Commander of the checkpoint that night, I was in charge of all the
6.
operations going on there.
7.
8.
Odolecki appeared?
9.
Yes.
10.
And had you had situations before June
11.
attempted to divert motorists from the checkpoint?
12.
Yes he would hold up a sign that said checkpoint ahead turn now.
13.
At any point in time did you confer with the Law Department with respect to what
14.
could be done regarding his actions at the checkpoints?
15.
16.
questions brought to me by officers wondering the legality of him holding the sign. I didn't
17.
make that decision on my own I felt it should be done through the Law Department.
18.
19.
like that was held at a checkpoint?
20.
21.
the bottom.
22.
So were you present at the checkpoint on June
23.
Yes.
24.
And did you, did you become aware at some point in time during that checkpoint
25.
that Mr. Odolecki was present?
13th
Prior to that date had you been involved with checkpoints in which Douglas
13th
of 2014 where Douglas Odolecki
Yes I talked to Assistant Law Director Tim Miller about it. There was many
Without saying what was said, was a determination made as to what do if a sign
Yes we could cite him and take the sign as evidence, if it had the turn now on
13th
of 2014?
250
1.
Yes.
2.
Did you see him present at that checkpoint?
3.
Yes. I saw him prior to, being observed holding the sign, he walked, we were at
4.
State and Tuxedo, he walked northbound around our checkpoint then continued north to
5.
Brookpark Road. I didn't see him at State and Brookpark close enough to identify him but I
6.
did see him walking past the checkpoint earlier.
7.
You saw him walking past the checkpoint?
8.
Yes.
9.
Did you see him with a sign?
10.
He was holding something it was folded up, I couldn't make it out but it was
11 .
some sort of a large piece of cardboard.
12.
Did you become aware -- were his actions reported to you at that checkpoint?
13 .
Yes one of the officers working the road area, talking to people as they go by,
14.
advised me people were telling -- people driving by and being diverted into the checkpoint
15.
both were stopping to tell him that there was someone holding a sign that said turn now,
16.
checkpoint ahead. I walked out and I was also advised by three different motorists, one that
17.
was diverted and two that were driving by that stopped to tell me about it.
MR. GOLD: Objection, hearsay, move to strike on the statements of other
18.
19.
motorists regarding the conduct of Douglas Odolecki.
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: It' s being offered as purpose of what he did as a result of

learning that information.
22.
23.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
24.
25 .
turn now and as a result of being notified that motorists had diverted, were being diverted
As a result of learning that there was a sign being held that said checkpoint ahead
251
1.
from the checkpoint, what did you do?
2.
3.
who is in charge of afternoon shift. We had talked about it earlier and I had advised the
4.
checkpoint personnel during a briefing that if that sign was up we would first offer him the
5.
option of taking the turn now off the sign, if not we would cite him for it and take the sign
6.
as evidence. I contacted Lieutenant McCann and asked him to check on the situation.
7.
8.
jury what this video is.
9.
10.
sign.
11.
So this is dash-cam video?
12.
Yes. UNINTELLIGIBLE.
13.
All right let me stop it here. Your testimony was that you advised the officers to
14.
cite him?
15.
Yes.
16.
And you advised the officers -- you made the decision to cite him?
17.
Yes based on the information I got from the Law Department, yes .
18.
And your testimony was that you told the other officers either tell him to remove
19.
the turn now portion of the sign or cite him.
20.
Yes.
21.
And that was based upon information that you got from the Law Department.
22.
Yes.
23.
Now who are these officers?
24.
It looks like Lieutenant McCann, Patrolman Manzo and possibly Patrolman
25.
Ross.
I contacted, he was a Lieutenant at the time, he's now a Captain, Brian McCann
I want to show you what's been previously marked as Exhibit 2; and explain to the
It' s a cruiser actually approaching the area where he's supposed to be holding the
252
1.
2.
sign or cite him.
3.
Yes.
4.
Whose voice are we hearing?
5.
That' s Patrolman Manzo talking to Mr. Odolecki.
6.
Okay so he's already been cited at this point, correct?
7.
Yes they were actually
8.
The sign confiscated.
9.
-- so we're getting ready to clear the scene there.
10.
Was there also video posted regarding this incident on YouTube?
11.
Yes there was.
12.
See that sign, is that video of the sign?
13.
Yes.
14.
Whose video is this?
15.
This is the video downloaded from the internet, Mr. Odolecki's video.
16.
This was the video that was edited by
17.
Mr. Odolecki.
18.
Why did you make the decision that day to issue a citation to Mr. Odolecki for
19.
Obstructing Official Business?
20.
21.
the first side street. Any cars that may have turned due to that sign would have gone through
22.
the checkpoint and wouldn't have had -- our checkpoint is designed to deter drunk driving,
23 .
to educate people going through, to educate people going through on the dangers of drunk
24.
driving and what to do possibly if they find themselves in a situation, realize they are
25.
intoxicated and shouldn't drive and third it would be to apprehend any drivers that came
And your order to them was to cite, to give him an opportunity to remove the
He was holding the sign and I observed cars turning into the gas station and down
253
1.
through intoxicated. If they don't go through the checkpoint that wouldn't be possible to do
2.
any of those.
3.
4.
before flash their lights at other motorists to warn them that there's an officer running radar?
5.
Yes.
6.
What' s the difference with holding a sign between holding a sign like Mr. Odolecki
7.
had or diverting, actively diverting people from the checkpoint versus flashing your lights
8.
to warn somebody that somebody is running radar.
9.
10.
to the speed limit and any threat would be gone from the danger of driving in excess of the
11.
speed limit. If you divert an intoxicated or impaired driver away from apprehension, that
12.
threat is still on the road.
13.
14.
warn them and they slow down the hazard of speeding is gone?
15.
Yes.
16.
Versus the hazard of not being gone.
17.
Yes if an impaired driver just drives around to a point where they would be
18.
apprehended and continues driving through a neighborhood in this case a residential
19.
neighborhood, it's, you just moved the threat from one area to another, you haven't alleviated
20.
the threat from people on the roadway.
21.
22.
29th of 2015?
23.
No.
24.
You weren' t present at the scene?
25.
No .
What's the difference between -- let me back up -- have you seen motorists
If you flash your lights the normal reaction somebody sees it and they slow down
So are you saying in a speed trap so to speak or somebody running radar and you
Have -- were you involved in any way with the arrest of Mr. Odolecki on July
254
1.
You didn't give anyone any orders as Captain?
2.
No.
3.
What are the duties, well, are the officers working a checkpoint working their
4.
official duties?
5.
Yes.
6.
Is that something you require your officers to do?
7.
Yes we require officers to be there, correct.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: I have no further questions, thank you.
9.
10.
11.
THE COURT: Thank you. Break for

lunch?
MR. GOLD: Please Your Honor.
12.
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen
13.
at this time we are going to take a 45 minute break for lunch. I will remind you again of the
14.
admonition that we spoke of yesterday that admonition stays with you until the case is
15.
concluded and over. Again, it's 12:20 let' s meet back in this Courtroom in 45 minutes. Kim
16.
will then take you back into the jury room where you can get your coats and if you want to
17.
leave you can if you want to stay in the jury room you can until lunch is over.
18.
19.
THE COURT: Thank you ladies and
20.
gentlemen please be seated. We hope you enjoyed your lunch we' ll get started, we are on the
21.
record and where did we leave off; with Mr. Gold, right? Okay. Mr. Gold.
22.
23.
24.
25.
MR. GOLD: Thank you Your Honor, actually Mr. Traska is going to be
conducting this cross-examination.
MR. TRASKA: Thank you Your Honor.
255
1.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
2.
BYMR. TRASK.A:
3.
Good afternoon Captain Manning.
4.
How are you?
5.
Do I have that right?
6.
Yes sir.
7.
You and I have never met before?
8.
No .
9.
Okay. That's the way I remember it. You testified that you are the one who put
10.
the video together that we just watched before lunch.
11.
I took part of it, I assisted, was assisted by two detectives.
12.
That's one of the things I wanted to ask you about, could you list for us who else
13.
took part in the process of putting that video together?
14.
Detective Klein and Detective Hines.
15.
Klein and Hines?
16.
Yes Klein was the gentleman that was in here that fixed the monitor earlier.
17.
Got you, okay. So you know as a lawyer and putting presentations together I'm
18.
watching the video and I see things like the format pages that have the date and location on
19.
it, who was it that, I wouldn't know how to do that, who was it that put that piece of it
20.
together?
21.
That would have been Detective Klein
22.
Detective Klein he's the guy with the hot hand at PowerPoint.
23.
Yes he is.
24.
Okay. Okay so Klein and Hines are the two officers -- is it fair to say that you
25.
supervised them throughout that process?
256
It was a collaborative, the three of us worked on it. I made some decisions on
1.
2.
what went on there if you want to call that supervising.
3.
Well what I' m trying to do is you're here as the City's witness.
4.
Yes.
5.
Correct. You are stating the City of Parma' s position as to any evidence that
6.
you're asked to testify about?
7.
Yes.
8.
So is it fair to say that although it was a collaborative effort the
9.
UNINTELLIGIBLE stops with you as
10.
Yes.
11.
-- as to the content of that video?
12.
Yes sir.
13.
Okay. How many -- between you and the other two detectives, and I know
14.
you're going to have to ask somebody this, well I don't know that, maybe you know exactly,
15.
how many hours of video did you watch?
16.
17.
videos than the ones that were present on that tape.
18.
I was assuming so
19.
Yes.
20.
-- and that's exactly what I wanted to get at. Eight to 12 hours, just you or
21.
is that an estimate of what the three officers, including yourself, together looked at?
22.
23.
be 16 to 18. We did a lot together and we did some separate beforehand.
24.
So you're estimating that's like 16 to 18 hours of run time?
25 .
Probably.
I would probably say eight to 12, with everything we looked at, we looked at more
Probably with what we've done separately, if you add all that up it would probably
257
1.
Because what I'm trying to get at is how long did the task of doing the research
2.
and then coming up with this end product, how long did that take?
3.
4.
aware, through our past experience looking through the videos on YouTube what existed and
5.
then we went back so this wasn't a sit down and collaborative or sit down from point A to
6.
point B, we just started at 8:00 o ' clock in the morning and finished at night. We were aware
7.
from other times that we went through it and videos were there and then we put them together.
8.
9.
CopBlock.org?
10.
Yes I believe all the ones we looked at came from Y ouTube.
11.
And I think your testimony was to the effect that you can find it in both places
12.
but YouTube is --
13.
14.
them but the ones we showed here were all from Y ouTube.
15.
Okay. Do you know how they got posted to YouTube?
16.
I don't.
17.
You have no idea who posted them?
18.
Well it' s, the logo on it is CopBlock.org so most of them from my knowledge of
19.
what I've seen dealing with -- looking through them is they end up on CopBlock and then
20.
they're linked through to YouTube.
21.
22.
the videos before they were put on Y ouTube?
23.
No.
24.
So what you guys can find is what you can find on the internet.
25.
Yes.
We didn' t just sit down at one point and spend 16 to 18 hours on this. We were
Okay so you testified that all of these videos came from either Y ouTube or
Several of them you could find in both places. I'm not going to say every one of
Would you or your detectives be in any position to say whether anybody edited
258
1.
Okay. You, I'm saying you, I mean the shorthand here
2.
I understand.
3.
-- you for the collaborative team that put this together. Some language on the
4.
part of Mr. Odolecki was included and -- I never got to swear in Court before. I apologize,
5.
I'm going to limit myself for one apology for the language here but we've got to talk about it
6.
because you can't un-ring the bell. We heard the phrase out of Mr. Odolecki I believe it was
7.
refening to Parma PD as government fucking scumbags, we heard that phrase?
8.
Yes.
9.
We heard the other phrase, I think also from Mr. Odolecki, fascists piece of shit,
10.
I think that was in reference to one of the other, one of the anesting officers Gillissie?
11.
Yes.
12.
I'm pretty sure the word pig was thrown out in there, officer, captain, how do you
13.
feel hearing those bits of language thrown out at you and members of your department?
14.
15.
it kind ofroll off my back but when they refer to other officers I think it's disrespectful that
16.
these other officers are referred to that with the job they do.
17.
18.
all with Parma PD?
19.
Yeah, 29, it' s coming up on 29 next month.
20.
In that time have you ever come across another officer who was offended by
21.
this kind oflanguage?
22.
Probably.
23.
Probably. Safe to say pig is not a respectful word that you use if you want to
24.
be on the right side of law enforcement?
25.
Personally it doesn't bother me when somebody refers to me that way, I just let
Are you -- have you ever -- you have a long career, coming up on 30 years,
It isn't a respectful word but it's been used so long you become numb to it.
259
Sure. Do, are you aware of any feelings of a need to protect within the police
1.
2.
department when you're dealing with somebody who you know uses these terms with respect
3.
to the men and women under your command?

4.
THE COURT: What does that mean?
5.
6.
BY MR. TRASKA:
7.
8.
police department generally with respect to the use of this kind oflanguage directed toward
9.
the police?
Is there an animus, I' m trying to think of the word, is there an animus in the
10.
11.
THE COURT: Can you answer that?
12.
THE WITNESS: What I would say is the officers that I know just understand
13.
that it's part of the job and it's nothing that anybody gets upset or it doesn' t feel good to get
14.
called those names, but it's definitely we've grown up through the culture of we cannot be
15.
offended by that. We cannot do anything about it so you live with it and you don' t really
16.
do anything further.
17.
BY MR. TRASKA:
18.
One of these clips was taken or came from the Zanesville area; is that right?
19.
Yes.
20.
Have you heard of policing in general of -- of police officers from different
21.
cities referring to other departments as a brotherhood or anything along those lines?
22.
23.
that are hired so as far as us and Zanesville I don't know anybody out there, I' m sure that
24.
we have somebody on our department there' s 100 people on it that know somebody in
25.
Zanesville at the academy with them or something but that's about as far as that would go.
Recently that's the brotherhood thing with -- it's a new generation of policemen
260
Well Captain that's not getting to -- in your work as a Parma Police Officer
1.
2.
you've had occasion to work with police officers of other cities.
3.
Yes.
4.
How would you describe -- sight unseen are you disposed to get along with
5.
police officers in other cities?
6.

THE COURT: Come on up.
7.
8.
BY MR. TRASKA:
9.
Captain Manning forget the last question.
10.
Okay.
11.
Can you tell me the first time you recall hearing of my client, Doug Odolecki?
12.
I believe it was 2012 and the only reason I say that is it was brought up on a
13.
video that he was arrested in 2012, the first time I heard anything about it and really didn't
14.
pay any attention to it because I wasn' t personally involved in that.
15.
16.
you became aware of a guy named Doug Odolecki?
17.
18.
checkpoint and --
19.
In 2012?
20.
Yeah sometime in 2012 and again from the video that I watched I know it' s 2012
21.
because you brought that up and I was aware of him being arrested there. By name I
22.
probably didn't know him until let's see, probably 2013.
23.
Have you ever met him personally before today?
24.
No.
25.
So at some point you become aware of a checkpoint incident, the incident
I want to make sure I understand you, you think that it was around 2012 when
No it would have been after that. I was aware of someone being arrested at a
261
1.
occurred in 2012 you were not aware of his involvement at that time it was some point after
2.
2012.
3.
Yes.
4.
Was that in the course of getting ready for this case?
5.
No.
6.
It was before that?
7.
Yes.
8.
You, do you recall hearing the video compilation and forgive me if I lose anything
9.
in the translation here but something to the effect that, that K-9 cop is a liar; do you
10.
remember that statement?
11.
Yes.
12.
By Mr. Odolecki in the videos?
13 .
Something like that.
14.
Something like that. Do you know what that statement refers to?
15.
I can' t say for sure I do know what that statement refers to .
16.
You heard another statement from Mr. Odolecki I believe it was the footage that
17.
was in a different clip.
18.
Yes I think that was the Zanesville one.
19.
Do you know what incident that refers to?
20.
I do not.
21.
Did you hear Mr. Odolecki ' s words that he was trying to make sure no one's
22.
rights got violated or something along those lines?
23.
24.
wasn't in there.
25.
I' m not saying it wasn' t in there I just don't recall that one but I'm not saying it
Your detectives watched, by your estimation, 16, 18 hours of video; how long
262
1.
would you say this was that played for the jury here this morning, half an hour?
2.
I don't even think it was that long, less than 15 minutes.
3.
Okay. Were there other statements in any of that other material, that you can
4.
recall, where Mr. Odolecki explained that he was interested in protecting people's rights?
5.
I don' t want to answer this incorrectly.
6.
7.
8.
THE COURT: Come on up gentlemen.

Ladies and gentlemen we're going to take a break.
9.
THE COURT: All right gentlemen. As the
10.
parties are aware, prior to Trial commencing we had some preliminary matters that we
11 .
discussed and one of those was whether or not certain uses of tape would be coming into
12.
evidence. The Court ruled on that and indicated that the tapes 4/13/2015, 4/17, 5/12, 7/18
13.
and 7/29 all of2015 would come in, 8/ 13, 9/16, 11 /2 and 12/8 of2015 would not come in.
14.
The Court' s concern at this time is that Counsel for Mr. Odolecki through his questioning
15.
has opened the door thereby potentially allowing the other tapes to come in; Mr. Spellacy do
16.
you want to be heard on this?
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes Your Honor it's clear that this Court ruled previously
18.
that we couldn't show everything that we had proposed showing. That being said, what we
19.
have proposed showing was a small sample of the video that's out there on CopBlock.org
20.
but nonetheless clearly it's incumbent upon me now in re-direct to ask of Captain Manning
21.
whether or not there was other video which was going to be, A proposed to be shown, B that
22.
couldn't be shown either because of a Court Ruling or otherwise. There ' s another issue that's
23.
out there as well though. The other issue is that he was asked was there video in your review
24.
that shows his intention or his motives behind what he's doing and there's, one of the proposed
25.
videos was a statement by Mr. Odolecki where he's videotaping himself seated in a car
263
1.
saying I can say whatever I want to say, whenever I want to say it and these cop suckers
2.
shouldn't bring their kids around me if they don't want them to hear foul language and that' s
3.
a statement by Mr. Odolecki himself that he published on YouTube or on CopBlock.org that
4.
we had proposed showing, the Court Ruled that we would not be able to show that because it
5.
was taken after the last incident of July 29th. Based upon this questioning, I believe they've
6.
opened the door to that video specifically being shown. Thank you.
7.
8.
MR. TRASK.A: Your Honor we have not opened the door because nothing about
the questioning as it went in relates to anything after the July incident. There's --
9.
THE COURT: What do you mean by that?
10.
MR. TRASK.A: I'm not asking, the jury doesn't know that the evidence was cutoff
11.
after the July incident. There' s no reason for the jury to think that you know I'm opening the
12.
door about --
13.
THE COURT: But didn't you ask the
14.
Captain point blank, was there anything else? Was there anything else that went towards his
15.
motive, did he say anything?
16.
MR. TRASK.A: Yes and I didn't
17.
18.
19.
20.
THE COURT: But you didn't give a time

limit.
MR. TRASK.A: Well then -THE COURT: You asked the Captain is
21.
there anything else. You talked to the Captain about, you got testimony where he ' s saying,
22.
two detectives and/or him and/or all of them watched 18 hours ' worth of information and
23.
then said, is there anything else? Not is there anything else in the 15 minutes that we and
24.
the jury saw, is there anything else? When you started talking about 15, 16, 17 hours' worth
25.
of evidence in testimony, the jury, they -- I think you opened the door there.
264
1.
2.
MR. TRASK.A: What I asked was is there anything in the video that you
watched and you know --
3.
4.
5.
THE COURT: Which, okay, stop right

there. Which you watched, 18 hours' worth.
MR. TRASK.A: And the jury has no idea if that' s before or after, I have no idea
6.
whether of those 18 hours how many of them concern the date that we cut this off at. And
7.
you know I wasn't going to try to pinpoint a date because I didn't want to tell the jury that
8.
there was an evidentiary issue. Anything that happened after the date of the accident,
9.
except later on the same day of the accident isn't relative to --
10.
11.
12.
THE COURT: But shouldn't you have

said between June of 2014 and July of 2015?
MR. TRASK.A: Yes Your Honor, yes.
13.
14.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. TRASK.A: Yes. Well I would say even before June of 2014. I mean if
15.
you want know what's in the man's head at the time that he's accused of intent crime then
16.
what happened before that certainly is relevant, what happened after that is not and what we
17.
got instead is this video really overreaches for what it's purported purpose was and we can't
18.
there's not corrective instruction now that's going to un-ring the bell to make Mr.
19.
Odolecki look like anything other than a bad guy to the jury because the evidence isn't even
20.
trying to go to intent it's trying to go towards his bad feeling toward the police. So I'm asking
21.
is there anything of the video that indicates --
22.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: His prior past and what

they're seeing is him. What they're hearing is him.
MR. TRASK.A: Yes but they 're not hearing all of him.
THE COURT: Then what you're saying is
265
1.
that we should hear now 8/13 , 9/16, 11/2 and 12/8, let's hear it all. Let's hear it all and that
2.
way we can get a better, clearer --
3.
MR. TRASKA: No Your Honor.
4.
THE COURT: -- picture of Mr. Odolecki.
5.
MR. TRASKA: Those videos couldn't possible have anything to do with his
6.
intention on July 29, 15; they couldn't possibly. Because they happened afterwards.
7.
What I'm saying is that there's a universe of material from before July of2015 where Mr.
8.
Odolecki might be heard on some of these videos saying you know there's a lot of bad things
9.
going out there I take this issue seriously. He could have recommended himself in any
10.
number of ways but what is selected to be put on in front of the jury is the worst of the worst
11.
and that's what we're stuck with now.
12.
13.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: They go to his common plan or scheme. They show the
Jury a common --
15.
16.
17.
THE COURT: It's like a simple evidence

rule.
MR. SPELLACY: They go to a common plan or scheme of Mr. Odolecki is
18.
present for all of these, in fact when he's videotaping himself he's talking about of his
19.
common plan and his scheme and his thoughts on his ability to do whatever he wants to do,
20.
when he wants to do it, say whatever he wants in front of whoever he wants. They go to a
21.
common plan and scheme. That' s why that rule exists with respect to other acts, it's not
22.
prior other acts, it's other act evidence and that being said Judge clearly I would not be
23 .
playing 18 hours of video, I would request that the jury be instructed to disregard that line
24.
of questioning and permit me to play one of the other videos that is separate apart from the
25.
one line of questioning, that being, was there other, the question that he asked, was there
266
1.
other video where he expressed his desire or his intent and why he was doing things.
2.
THE COURT: Which video is that?
3.
MR. SPELLACY: That's --
4.
5.
THE COURT: 8/13, 9/16, 11/2 or 12/8;

do you know?
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: I do have a synopsis Judge I would have to -- here it is,

clip number 2 is from -- may I approach?
8.
THE COURT: Sure.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: August 13, 2015, clip number 2 which would have been
10.
August 13, 2015 . Mr. Odolecki was asked not to use foul language in front of a child in
11.
Zanesville Ohio he responded with a video message to cop suckers.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
THE COURT: Which one of you wants

to argue?
MR. TRASK.A: I'll do it. We don't see what the Zanesville situation has to do
with his intent in July of 2015. The only reason that -THE COURT: It's prior acts.
17.
MR. TRASK.A: And Mr. Spellacy saying it's part of the common scheme. The
18.
situation in Zanesville was not at all related to what happened in the July incident. Further
19.
if Mr. Odolecki is within his rights in taking film and has not had it explained to him what's
20.
really going on with the kid by the bridge, after that point he has been approached very
21.
aggressively by Officer Gillissie and had the camera smacked out of his hand and been
22.
arrested an all that. The way he feels about the police afterwards is very much an outcome
23.
of what happened there in July, the incident that he' s on Trial for. So you can't bootstrap
24.
how he feels about the police from Zanesville which is umelated or after the incident in
25.
July, you can't bootstrap his intentions on that day based on how he's feeling afterwards.
267
1.
MR. SPELLACY: This case has to do with foul language, welcome to YouTube
2.
motherfucker, all that being used in front of children and the reaction and the excitement
3.
that it caused to the mother, to Daniel, to the girls, that language that was used is what he is
4.
saying is I can say whatever I want to say, whenever I want to say it, however I want to say
5.
it, in front of whoever I want to say it, those are his own words. That goes to a common
6.
plan, a common scheme. There's common facts with respect to that. Secondly, I understand
7.
the Court's Ruling beforehand, why the Court didn't want us to play the subsequent, but
8.
when defense counsel opens the door, it opens a whole new set of rulings.
9.
THE COURT: I have to agree. You know
10.
I made my Ruling yesterday morning and I sat here now and I listened as you were asking
11 .
these questions and I was hoping that you weren't going to cross the line where my prior
12.
Ruling was going to have to be changed but counsel I think that you crossed that line and
13 .
the Court has no other recourse at this point then to allow Mr. Spellacy to go a little bit
14.
further. Now I'm going to stop it at 8/13 will be the date that the jury will hear, 9/16, 11 /2
15 .
and 12/8 which I don't know what is on that tape, or those tapes, those will not be allowed
16.
but I think that you did cross the line and opened up the door and Mr. Spellacy has the right
17.
now to respond to that.
18.
MR. TRASK.A: Our position on the record what is Mr. Odolecki's intentions on
19.
8/13 had to do with his intentions on 7/29; I can't explain, as long as our position is clear.
20.
THE COURT: Okay, it's on the record,
21.
22.
thanks counsel. All right anything else? Let's bring the jury back out.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Counsel, proceed.

MR. TRASK.A: Thank you Your Honor.
BYMR. TRASK.A:
268
1.
Captain Manning.
2.
Okay.
3.
When you, we established before that you supervised the preparation of the video
4.
that was shown here this morning.
5.
Okay.
6.
Did you just include material in that video that makes Mr. Odolecki look bad?
7.
I included material in the video that I believe shows his true intent in his
8.
cop blocking as he calls it.
9.
10.
phrase fuck the police three or four times in a row, none of those were Mr. Odolecki, how
11 .
were those indicative of what you believe to be his true intent?
12.
13 .
by the officer for harassing people in the car with what he was saying to them. He was, along
14.
with him, I personally I would call that going a little bit extreme hoping the officer didn' t
15 .
arrest anyone in that scenario.
16.
Did you say you were there?
17.
No, no, I said I would call that a little bit extreme, I said the officer admonished
18 .
him and did not arrest anyone that was there that day.
19.
20.
fuck the police spoken by somebody else have to do with my client' s intent the day of the
21 .
incidents for which he is charged?
22.
23.
taking part together in the protest against the police.
24.
25.
Well there was a little mash up and again apologizes for the language, we heard the
Well he was making other comments while I was there. He was actually advised
Right, but I'm not, Captain I'm not sure that answers my question, what does
They were in consort during that whole process, they were together, they were
It's not just included to prejudice Mr. Odolecki?

269
1.
MR. TRASK.A: I'm sorry Your Honor I'll withdraw.
2.
BY MR. TRASK.A:
3.
4.
in one of these videos.
5.
Yes.
6.
It's fair to say that that' s abusive language?
7.
To the police officer I wouldn't say that's abusive, again, we're not offended.
8.
To the general public --
9.
That would be abusive.
10.
By a non-police officer standard, that's abusive.
11.
That would be offensive, yes.
12.
Was it Mr. Odolecki' s voice who said that do you think?
13 .
I don't believe so.
14.
Why was it included in the video?
15.
Because he was there with him again working in consort with him in that
16.
incident we actually walked by the car.
17.
There's a second comment put on your seatbelt bitch was something that I heard
Do you want to see Doug Odolecki get convicted in this case?
18 .
19.
MR. TRASK.A: Goes to bias.
20.
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
21.
Whenever we arrest somebody we would like to see a conviction.
22.
Have you ever had the experience of arresting somebody and coming across
23 .
additional facts later where you' d come off that conviction?
24.
Personally I have not but I know that happens.
25 .
Okay.
270
1.
MR. TRASKA: Nothing further, thank you Captain.
2.
3.
THE COURT: Thank you counsel. Mr.
Spellacy?
4.
5.
6.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
7.
You were asked how much videotape you watched, correct?
8.
Yes.
9.
And were there you were asked just now the specific question about whether there
10.
was any video that showed him in a good light or that you only picked video that showed him
11 .
in a bad light, something to that effect, do you remember that?
12.
Yes.
13.
Was there any video that you watched that would show, portray Mr. Odolecki
14.
in a good light, as you would see it to be?
15.
I wouldn't see none of it as in a good light.
16.
Were you requested by me to par it down?
17.
Yes sir.
18.
To an amount that would be played in front of a jury?
19.
Yes sir.
20.
And were you aware that if even after you pared it down that it was further pared
21.
down?
22.
23.
24.
25.
Yes sir.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor ifl may, Detective Klein is bringing up the
formally redacted portion.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you need time?
271
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: I need a couple minutes. I'll ask the last couple questions
before I do that because it will be the last thing I play.
3.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
4.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
5.
How many videos, how many hours of video do you think you watched in total?
6.
Again, probably 8 to 12 personally.
7.
And that' s over a period of from June
8.
Yes.
9.
Captain you were asked whether or not you were -- saw any video that -- where
10.
Mr. Odolecki stated his intentions for a purpose behind what he did, correct?
11.
Yes.
12.
Now while you weren' t present for the July, July 29, 2015 incident at the
13.
bridge, you were certainly aware of it, correct?
14.
That's correct.
15.
And you were certainly aware that you were coming into Court regarding that
16.
incident, correct?
17.
That's correct.
18.
And you' re certainly aware that at that incident that there was foul language,
19.
welcome to YouTube mother -- around juveniles, correct?
20.
That' s correct.
21.
And around a kid that had, was attempting suicide, correct?
22.
Yes.
23.
I' ll turn your attention to, I will make this Exhibit -- Exhibit 7, was this video
24.
from August 13, 2015 originally included in a compilation that you gave to me?
25.
Yes it was.
13th
of 2014 to date?
272
1.
To be played in Court, con-ect?
2.
Yes.
3.
And then it was removed from there, correct?
4.
Yes it was.
5.
Can you describe to the jury where that was from?
6.
That came from a protest in Zanesville they were chalking the sidewalks near
7.
or at the police station and some other people that apparently were pro-cop people were
8.
washing the chalk off and there was an encounter between the two of them, two groups.
9.
And there was young children there?
10.
Yes.
11.
12.
RE-CROSS -EXAMINATION
13.
BY MR. TRASK.A:
14.
15 .
your understanding of when this video hails from that we just watched?
16.
That's when it was posted.
17.
It was in the context of a protest?
18.
From what I saw in the video yes.
19.
Were you there?
20.
No.
21.
You obviously had no firsthand knowledge of what happened that day.
22.
I only have what I saw in the video.
23.
Where does your knowledge -- well, I'm going to take issue with that because
24.
you just said that it was your understanding that the CopBlock people had drawn some
25.
things in chalk on the sidewalk and there was a counter protest and some effort to remove
Hello again Captain Manning. Zanesville, August 13 of this past year, that' s
273
1.
that and that's where things -- you said something along those lines, that wasn't in the video
2.
though.
3.
No.
4.
So what else did you learn about that protest that day?
5.
The entire video that I saw that was posted on Y ouTube it showed some people
6.
with buckets of water and brushes of some sort cleaning the sidewalk and it showed Deo and
7.
some other people walking up and they said can you watch your language around the --
8.
the counter protesters or the pro-cop people said, can you watch your language around the
9.
kids or the slight encounter arguing between the two of them about whether they should have
10.
their kids there, whether they should watch their language and then it went into the car.
11.
12.
not going to watch his language especially with cop sucker kids
13 .
Yes.
14.
What does that term, do you know what that term means?
15.
I'm not sure.
16.
Do you know who he's referring to?
17.
I believe its police supporters but I'm not saying that 100% sure.
18 .
The counter protestors?
19.
Probably.
20.
Is a protest an emergency situation?
21.
It depends. That's a broad question. Is a protest --
22.
Okay let me cut it down. This protest where you had disagreeing parties here and
23.
you know some physical efforts to remove some chalk from the sidewalk, is that an
24.
emergency to you? In the absence of anything else, let's say people don't start throwing
25.
punches anything like that.
Okay. So Deo, Doug Odolecki his position was pretty clear in the video that he's
274
1.
At that point no.
2.
So not an emergency. Mr. Odolecki's position was that, well I don' t know, do
3.
you think his remarks are confined to that situation?
4.
5.
sounded like he's what he would say it's his freedom of speech, I'm not going to exact
6.
quote him.
7.
8.
Odolecki wasn't being forthright in that video as he explained his own motives?
9.
I want to clarify that before I answer it, I don' t want to answer it incorrectly.
10.
Do you question Doug Odolecki's motives as Doug stated them in the video that
11.
we just watched?
12.
I think he was being truthful about the way he feels; if that answers that.
13 .
So how can you -- does this say anything about what he was thinking on July
14.
29, 2015?
15.
I can't say yes or no to that, I seriously doubt it.
16.
Captain you, I know without asking, took an oath to uphold the United States
17.
Constitution, you took an oath to uphold the Ohio Constitution.
18.
Correct.
19.
Did you know there was an Ohio Constitution before you went to the academy;
20.
I learned that in law school personally. But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
21.
Yes I did.
22.
You're in the business, there's something in the Constitution about the liberty
23.
of being secure in your person and your property; you support protecting those rights.
24.
Yes.
25.
Your job is about protecting people's rights.
It sounded like a general statement to me what we saw in the video just now, it
I represent to you that it sounded like what he said. Are you saying that Mr.
275
1.
Yes.
2.
Mr. Odolecki ' s statements shown in the videos before is that he's concerned
3.
about people's rights being protected; do you have any reason to doubt the sincerity of that
4.
statement?
5.
6.
is correct, but I think in his mind, or his intentions he feels his actions, he' s being true to
7.
his heart in that but I'm not saying that what he's doing is correct by any means.
8.
I believe he is acting in what he feels is correct; I'm not saying what he's doing
I understand. Thank you Captain.

9.
10.
11.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
12.
13 .
you hear, I' ll say what I want, when I want, how I want --
14.
15.
Captain you were asked about his intentions and motives, at the end of that, did
MR. TRASKA: Objection.

Q
-- and in front of who I want.
16.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go on Mr.
17.
Spellacy.
18.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
19.
-- and in front of who I want.
20.
I did hear that, or something very similar.
21.
Okay. Is that consistent with what he did on July 29th of2015?
22.
MR. TRASKA: Objection.
23 .
24.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
25.
Based upon what you've seen here today and yesterday.
276
1.
2.
Yes I believe it is consistent.

MR. SPELLACY: I have no further questions.
3.
THE COURT: Counsel?
4.
BY MR. TRASKA:
5.
I -- Captain Manning, one question, you've investigated a lot of crimes?
6.
A fair share.
7.
You've interviewed witnesses?
8.
True.
9.
Is it important to take a witnesses statement in context in order to get to the truth
10.
of what happened so you can

MR. SPELLACY: Objection beyond the scope.
11.
THE COURT: It is beyond the scope. I
12.
13.
would sustain that.
14.
MR. TRASKA: Then I'll withdraw, thank you again.
15.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.

16.
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You're done with the
18.
19.
20.
Captain?
MR. SPELLACY: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you Captain. Your
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
next witness Mr. Spellacy?

MR. SPELLACY: Patrolman Manzo .
OFFICER JAMES MANZO

277
1.
and nothing else but the truth and testified as follows:
2.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
3.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
4.
Officer please introduce yourself to the jury.
5.
My name is James Manzo, Officer James Manzo I've been the Parma Police
6.
Department 25 years.
7.
And in what capacity?
8.
I'm a patrolman.
9.
And have you been a patrolman for your entire career with Parma?
10.
I have.
11.
And on June
12.
I was.
13.
In uniform?
14.
Yes sir.
15.
In a marked police cruiser?
16.
I was.
17.
And was there a checkpoint being done that evening?
18.
Yes sir.
19.
And were you working at the checkpoint?
20.
I was.
21.
And what were your duties and responsibilities at the checkpoint?
22.
I was actually what is called an observation car and I position myself in the
23.
front of the entry of the OVI checkpoint and I watch you know for vehicles to divert away
24.
from the checkpoint itself.
25.
13th
of 2014 were you on duty?
So you're -- where was this checkpoint?
278
1.
The actual checkpoint was in the area of State Road and Tuxedo.
2.
Okay and where were you positioned?
3.
I was farther north of that position roughly around the State and Marmore
4.
area.
5.
Is that close to State and Brookpark?
6.
Correct that's the first side street just south of the intersection.
7.
And on that date did you have the occasion to see Doug Odolecki the Defendant in
8.
this case?
9.
I did.
10.
Can you identify him for the record in the Courtroom here today.
11.
Mr. Odolecki is sitting at the front table, white shirt and tie.
12.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: May the record reflect the identification of the Defendant
Your Honor.
14.
THE COURT: The record will so reflect.
15.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
16.
Is that the individual you saw at or near the checkpoint on June
17.
He was.
18.
Can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you witnessed with
19.
respect to Mr. Odolecki' s actions on that particular date.
20.
21.
Road and he was more or less facing the eastbound traffic on Brookpark Road with a sign.
22.
Okay. Did you see what he was doing?
23.
I did.
24.
What was he doing?
25.
Well he had a sign, I don't remember the exact verbiage checkpoint ahead and
13th
of 2014?
I observed Mr. Odolecki on the southwest comer of the intersection on Brookpark
279
1.
then the sign had two little flaps that he would open up at particular times it would say, turn
2.
now and he would open them and close them and I'm assuming he did that when police were
3.
in the area he'd keep them opened or close, I don' t know and then I saw him actually
4.
approaching the traffic in the curb lane that would have been stopped at the red light at the
5.
intersection.
6.
You say you saw him approach vehicles?
7.
Yes.
8.
And describe what those vehicles were doing at the time.
9.
They were eastbound in the curb lane at the intersection stopped for the red
10.
traffic signal.
11.
Did you see them with their blinkers on?
12.
Yes it would indicate they were making a right turn heading south onto State Road.
13.
So a right turn onto State Road would put them towards the checkpoint?
14.
That would put them southbound on State Road toward the checkpoint, correct.
15.
Okay. And after Mr. Odolecki approached their vehicle, what did they do?
16.
They continued straight through the intersection without making what appeared
17.
to be the intended right turn, I'm stating that because the right turn signals that I saw on.
18.
19.
actions either with the sign or by approaching the vehicle, caused them to not proceed south
20.
on State Road?
21.
Definitely.
22.
Did you confer with your supervisors with respect to what you witnessed?
23.
I did.
24.
And who did you confer with?
25.
Well almost simultaneously it was then Lieutenant McCann, he's now Captain
So at least based upon your observations did it appear to you that Mr. Odolecki's
280
1.
McCann but then Lieutenant McCann almost simultaneously said that he had spotted Mr.
2.
Odolecki doing the same thing and requested an assist and I was the closest vehicle so I
3.
pulled up to assist then Lieutenant McCann.
4.
And did you approach Mr. Odolecki?
5.
I did.
6.
And did you give Mr. Odolecki an opportunity to remove the sign or remove a
7.
portion of the sign and not issue an citations?
8.
9.
why we were there and what we were directed by our Law Department and our superiors
10.
and he said listen we don' t mind the fact that you're holding up a sign that says checkpoint
11.
ahead because we also exhibit those same signs prior to the checkpoint. The issue was the
12.
fact that he was diverting the traffic by opening the sign and saying turn -- I'm sorry, don't
13.
turn or whatever the verbiage was on there .
14.
And his actions of approaching motorists caused you concern?
15 .
Correct.
16.
Why.
17.
Well you know it was my impression that whatever conversation he had or
18.
dialogue and I couldn't hear any of that, but enough where I could see he was making
19.
conversation was the reason that they weren't turning at all and they continued straight
20.
through the intersection.
21.
Prior to him approaching the vehicles had you seen the turn signals on?
22.
Yes I did.
23.
After his approach of the vehicles, those vehicles did not turn?
24.
They did not. They went through the intersection with the turn signal still going
25.
actually.
We did most of that dialogue was actually Lieutenant McCann and he told him
281
1.
MR. SPELLACY: I have not further questions, thank you.
2.
THE WITNESS: You' re welcome.

3.
4.
5.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
6.
BY MR. GOLD:
7.
Good afternoon Officer Manzo.
8.
Good morning sir.
9.
My name is Attorney John Gold I'm one of the defense counsel for Douglas
10.
Odolecki. I believe you testified that you saw a vehicle with its right turn signal on traveling
11.
it would have been traveling eastbound on Brookpark Road?
12.
Correct sir.
13.
Okay. Do people ever have their turn signals on and not turn?
14.
Sure.
15.
Okay. It happens, you've seen it more than once, right?
16.
Myself included.
17.
I think we've probably all done that, we don't realize our turn signal is on. So
18.
you don't know as you testified here today that it was actually that person's intent to turn
19.
right.
20.
Just my deduction.
21.
Okay but you don't know like that person you never talked to the person who
22.
was driving that vehicle, right?
23.
24.
asked for me to assist him over with Mr. Odolecki.
25.
I did not. I would have made contact but it was right at that time the Lieutenant
But if you had made contact then you could have asked that question of that driver,
282
1.
right?
2.
That would have been my intention sure.
3.
And then we would have known whether or not that driver chose not to tum right
4.
because of Mr. Odolecki's sign or whether they just left their tum signal on, correct?
5.
Sure.
6.
But that didn't happen.
7.
I did not stop any vehicle, correct.
8.
Suppose -- you don' t know if that person was drunk or not, correct?
9.
I do not.
10.
Okay. And you don't know if that person maybe just didn't want to be
11.
inconvenienced by an OVI checkpoint, right?
12.
I can' t answer that either.
13.
Okay. In fact you don't know whether after seeing Mr. Odolecki's sign it was
14.
the tum now language or just the language that said checkpoint ahead that caused them, if it
15.
caused them at all to divert and drive straight rather than tum right.
16.
I can't speak for them, I' m sorry.
17.
So for all you know it could have just been the person becoming aware that there's
18.
a checkpoint, and say, oh, I don' t want to be inconvenienced by a checkpoint, I'm just going to
19.
go straight.
20.
That could be possible, sure.
21.
And in fact there's nothing unlawful about a person choosing not to drive down a
22.
street that has one of your OVI checkpoints, correct?
23.
That is not unlawful.
24.
So Mr. Odolecki, even assuming that somehow he had some influence over this
25.
driver's decision, any influence that he could have exerted over that driver's decision he
283
1.
wasn' t influencing them to do something that was unlawful, correct?
2.
3.
they were under and influence or could have been a number of different things.
4.
5.
unlawful.
6.
No .
7.
Okay. And it' s your deduction that it was Mr. Odolecki's sign that caused them
8.
to drive straight rather than turn right.
9.
That is what I deduced from what I saw, sure.
10.
Okay. So Mr. Odolecki' s sign by your deduction only influenced them to do
11.
something which they were entitled to do anyway, right? Is that fair.
12.
They' re more than welcome to drive through the intersection, sure.
13 .
Okay. Now the checkpoints not at that intersection, correct?
14.
No it' s never in an intersection.
15.
It's two, like two blocks up the street south on State Road by Tuxedo.
16.
That' s true.
17.
Is it two blocks?
18.
Three, three streets I would imagine.
19.
So three blocks from
20.
Three streets.
21.
-- three blocks -- three streets from Mr. Odolecki' s posted up with his sign.
22.
Yes sir.
23.
Okay. So the official business in this case that Mr. Odolecki is allegedly
24.
obstructing is your business of conducting an OVI checkpoint, right?
25 .
I can' t answer that because I don't know what was going on in their vehicles or if
But the mere fact that they chose to go straight rather than turn right, that wasn' t
Correct.
284
1.
Okay so your business is taking place at the OVI checkpoint.
2.
No mine is actually prior to the checkpoint. Now I could handle business within
3.
the checkpoint but I also watch the vehicles coming into the checkpoint also.
4.
Okay and you' re posted your stationed about two streets up?
5.
Two or -- I could be anywhere prior to, just so we can watch movements of
6.
the vehicles upon approach so we don't have a set street or amount of footage or anything
7.
like that where we're actually posted.
8.
Okay so your duties have you a little bit further north of the checkpoint.
9.
Correct.
10.
But the checkpoint itself, the administration of the checkpoint is at roughly Tuxedo
11.
and State Road?
12.
Where people are actually
13 .
Entering.
14.
-- diverted and entering yeah a little bit south of me.
15.
Okay. So would it be fair to say that where Mr. Odolecki ' s standing is not where
16.
the business of operating the checkpoint is being conducted.
17.
18.
we have, again, we have, vehicles prior to the exact entry point where cones and signs and
19.
things start and then we have actually vehicles beyond the end of the cones that are also part
20.
of the checkpoint itself. So I guess it depends on how you define, we're all there on business
21.
of the checkpoint, whether we're within the confined cones or not.
22.
23 .
maybe would it be fair to say perspective if I was looking at it?
24.
25 .
checkpoint are in my opinion.
You know it depends on how you define business of the checkpoint itself because
So where the business or the official business is being conducted, it really depends
I would define it as the business is anywhere that the policemen working the
285
1.
2.
Mr. Odolecki's posted up, are there?
3.
Well there, sure there could be.
4.
But they 're not working the checkpoint there are they on this particular night?
5.
I'm a little confused.
6.
Are there any police posted, posted up at the intersection of Brookpark and State
7.
Road working a checkpoint?
8.
There could be sure because those entry cars could be anywhere north of that
9.
Were they on this particular night though?
10.
Yeah, as a matter of fact I was, I was like right across the street from there.
11.
I thought you said that you were a couple blocks up.
12.
No, no, no I said I was roughly about State and Marmore, which would be the first
13.
street.
14.
But you're not at --
15.
But we can, we can --
16.
-- you weren't at the intersection though where Mr. Odolecki was .
17.
I could see the intersection, I wasn't within the intersection of course.
18.
Okay. He wasn't physically preventing you from doing, performing your duties
19.
at all was he?
20.
21.
actually, it looked to me when you have a couple of cars with right turn signals on and their
22.
intention is to turn right and then two cars in a row seems a little bit odd and I think at that
23.
point now without the cars turning we cannot do what we're technically there to do as far
24.
as the checkpoint is concerned.
25.
So there's no police working the checkpoint at Brookpark and State Road where
In my opinion he was because with his sign and my deduction that people were
And your job is to watch, I'm sorry, the cars traveling southbound on State
286
1.
Road toward the checkpoint.
2.
Correct.
3.
He' s not keeping you from observing any cars traveling southbound on State Road
4.
toward the checkpoint is he?
5.
6.
State Road.
7.
8.
somehow is he?
9.
The ones on Brookpark or the ones
10.
The ones that actually do tum on State Road or perhaps go straight on State Road
11.
and cross over Brookpark south where the checkpoint, he's not preventing you from observing
12.
any of those vehicles, is he?
13.
No.
14.
Okay. And your job, and your duty that night was to observe the vehicles traveling
15 .
southbound on State Road toward the, toward the OVI checkpoint, correct?
16.
Only -- well it depends on you know he's diverting vehicles from coming on to
But the ones that are on State Road, he' s not keeping you from observing those
That's true.
MR. GOLD: No further questions Your Honor.
17.
18.
19.
Spellacy?
20.
21.
BY MR. SPELLACY:
22.
Part of the duties of an entry, you say you call it an entry car?
23.
Observation.
24.
Observation car.
25.
Yes sir.
287
1.
2.
away from the checkpoint?
3.
That's correct.
4.
And what caused, what causes them to tum away from the checkpoint?
5.
True.
6.
And had you not received -- strike that, what is your duty when you see a vehicle
7.
tum away from the checkpoint?
8.
9.
but we can follow the vehicle and we can see if there are any violations and we can proceed to
10.
stop vehicles for those violations actually.
11.
12.
checkpoint because they see somebody warning them of the checkpoint and then you see them
13.
weaving all over the road or hit a parked car --
14.
Sure part of your observation is whether or not they're impaired, sure.
15.
Then you will pull that vehicle over, correct.
16.
Absolutely, yes.
17.
So in this particular case where you see two vehicles with right tum signals on
18.
that then don't make a right turn onto that, would you normally follow that or those vehicles?
19.
Yes.
20.
To see why they were diverted from that area.
21.
Sure.
22.
Okay. Why didn't you do that to ascertain who they were, correct?
23.
Correct. The main reason that I didn't do that is because almost simultaneously
24.
Captain McCann was going over to talk with Mr. Odolecki and request an assist and I was
25.
that assist.
Are part of the duties of an observation car to see whether or not vehicles tum
We can actually follow that vehicle. Again, it's not unlawful for them to do that
If you witness, for instance if you witness a drunk driver that turns away from a
288
1.
2.
Okay.
3.
4.
5.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
6.
BYMR. GOLD:
7.
8.
that continued eastbound on Brookpark rather then turning south on State Road, did he?
9.
No.
10.
In fact it was Captain Manning, as I understand your testimony who prevented
11.
you from doing that.
12.
If I said Manning, I stand corrected, it was actually McCann.
13.
Yeah, I'm sorry, you might have said McCann, I apologize. It was actually Captain
14.
McCann, Captain McCann who stopped you from pursuing those vehicles.
15.
He didn't necessarily pursue me; I was going to assist him.
16.
So you took it upon yourself rather than to pursue the vehicles to lend an assist
17.
to Captain Mc Cann.
18.
I did.
19.
And that was your decision.
20.
Correct.
MR. GOLD: No further questions.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Officer Manzo Mr. Odolecki didn't stop you from pursuing any of the vehicles
Spellacy?
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you Officer.
289
1.
2.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor the City rests at this time with the exception of
the introduction of the Exhibits.
3.
4.
THE COURT: Okay. Do we want to have

the jury take a break?
5.
MR. GOLD: Yes please Your Honor.
6.
THE COURT: Okay.

7.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor we'd move to introduce the cellphone video of
9.
10.
the 7/29/15 incident.
11.
12.
THE COURT: Okay, 7/29/15 that's the

cellphone video, right?
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes that's Exhibit 1. And I haven't stickered these yet but
14.
I will sticker them. And Exhibit 2 would be the video of the June 13, 2014 incident as
15.
Exhibit 2.
16.
17.
18.
19.
MR. GOLD: Objection, I'm sorry there are two videos from the 2014 incident,
which one are you talking about.
MR. SPELLACY: I believe it' s -- not the dash-cam which barely shows anything,
it's Mr. Odolecki' s --
20.
21.
THE COURT: Do you want the dash-cam?

MR. SPELLACY: No.
22.
23.
THE COURT: So it's Mr. Odolecki's video?

MR. SPELLACY: Yes.
24.
25.
THE COURT: His cellphone video?

MR. SPELLACY: Yes.
290
THE COURT: That would be State' s
1.
2.
Exhibit 2.
3.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: And that's as redacted from that was what we talked about
in Pretrial Motions was the --
5.
THE COURT: No reference to any officer,
6.
specifically Officer Manzo. Then you' ve already redacted your social security number,
7.
correct?
8.
OFFICER MANZO : I needed all my information on the video, yes.
9.
10.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD: Ifl can clarify Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sure.
11.
12.
13.
MR. GOLD: It wasn' t redacted after the fact, it was actually muted while the video
was being made.
THE COURT: His social security number.
14.
15.
MR. GOLD: Correct.
16.
17.
18.
19.
THE COURT: Okay. I just wanted to make

sure of that that's not on there because I didn't hear it or see it, right, that's off there, okay.
MR. GOLD: Also I think it's important for the Court to know that the videos to
which Mr. Spellacy is referring was not redacted. In fact the video that --
20.
21.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, say that again.

MR. GOLD: Mr. Spellacy didn't redact the video that he showed the jury.
22.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: What do you mean?

MR. GOLD: The video that was shown to the jury has the offending language
that Mr. Spellacy sought to exclude and so -THE COURT: No, we --
291
1.
MR. GOLD: The video that the jury saw --
2.
3.
4.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLD: -- of Mr. Odolecki' s -- taken with Mr. Odolecki's cellphone,

which was posted on YouTube --
5.
6.
7.
THE COURT: Right.

MR. GOLD : Has the information that Mr. Spellacy had earlier unsuccessfully
obtained a Motion in Limine to preclude --
8.
9.
THE COURT: We saw Mr. Manzo up

there but we didn't hear anything that was said about Officer Manzo by your client, right?
10.
MR. SPELLACY: Correct.
11.
MR. GOLD: Fair enough, okay.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: I think what he's referencing is at the beginning of it and
13.
you saw that I dragged across it was there was typed information.
14.
15.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SPELLACY: That it said something about this is the guy that beat somebody
16.
or something so I saw that, I thought that was gone from that, it had been redacted but
17.
obviously it hadn't so I scrolled past that to the point where they're conversing about, you
18.
know, where Captain McCann says --
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Is that what you're talking

about Mr. Gold?
MR. GOLD: Yes and we' d like because that was not redacted and it offered, it was
shown to the jury we would like that video to insure that it' s shown in its entirety.
MR. SPELLACY: It was not shown to the jury.
THE COURT: There ' s no way in hell
that I'm going to do that Mr. Gold. I didn't see it, overruled.
292
1.
MR. GOLD: It's on the video.
2.
THE COURT: I started, day one and I said
3.
there will be nothing said about Officer Manzo or any other officer, badmouthing them saying
4.
anything, it's on the record now --
5.
MR. GOLD: And then he published it Your Honor.
6.
7.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold I have made my

Ruling on that, take me to the Court of Appeal. Next.
8.
MR. SPELLACY: The next Exhibit would be a photo of the sign which says
9.
checkpoint ahead that was shown via the videotape the same, the still was shown from the
10.
video.
THE COURT: Did Mr. Gold see that?
11.
12.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes he's seen that.
13.
MR. GOLD: I've seen that. No objection.

THE COURT: Four?
14.
MR. SPELLACY: Exhibit 4 would be the -- no we won't be offering Exhibit
15.
16.
4.
THE COURT: No to four? Five?
17.
MR. SPELLACY: Exhibit 5 would be the 404B evidence, other act evidence,
18.
19.
a video which --
20.
21.
THE COURT: Fifteen minute, approximately

15 minute video?
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes. That Exhibit --
23.
MR. GOLD: Which one was Exhibit 4, John?
24.
25.
THE COURT: That 15 minute video that

we saw.
293
1.
MR. SPELLACY: No, no, Exhibit 5, that' s Exhibit 5.

THE COURT: Oh.
2.
3.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Exhibit 4 was going to be the checkpoint policy which I think
there was some discussions about that but --
5.
THE COURT: You're not admitting that?
6.
MR. SPELLACY: No, we're not going to move to admit it.
7.
THE COURT: Okay.
8.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: In light of the Court's Rulings. Exhibit 5 is the video of the
404B evidence. Your Honor offering Exhibit 6.
10.
11.
12.
THE COURT: Now what was 6?

MR. SPELLACY: I don't -- I think we bypassed it because I introduced Exhibit
7 as the subsequent video.
13.
14.
THE COURT: Seven is the August

MR. SPELLACY: August 13, 2015 video.
15.
16.
17.
18.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLD: Was there an Exhibit 6 though? I just want to make sure I
understand -THE COURT: I don't think there was.
19.
MR. SPELLACY: I don't think there was.
20.
MR. GOLD: So we went from 5 to 7?
21.
22.
23.
13th --
THE COURT: Right.

MR. GOLD: No, I'm sorry, I object to Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 7.
THE COURT: Okay. Your objection is
24.
noted, it's overruled. Can I have one minute. Okay. What else do we have? I've ruled on
25.
the Exhibits that will be entered to the jury. What else? Mr. Spellacy?
294
1.
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further Your Honor from the City.
2.
3.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Gold?

MR. GOLD: I think -- we had a discussion, I made an offer of proof regarding
4.
certain Exhibits that were introduced during the State's Case in Chief or discussed during
5.
the State's Case in Chief, and I think that the understanding we' ve had with the State was
6.
that we stopped the line of questioning on the offer of proof that the City agreed that they
7.
would stipulate that we would offer those Exhibits for the purpose of the offer of proof.
8.
9.
10.
THE COURT: Are you talking about

the checkpoint information
MR. GOLD: The checkpoint information, yes.
11.
12.
13.
THE COURT: That would have been

your Exhibit 4?
MR. SPELLACY: Correct.
14.
THE COURT: So you want Exhibit 4 in.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: He marked it as Defendant's Exhibit A.
16.
MR. GOLD: I had Defendant's Exhibit A, A-1 , and Exhibit B. A was the
17.
policy, A-1 was the Sitz decision and then B was the checkpoint statistics.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25 .

MR. SPELLACY: I would object to them going to the jury, he's making an offer
of proof with those Exhibits for the Court' s file.
MR. TRASK.A: That's right but John Spellacy and I had a real quick colloquy,
I said, look, stipulate part of the offer of proof is what I said.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TRASK.A: And that was what we talked about.
THE COURT: So there's three pieces of
295
1.
evidence on your side then.
2.
MR. TRASKA: But not for the jury.
3.
THE COURT: Correct.

MR. GOLD: Not for the jury.
4.
5.
6.
THE COURT: But for you, there's three

that' s going into the record.
7.
MR. TRASKA: Correct, correct.

THE COURT: Okay, perfect, perfect. Okay.
8.
9.
Mr. Gold, anything else at this time?
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
MR. GOLD: No. At this point the -- well I do have a Motion. I do have a
Motion.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GOLD: But no I don't have anything else as far as the State's case.
THE COURT: Okay. Rule 29?
MR. GOLD: Yes Your Honor. Your Honor Mr. Odolecki is charged with three
16.
different offenses under the Parma Municipal Ordinances. The first I'd like to discuss those,
17.
I guess in chronological order I think is the easiest way for me to do it. The first matter is
18.
the obstruction of official business pertaining to the 2014 --
19.
20.
THE COURT: June 13, 2014?

MR. GOLD : The June 13, 2014, the June 13, 2014 OVI incident, OVI checkpoint
21.
incident I'll call it. In order to, for the State to obtain a conviction the State has to prove and
22.
you know I'm going according to the Court's jury instructions here the City has to prove
23.
that on June 13, 2014, Defendant, without privilege to do so, and with purpose to prevent,
24.
obstruct and/or delay the performance of a public official of any authorized act within his
25.
official capacity, did an act that hampered and/or impeded the public official in the
296
1.
performance of his lawful duties. I think that there are two facts that were demonstrated in
2.
this case they're absolutely fatal to this prosecution. The first is -- concerns Mr. Odolecki's
3.
privilege. It' s a fundamental -- a well, clearly established fundamental right that Mr.
4.
Odolecki had a right to free speech. He was simply, in this case he wasn't even speaking,
5.
he was simply holding a sign and we all know what it says by now checkpoint ahead, turn
6.
now. This falls squarely within Mr. Odolecki' s First Amendment Fundamental Rights. It's
7.
not anything that could, would amount to non-protected speech. The Ohio Supreme Court
8.
has actually recorded an opinion on the question of what, you know, in these situations what
9.
constitutes, an example of what speech would be un-protected it basically has to multiply
10.
influence. And the case is State vs. Hoffman, it's a Supreme Court Case dated March 28,
11.
1979, the cite is 57, Ohio St. 2nd 129 and that case actually involves a disorderly conduct
12.
charge but I think that the overarching you know the statement made by the Court applies
13 .
here as well where we get into the question of you know under what circumstances could
14.
speech itself be criminalized and it actually has to amount to something that's, you know,
15.
fighting words. There ' s no, there is no precedent of which I am aware where in the context
16.
of an obstructing official business charge that mere speech, especially nonverbal speech,
17.
written speech, which is what we have here, is something that is not protected or capable
18.
of amounting to essentially criminal conduct. So, you know, I think that, you know you
19.
don't even have to get to the rest of the elements of the offense because Mr. Odolecki has
20.
clearly established by the facts in this case that he had privilege to do what he was doing,
21.
it was simply just a sign. If we get, you know, getting past the privilege issue, we heard
22.
from Officer Manzo that Mr. Odolecki did not do anything to interfere with his ability to
23.
view vehicles traveling northbound, or southbound rather on State Road. There was no
24.
testimony that Mr. Odolecki actually prevented any of the officers who were working the
25.
checkpoint from conducting, performing their work at the checkpoint, in fact, there was
297
1.
no evidence at all other than just Mr. Manzo's hunches that Mr. Odolecki did anything to
2.
prevent anybody from traveling southbound on State Road. So given, you know, given these
3.
facts, I don't think that there's any basis from which a reasonable jury could find that Mr.
4.
Odolecki is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing the offense of obstructing official
5.
business on June 13, 2014. The remainder of the case deals with the incident on July 29, 2015
6.
involving the incident with the young man who was apparently attempting to commit suicide.
7.
I think that really, you know, the threshold question in this case is, did Mr. Odolecki, I just
8.
want to make sure, I want to get to the jury instruction on this also, we're talking about
9.
misconduct in emergency, I'm going to address the misconduct charge first. You know, did
10.
he knowingly interfere with the -- or knowingly commit misconduct at an emergency and
11.
according to the jury instruction we have, the jury would be advised and instructed that
12.
knowingly a person acts knowingly regardless of his purpose when he is aware that his
13 .
conduct will probably, not might, not maybe, but probably cause a certain result. A person
14.
has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably,
15.
probably exist. All the evidence in this case demonstrates that Mr. Odolecki was never
16.
made aware of any of the circumstances with respect to what was actually going on with
17.
the young man at the bridge. And I am certainly sensitive to the fact that you know we
18.
might not expect law enforcement officers to divulge personal information or you know
19.
sensitive information about a victim or a distressed party such as the young man here.
20.
But they certainly had enough information I think that they could have communicated that
21.
there was, this was not a garden variety traffic stop arrest, this was something different than
22.
the type of thing that maybe Mr. Odolecki is used to seeing and filming in the past, that this
23.
was different. And there was really nothing that was said to Mr. Odolecki by any of the
24.
officers to advise him that this was something different that this was some type of an
25.
emergency. All we heard was this guy is having a bad day, Doug could you please forgo this.
298
1.
Well a bad day is not an emergency. Just hearing that someone is having a bad day, that
2.
doesn't give you the type of knowledge of circumstances to give you awareness that those
3.
circumstances probably exist. Just based upon that, there's no way for Mr. Odolecki to
4.
know that they' re dealing with a jumper or a volatile person or an unstable person or
5.
some kind of person that's a danger to himself or others. Similarly this Officer Gillissie
6.
he admits that rather than giving Mr. Odolecki some type of indication which might, you
7.
know, raise his awareness of the existence of an emergency or that his filming might cause
8.
this person distress, he actually provides him with misinformation which you know reduces
9.
his awareness if anything or at least it inhibits his awareness. There was, you know, sure
10.
there were police cars with lights on and there were police standing around and there might
11.
have been some witnesses but those, that in and of itself wouldn' t communicate to Mr.
12.
Odolecki just how, for any reasonable person, just how volatile the situation is and I think
13.
if you look at a reasonable person who simply exercises what otherwise is a fundamentally
14.
protected right to photograph and observe officials in the performance of their public
15.
duties. It' s just the information that was provided by the police officers would not give a
16.
reasonable person the type of awareness of circumstances that I think that the instruction
17.
here requires. And I think that you know we also heard from I can't think of the witness
18.
right now but at least one of the officers, the last officer who testified in that manner was
19.
Officer, I don't want to get his name wrong for the record.
20.
MR. SPELLACY: Tellings.
21.
MR. GOLD: Tellings, thank you John. Tellings, Officer Tellings said that, you
22.
know it was just the act of filming itself that was, that was impairing or you know inhibiting
23 .
or interfering with the officers' ability to treat this person. Well, ordinarily, you know, in
24.
this situation this is a person who is autistic. We're not dealing with a reasonable person
25.
here. A reasonable person would not go jump off of a bridge simply because they ' re
299
1.
being filmed . So I think that it requires something more to say we're dealing with a special
2.
situation here and this is why you can't film Doug, that would be different, but just the
3.
act of filming alone, without any more information, without Mr. Odolecki being aware of
4.
any other information can't get rise to the mental state that the State's required to prove in
5.
this case and we saw you know videos that quite frankly I just don't see how any of the
6.
videos that were shown pertain, in this situation, to what Mr. Odolecki' s mental state was
7.
on that day. Mr. Odolecki gets very little information and in fact he was given misinformation
8.
by the police officer. I think that in light of those facts, a jury cannot, the State cannot
9.
establish that element of the offense, the mens rea I' 11 call it. If it is, that's what it is mens
10.
rea are required to be guilty of the misconduct at emergency. The second aspect of that
11 .
the obstruction of official business it's really the same argument except, you know, I think
12.
to obstruct, again, there has to be, he has to be doing something without privilege. I'm
13.
not sure, I mean generally speaking the right to videotape and record and observe public
14.
officials as they perform their duties, it is a well-established, fundamental right. So worse
15.
case scenario, Mr. Odolecki mistakenly and understandably mistakenly believes he has
16.
the privilege and he hasn't been provided with any facts that would put him on notice that
17.
he's not privileged. And until that happens, you know, he ' s obviously under the assumption
18.
that he's privileged and you know without more knowledge, in fact, more candor by the
19.
police department, it's impossible for him to know that what otherwise is a fundamental
20.
right is actually, potentially placing this young man in harm. So those are the -- that's a
21.
critical piece of information that Mr. Odolecki has to know to know that his actions are
22.
in this situation interfering with the performance of the polices' duties and so for, again,
23 .
for that reason, Mr. Odolecki, just based upon the evidence we've heard simply the State
24.
cannot prove that he has the requisite mental state of intent to interfere with or obstruct
25.
official business in that situation. And finally, with respect to the disorderly conduct, it's
300
1.
I know its statute says and I think that again I'm going to refer the Court to the case that
2.
I just previously cited which was the State vs. Hoffman case and you know in that case the
3.
Supreme Court made it very clear that you can't in evaluating the statute you have to do so
4.
under an analysis that asks the question of whether, it has to be, that that statute and in
5.
their 2917 .11 , which is the State statute but the City statute I think for our purposes here
6.
fundamentall y tracts the State statute and they said that you know a person may not be
7.
punished under R. C. 2917.11 (A)(2) for recklessly causing inconvenience, annoyance or
8.
alarm to another by making offensively coarse utterance or communicating unwarranted
9.
or grossly abusive language to any person unless the abusive, unless the words spoken
10.
are likely, by their very utterance, to inflict injury or provoke the average person to an
11.
immediate retaliatory breach of the peace. To simply say welcome to YouTube motherfucker
12.
and I, this is for the record, that's why I say that, I don't mean that in disrespect, but those
13.
words I see no precedent where that statement could be said to incite a reasonable person to
14.
violence or any of the statements that were issued by, made by Mr. Odolecki. The mere fact
15.
that children are around, you know, this is, the Supreme Court uses a reasonable person
16.
standard, not a reasonable child standard, not a reasonable autistic kid' s standard, not a
17.
reasonable parent who is having the worse day of her life standard, a reasonable person
18.
standard. Nobody is going to get incited to violence by anything that Mr. Odolecki said on
19.
July 29, 2015. So I mean, so just applying the Ohio Supreme Court's analysis of this issue,
20.
there is simply no way that Mr. Odolecki can be found guilty of the crime of disorderly
21.
conduct. Thank you.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor may it please the Court, Your Honor
23 .
I think it's clear that the City has submitted ample evidence for the jury to decide we've made
24.
a prima facie case taking the evidence in a light most favorable to the Prosecution on each
25 .
charge. First of all with respect to misconduct at an emergency, 648.07, the elements of
301
1.
which are knowingly hamper a law enforcement officer engaged in a person's duties at an
2.
emergency of any kind. I think I heard Mr. Odolecki try to say that there's no way for his
3.
client to know that there was an emergency of any kind. I think there's been ample evidence
4.
submitted to the jury to make that conclusion. My nine year old frankly would know that this
5.
was an emergency if he walked anywhere near five police cars with their overhead lights
6.
on. With respect to the charge of disorderly conduct on June, I'm sorry July 29, 2015, you
7.
heard the reaction that his comments made and his presence and the words spoken, welcome
8.
to YouTube mother -- maybe he doesn't think so but just ask Shaunda the reaction she had
9.
as those words are spoken. He wanted to talk about trying to incite violence, this poor woman
10.
is having the worst day of her life and you've got some guy screaming across the street
11.
welcome to Y ouTube mother -- you heard her reaction, you heard the officers testify as to
12.
the reaction from the reaction of Daniel as well so I think certainly sufficient evidence has
13.
been submitted for the jury to decide that count. With respect to obstructing official business
14.
and first start on June 13, 2014, certainly there's been evidence of the first element which is
15 .
that they performed an act, did he perform an act, yes he performed an act, you heard the
16.
statement, the Court has held that the Defendant's statement could be sufficient act to
17.
constitute obstructing official business that is in the Jeter case, the citation of which is
18.
2005, Ohio 1872 1st dist. Court of Appeals. In addition to that we heard from Officer Manzo
19.
that he was approaching motorists, those motorists had their turn signals on, those motorists
20.
appeared to be turning right until they were approached by the Defendant, they then ended up
21.
going straight. Your heard from other officers that this is not akin to flashing lights to warn
22.
somebody because when you flash a light at somebody to, you know, to warn them that there's
23.
a speed trap ahead, the hazard is abated, the hazard is over once they slow down. Your Honor
24.
with respect to the City of Parma's proof with respect to the second element of show that the
25.
Defendant acted purposely to obstruct official business, the City of Parma has shown that
302
1.
Defendant Odolecki acted purposely to divert cars away from a sobriety checkpoint set up
2.
by the Parma Police Department thus preventing or obstructing the Parma Police Officers
3.
in performance of their duties. Their duties are threefold as you heard from the officers.
4.
To educate, to deter and to enforce the law. The City of Parma has met its element with
5.
respect to whether it impeded or hampered a public official in their lawful duties. Lawful
6.
duties means any act or acts required by law. That includes the performance of Field
7.
Sobriety -- I'm sorry, of sobriety checkpoints. By diverting drivers away from the sobriety
8.
checkpoint Defendant was preventing the Parma Police Officers from providing important
9.
educational information to the public and from serving a deterrent to motorists. So Your
10.
Honor I believe we ' ve -- and there is no privilege that I've been aware of introduced in
11.
this case that would provide him with a privilege to do that, to approach motorists. You also
12.
saw video of their, of the purpose that they have at these checkpoints including Mr. Odolecki
13.
was present when they approach and they approach motorists, to say turn now and things
14.
like that at a checkpoint. So I think that the City has introduced evidence taken most favorably
15.
to the Prosecution on each and every essential element of the crimes of misconduct at an
16.
emergency, disorderly conduct, obstructing official business at the June 13, 2014 and then
17.
as well at the July 29, 2015 incident where it was clear that officers were forced to leave an
18.
emergency situation, forced to leave what they were doing in order to try to help Shaunda
19.
Hall and her family they were forced to leave what they were doing and go to deal with Mr.
20.
Odolecki who was causing misconduct. There may be an issue with respect to a merger
21.
down the road with respect to those, it's clear that the elements are different, it's clear that the
22.
City has provided evidence as to each and every essential element of the crime of obstructing
23.
official business with respect to the July 29, 2015 incident. Thank you.
24.
25.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The Court will take note of both arguments and the Court finds in
303
1.
favor of the City, Rule 29 Motion on behalf of the Defendant is denied. All right gentlemen.
2.
Do you need time to go through your proposed jury instructions? Mr. Spellacy?
3.
MR. SPELLACY: No we' re okay.

THE COURT: Did we fi nd the definition
4.
5.
6.
7.
for emergency, do we need the definition for emergency?

MR. TRASK.A: That' s what I was going to address. I could also read from
Webster' s Dictionary for the definition of emergency.
8.
THE COURT: I have Webster' s Dictionary,
9.
emergency, an unexpected and usually dangerous situation that calls for immediate action,
10.
that's one. An unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for
11.
immediate action. An urgent need for assistance or relief. That' s Webster' s Dictionary.
12.
MR. TRASK.A: Can I hear the third one again Mr. Odolecki was --
13.
14.
15.
THE COURT: An urgent need for

assistance or relief.
MR. TRASK.A: Okay.
16.
17.
THE COURT: Do you want all three read?

MR. TRASK.A: Yes Your Honor.
18.
THE COURT: Okay so if you turn to my
19.
proposed jury instructions Page 10, okay, we do have Exhibits, Defendant did not testify so
20.
I will take out number one and put in number two. The question mark after Exhibits will be
21.
removed because we had Exhibits. The definition of emergency will go, on Page 12, it's
22.
count three, misconduct at an emergency, do you want it before knowingly or do you want
23.
it after knowingly, where would you like it?
24.
MR. TRASK.A: I think it' s after.
25.
THE COURT: After knowingly, before
304
1.
law enforcement officer?
2.
MR. TRASK.A: Yes Your Honor.
3.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. After
4.
knowingly, before law enforcement officer. The additional finding right after law enforcement
5.
officer you want that in?
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
THE COURT: It's part of the standard jury

instruction.
MR. GOLD: Your Honor it would seem to me that the additional finding would
also require knowledge.
11.
12.
13.
THE COURT: I mean that's a part of it.

MR. SPELLACY: I think that goes to that's an additional element which would
make it a felony.
14.
15.
16.
THE COURT: Take it out? I thought that

was a standard jury instruction.
MR. SPELLACY: Can I have one second I was looking at this OJI?
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Sure.

MR. SPELLACY: I believe that's my understanding Your Honor. That' s an
additional element, additional finding.
THE COURT: For a felony.
MR. SPELLACY: If in fact they did that, which I guess arguably he could have
been charged with a felony in this particular case but he wasn't.
THE COURT: So that's coming out as well.
MR. SPELLACY: That' s fine Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Everything else will
305
1.
stay. I will give a copy of the jury instructions to the jury when we 're done. Now the rest
2.
of the evening, Closing Arguments Mr. Spellacy, this is a question for both of you, how long
3.
is it going to take you? I'm assuming what we ' re going to do is Closing Arguments and then
4.
charge the jury tomorrow, right, since they have to be out of here by 5:00. Will it take you
5.
about an hour?
6.
MR. SPELLACY: I would hope it' s going to be less.
7.
8.
9.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold? I'm not holding

you to anything.
MR. GOLD: I just, I didn't really anticipate we would be done as early as we
10.
were today. I guess if we were to come back to charge the jury tomorrow anyway, I'd like
11.
to deliver my Closing Argument before they go back --
12.
13.
14.
THE COURT: Wait, what?

MR. GOLD: I' d like to deliver my Closing Argument just prior to them being
charged. I mean, could we reconvene tomorrow morning then?
15.
THE COURT: I'm not going to keep the
16.
jury any longer than I have to so I want Closing Arguments tonight. You both have an hour.
17.
I'm not holding you to an hour but I don't anticipate that either one of you are going to go
18.
beyond an hour. I'm not going to let them go now. These people have things to do so we ' re
19.
going to do Closing Arguments today, I'll charge them tomorrow so they'll have all day
20.
tomorrow to deliberate. Okay. We have to be considerate of their time.
21.
22.
MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor ifwe get done with Closing Arguments ahead
of before 5:00 --
23.
THE COURT: Then I can charged them,
24.
I'll do it tonight but I have one juror that has to be on the road before 5:00 because she has
25.
eye problems.
306
1.
2.
MR. GOLD: I guess my thought was can we do Closing Arguments tomorrow

morning?
3.
THE COURT: No.
4.
MR. GOLD: Okay.
5.
THE COURT: And the reason being again
6.
is I don't want to keep them here any longer than I have to so I know I have until 5:00
7.
o'clock today. So I'm going to get as much out of it as I possibly can. So ifl can charge
8.
them today too that' s great, but ifl can't, I know at least we can get our Closing Arguments
9.
done. I don' t want to keep them any longer than I have to keep them. Okay? Anything else?
10.
No, okay.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Could we have five, 10 minutes?

THE COURT: Five.
12.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: Five.
14.
THE COURT: That will be 3:11.
15 .
MR. SPELLACY: If I promise to not go past half an hour, could I have 1O?
16.
17.
18.
THE COURT: Do you want 10 minutes

Mr. Gold?
MR. GOLD: I'd like 10 minutes Your Honor please.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

MR. SPELLACY: And I will promise to keep it under half an hour. You
gave me an hour.
THE COURT: Thank you, please be
24.
seated. We're on the record. Ladies and gentlemen at this time you are going to hear Closing
25.
Arguments. The Closing Arguments you'll hear are not evidence it's just a summation of
307
1.
what you've heard in the past day and half. We will start with the City of Parma. Mr.
2.
Spellacy, go ahead please.
3.
4.
5.
6.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
BY MR. SPELLACY:
May it please the Court, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. First of all I'd
7.
like to thank you for your time and attention throughout these last couple days. You know
8.
we packed a lot of information, a lot information into two days and I thank you for your
9.
time and attention. You know I'm always amazed when I ask that question at the outset,
10.
one of the first questions I ask is what did you think when you got that notice in the mail
11.
and I'm always amazed at people's willingness to do their civic duty and in particular this
12.
group, your willingness to be here, your willingness to hear this case. Nobody, well we
13.
had one gentleman that said, that clearly didn't want to be here but other than that everybody
14.
said, yeah, now that I'm here, I'd like to do my civic duty. And for that the City of Parma,
15.
Parma Police Department and myself thank you. I'd like to thank Mr. Gold. We have an
16.
adversarial system of justice in this Country and we strongly, strongly disagree in this
17.
particular case but we try, we try to do so in a professional manner. I'd like to thank the Court
18.
for its professionalism in kind of streamlining this case so that we could get it done in two
19.
days. There are breaks, there are times that the jury is asked to leave but suffice it to say
20 .
that we are working and the Judge is working hard while you're not present. Lastly I'd like
21.
to thank the City of Parma Police Department, Captain Manning and all the officers. I'm
22.
honored to work with the dedicated group of police officers. I'm honored to work with the
23.
dedicated group of police officers who do a very, very, difficult job. Who do a very, very
24.
difficult job. Whose job does not need to be made more difficult by people harassing them
25.
every turn they make. It's hard enough to do their job, it's hard enough to keep this
308
1.
community safe, it's hard enough to respond to the needs of the community but then to have
2.
to do so with Doug Odolecki trying to interfere with their ability to do their job at every
3.
turn is more difficult. In voir dire, the jury selection process we talked about some concepts
4.
and we talked about why you're here. We talked about that this is your community, you get
5.
to make the decisions in your community. You get to make the decisions as to whether or
6.
not the City has met its burden of proof. You get to decide what the facts are and now
7.
you've seen the evidence, you've heard the evidence, now you get to decide based upon the
8.
law that's provided to you by the Judge, what happened in this particular case. We talked
9.
about bringing your common sense into the Courtroom here today. To use your common
10.
sense based upon the evidence that' s presented to you. We talked about the elements or the
11 .
ingredients of the charges. In Opening Statement I asked you to pay close attention to what
12.
was said and I asked you, while it's not evidence, while what we said in Opening Statement
13.
was not evidence, I asked you to pay close attention to whether or not what was said actually
14.
was borne out by the evidence. And I believe I heard Mr. Gold say Mr. Odolecki didn't do
15.
anything to interfere with the police officers' duties. You heard from Miss Hall as a parent
16.
her heart aches. One can only imagine, one can only imagine the heartache that she was
17.
going through. One can only imagine the panic that she was going through that day. To have
18.
to call 911 to try to keep your son from jumping off the bridge is heart wrenching. You
19.
heard about the officers response, you heard about the swift response, you heard about their
20.
ability to calm the situation down. You heard about them calming it down, waiting for an
21.
ambulance when Mr. Odolecki arrives. You heard from Mr. Gold that there was no
22.
emergency, you're not going to hear any of any emergency of any kind. I ask, if this isn't
23.
an emergency, what is. If this isn't an emergency, what is? Don't tell Shaunda Hall that
24.
this isn't an emergency. Don't tell Shaunda who is worried about whether or not her 17 year
25 .
old troubled son is going to jump off a bridge. Five police officers, four police cruisers with
309
1.
flashing lights, a nine year old, would know that this is an emergency situation. But this is
2.
what Mr. Odolecki does for a living. This is what he does for a living. He doesn't care
3.
whether there' s an emergency or not because what he does for a living is harass and interfere
4.
with the police officers ability to do their job. If all he wanted to do was videotape, if all he
5.
wanted to do was videotape for his public service, if all he wanted to do was videotape he had
6.
a perfect view from across the street. But no, that's not his purpose. He walked across the
7.
street to interfere with the police and to agitate the police. He walked across the street to
8.
distract them from what they were doing, from what the emergency was to have to turn their
9.
attention to him. Shaunda Hall and her son Daniel had a right, had a right to get the attention
10.
that they needed from the Parma Police Officers and the police were serving that citizen and
11.
serving that right when Mr. Odolecki chose to do what he did. Rather Mr. Odolecki is all
12.
about creating a spectacle, he's about creating a spectacle because it's all about him. So he
13.
can put his spectacle on CopBlock. All you have to do is listen to the video and I'm not
14.
going to replay this you guys have seen it so many times already and you're going to have it
15.
with you but all you have to do is listen to what he said. Say hello to YouTube mother --
16.
all you have to do is listen because all he wants to do is create a spectacle, to interfere with
17.
the police officers' ability to do their job. His presence at that scene, his presence at that scene
18.
could have been just enough of a distraction or just long enough for Daniel to decide, you
19.
know what, I've had enough and bolt for that bridge again. That poor kid has not been dealt
20.
the greatest hand in life, okay, has not been dealt the greatest hand in life but to have to listen
21.
to this guy screaming at him, say hello to YouTube mother -- is unconscionable. What
22.
story would Mr. Odolecki be posting if that happened? Lastly, in his Opening Statement Mr.
23.
Gold said and it's ironic I don't think I heard Mr. Spellacy say that Daniel was even going to
24.
testify, no, Mr. Gold, Daniel was not going to testify, Mr. Odolecki has put him through
25.
enough. I wasn't going to put him through any more. Ladies and gentlemen you're here
310
1.
dealing with specific charges, specific crimes. You've heard the evidence. It' s incumbent
2.
upon you to determine collectively, with your fellow jurors what that evidence is. What the
3.
facts are. That's your right, because it's your community, that's your obligation because it' s
4.
your community. And then the Judge is going to give you the law and you're going to have
5.
jury instructions with you and the Judge is going to read them to you and then you're going
6.
to be able to take them back with you. I subject to you that we talked about this in voir dire
7.
a little bit, how do you get into somebody's mind, right, how do you know with what purpose
8.
they act because it' s impossible to actually get into somebody's mind but you look at all of
9.
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding what was going on. You look at what the
10.
other evidence is and you're going to hear from the Judge that purpose and intent mean the
11.
same thing. The purpose with which a person does an act is known only to himself unless
12.
he expresses it to others or indicates it by his conduct. The purpose with which a person
13.
does an act or brings about a result is determined from the manner in which he does it, the
14.
manner in which it is done, the means used and all other facts and circumstances in evidence.
15 .
Proof of motive is not required. Ladies and gentlemen when you look at all of the evidence
16.
that you've seen and heard and that you're going to have with you, over the last day and
17.
a half ask yourself for what purpose was Mr. Odolecki doing what he was doing, ask yourself
18.
that. When you take into context with all the other evidence that you've seen, you can only
19.
arrive at one, one decision and that is to interfere, to impede, to hamper, law enforcement
20.
officers ability to do their job. We saw videotapes, we saw videotapes that, you know what,
21.
he thinks he can say anything at any time to anyone and the law can't prevent him from doing
22.
anything. You're not going to hear a jury instruction like that, you're not going to hear that
23.
he has a right or a privilege to do that. You 're going to be given specific instructions
24.
regarding specific crimes. You' re not going to hear any instruction on he's got a right to say
25.
that at this emergency. You're not going to hear that but that's what he wants you to believe.
311
1.
But you're going to get the instructions of law from the Judge and you're going to make the
2.
decision. You're going to make the decision because it's your community. Briefly,
3.
because you're going to have these instructions with you, you're going to have these
4.
instructions back with you but the three crimes with which we're dealing with, misconduct
5.
at emergency. There are specific elements to the crimes and the Judge is going to give those
6.
to you, okay. It' s knowingly, knowingly hamper a law enforcement officer engaged in the
7.
law enforcement officer's duties at an emergency of any kind. Those are the element of the
8.
crime. If you find that the City has proved those elements beyond a reasonable doubt then
9.
your verdict on that must be guilty. How is knowledge determined? It's determined like
10.
the purpose with which somebody acts. Move on to the second crime that you're going to
11.
deal with is disorderly conduct. And the statute says, no person shall recklessly cause
12.
inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another by doing any of the following, and he's charged
13.
under Section 2 which is making umeasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture
14.
or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person.
15.
Ladies and gentlemen ask yourself about, you heard the videotape where he says, I can say
16.
what I want, when I want, it doesn't matter, regardless whether children are there or not.
17.
You heard from Shaunda about the effect that his language had on both her son and her
18 .
children and herself. I can only imagine as a parent being in a situation where my child was
19.
trying to harm himself to have this individual yelling obscenities as my three kids or as the
20.
three children are hugging your leg and to have him use that language in front of those
21 .
minor children. But Mr. Odolecki seems to think he can say whatever he wants, whenever he
22.
wants. Ladies and gentlemen, it' s in your hands. You have the obligation, you have the right
23.
because it's your community, to determine whether the City has met its burden with respect
24.
to this charge. Lastly, the charge of obstructing official business. There are two separate
25 .
counts of obstructing official business. One from the June 2014 incident at the checkpoint,
312
1.
okay. The second from the July 29, 2015 incident at the emergency involving Daniel Hall.
2.
The elements, you're going to hear from the Judge are that without privilege, no person
3.
without privilege to do so, you ' re not going to hear anything about he's got a privilege or a
4.
right to do that, with the purpose to prevent or obstruct or delay and you're going to determine
5.
that purpose, by which somebody acts based upon all the facts and circumstances in evidence.
6.
And you've seen all the videotapes of other acts. You've heard testimony from the officers,
7.
you heard testimony from Shaunda Hall. For purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the
8.
performance by a public official of any authorized act within his or her official capacity. Well
9.
clearly being at the scene of the emergency, where 911 was called and the officers responded,
10.
well clearly that's within their public official's duties. In addition, at the checkpoint, you've
11.
heard from the officers that that is a duty that they have, that is an obligation that they have
12.
to run these checkpoints. Those officers don't just decide to you know I want to work a
13.
checkpoint tonight, they have to work a checkpoint every so often and they do that. You know
14.
it's amazing to me that this day and age we hear so often that you know officers, if they don't
15 .
run radar and they don't charge people with speeding and they don't do checkpoints and they
16.
don't take a motorists down the roadway and they don't do their jobs in enforcing the traffic
17.
laws, they're not doing anything. And when they do run radar, enforce the traffic laws, they
18.
get criticized for doing that. Ladies and gentlemen this was their official duty, they were
19.
there to enforce the law, they were there to educate the public, they were there to apprehend
20.
drunk drivers, but that's a small portion as you heard from the officers, that's a small portion
21.
because they might get a couple per checkpoint but for every motorist that goes through, they
22.
get to educate them and finally it's a deterrence, and if Mr. Odolecki is distracting these
23 .
drivers, if he is going up to cars and telling them to tum now, then the officers can't do their
24.
jobs and that's what was happening and you heard Patrolman Manzo testify that he saw at
25.
least two cars with their tum signals on about to tum to go up towards the checkpoint that
313
1.
Mr. Odolecki approached the vehicle and afterwards the tum signal went off and they went
2.
straight. You heard Captain Manning testify that it was his call, that he had conferred with
3.
the Law Department but it was his call and he told Patrolman Manzo that's what you
4.
witnessed , cite him now but, but, give him an opportunity first to remove the turn now
5.
portion from the sign. Give him an opportunity to remove that and they gave him the
6.
opportunity and he said, no. So that was his choice. Ladies and gentlemen, one can only
7.
imagine how we feel at a situation in which we seek the help of the police, you call for the
8.
help of the police and then the police come to help and then the police are distracted away
9.
from that situation because of the actions of somebody who thinks he can do whatever he
10.
wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants. And that's what we have here. And I submit
11.
to you that when you think about, when you review all the evidence, you think about what
12.
has happened and you think about -- and watch the videotapes again and watch them again.
13.
What was his purpose? Was his purpose really as Mr. Gold says to simply follow the police
14.
and videotape the police or his is purpose to agitate the police, to interfere with the police.
15.
And what about somebody thinking that can say whatever they want, it doesn't matter
16.
whether kids are around or not, you heard it out of his mouth it was a selfie if you will, a
17.
selfie videotape, you know. It' s his own evidence, right; he created a lot of the evidence.
18.
It's his, posted on YouTube because that's what he does. I submit to you after you review
19.
the evidence, respectfully request a Guilty verdict on all counts. Thank you.
20.
21.

Counsel?
22.
MR. TRASK.A: Thank you Your Honor.
23.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
24.
25.
BY MR. TRASK.A:
Doug, this is a kid with problems we're trying to help him out, it's now what
314
1.
you might think. For his own safety, I can't tell you too much more than that, but will you
2.
please, that's why we asked you to back off that's why we asked you forgo this right now.
3.
Those words you did not hear during this Trial, because that's not the way it happened at the
4.
side of the bridge July 29, 2015. Daniel is we know the name of the 17 year old boy who was
5.
in a very, very bad way. He was standing over this bridge. Miss Hall I can't imagine your
6.
pain and I'll try to be delicate about this but we heard testimony that at the worst of these
7.
moments for Daniel he was 20 to 30 feet away from where he actually was observed with
8.
the Parma Police Officers at the time that Mr. Odolecki came across that bridge on his bike.
9.
You're going to hear the definition of an emergency, you' re going to hear the word urgency
10.
a few times and I want you to ask yourselves is it obvious that this is an emergency situation
11.
by the fact that the lights are on. I don't think any of us would be comfortable with the
12.
determination that it's an emergency situation because the police said it' s an emergency
13.
situation, that' s cover for too many things and I'm not saying that they -- the police did a
14.
wonderful job with this troubled kid that day. They knew Mr. Odolecki. He' s a frequent
15 .
flyer if you will. This was not the first time that he has taken issue with what the Parma
16.
Police have done or taken upon himself to make records of what the Parma Police were doing.
17.
They could have approached and said we need to keep this quiet for the kid' s wellbeing. They
18.
didn't do that. You saw the video. What Officer Gillissie did instead is come over that
19.
guardrail in rather of a hurry. In his own words he tried to BS about how you, you know that
20.
his reason for doing this is you can't do this because this is a minor and you can't tape a minor.
21.
You know that' s a throw away. What he did was come across and immediately make contact
22.
with the camera, I don't know if I was holding the camera here it might also make contact
23.
with my face but we don't think that that happened but this a very aggressive approach. So
24.
no one in their right mind is going to tell you it's not an emergency situation if anybody is
25 .
standing on a bridge contemplating jumping in traffic. It' s not so clear when that situation is
315
1.
resolved this person is 20 to 30 feet removed from that danger and when there is the follow
2.
up that comes with getting that person help, which was what was going on at the time, there' s
3.
no dispute about that. Daniel didn't hear from Mr. Odolecki, he didn't hear any of the
4.
profanities complained of until Officer Gillissie's approach of Mr. Odolecki. He finds out
5.
that there ' s tape because he can hear the officer saying that someone is recording and then by
6.
the testimony that's when he begins to escalate again. How is that on Mr. Odolecki? He's
7.
taping, there's a fundamental right to tape. I violated one of my own rules, I always begin
8.
by thanking the jury, everybody thanks the jury, but I can tell you we all mean it, we all
9.
mean it, people don't show up and the system does not work when people do not show up.
10.
We are very respectful of the fact that you are busy, I was considering striking you because
11.
you're too busy, no hobbies, that' s so sad. Without exception I've heard jurors say that you
12.
know I might not have wanted to be here at the beginning but it's terribly, terribly interesting.
13.
I think this case is terribly, terribly interesting. You're about to decide on statutory language
14.
that says there is no crime here unless the State can prove intent and with respect to the
15.
obstructing official business, two of those charges, one for each day. This statute says,
16.
without privilege to do so. What is interesting about this case, what I hope you have found
17.
interesting about this case is that there is most definitely a privilege to keep tabs on what the
18.
government is doing and the police are the government. There is most definitely a privilege
19.
to approach government actors and say I don't think you're doing it right. One could argue
20.
about the merits of what' s the best strategy for getting the results that one wants and I don't
21.
need you to consider whether you condone Mr. Odolecki' s conduct in all of its particulars.
22.
In fact I'll go so far as to say I need you to avoid that consideration because that's not what
23.
you're going to be charged to do. You're not saying this was okay. What you're deciding is
24.
whether this was a crime. Turn now; the first obstruction charge is June of 2014. You heard
25.
ample testimony that the issue with this sign is not that it said checkpoint ahead, it's not that
316
1.
there was something the same kind of the same as flashing your lights to warn of an oncoming
2.
motorists. The issue wasn't that there was a warning being given, the issue was that the
3.
language said tum now. We all want to be very, very careful with where we're going to
4.
draw the line about what we can say and what we can't say. The City of Parma drew that line
5.
for you. And their objection is, tum now. Is there no privilege to say tum now, is there no
6.
privilege to advise someone of a right that of course they have to go any way that they want.
7.
The checkpoint would have been visible from more than one intersection away anyway. The
8.
City has zeroed in on that language as being what they object to. And for the life me I can't
9.
figure out how that's not a privilege bit of communication. In the sense that it advises people
10.
to look out for a situation that might interfere with their rights. You're presumed innocent.
11.
The cops can't stop you for just anything. They need a reason. They can't come into the
12.
house, etc. There' s volumes and volumes of case law, you know, when is there probably
13.
cause when is there reasonable suspicion, what do these things mean, when is there exigent
14.
circumstances that you don't need a warrant to do whatever. This is the stuff that Courts deal
15.
with all the time. For there to be a checkpoint, there has to be a reason. It might be minor
16.
intrusion and you also hear in Court here, I don't know, if I'm not drunk I stop at the
17.
checkpoint, we chat for a minute, you go along your way. You have been stopped. You had
18.
to stop what you were doing even for a minute. It' s a minor intrusion on somebody's rights.
19.
There are rules. I'm telling you, there' s no rule saying turn now amounts to speech that
20.
is not privileged within the language of the statute. Elements. The jury instructions are going
21 .
to breakdown all the things that you have to find. Typically I do Plaintiffs work in civil cases
22.
where I'm kind of sitting in Mr. Spellacy' s chair if you will, I'm the one that' s got to meet
23.
certain elements and what keeps you up nights is that if you fail any one of them that' s the
24.
different between element and a factor you've got to get all these elements and for the State
25.
to have to get them all beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence that Captain Manning put
317
1.
on all went to the purported intentions of Mr. Odolecki on these two occasions. And I have
2.
to ask you to ask yourselves did this evidence show what Mr. -- why Mr. Odolecki was doing
3.
what he was doing on the two days when he got cited? Did it show that or did it show that Mr.
4.
Odolecki can say some things that probably none of us here would say to the police. Did it
5.
just paint him to be a jerk? Because being a jerk is not a crime. What they have to show is
6.
that he had purpose, and again on the obstruction charges, that he had a purpose to prevent
7.
or obstruct officers in the performance of their duties. A purpose to prevent or obstruct. The
8.
clip that came in later, the only part of this clip that Mr. Spellacy wants to focus on is that he
9.
thinks he can say anything he wants, whenever he wants and the hell with everybody, that's
10.
the way Mr. Spellacy wants it shown. Please watch that clip again. What he' s saying is that
11 .
there' s a protest going on there are strong feelings on both sides, there are people who want
12.
to show up to support the police, there are people who want to show up to call the police out
13.
for when the police overreach -- I have no idea what was happening in Zanesville but that is
14.
the testimony that came in via video about why he's saying, on that occasion, hey you know
15.
what, it's a protest there' s going to be some language, don't bring the kids to the protest if
16.
you're going to have a problem with the language. And in that context he says, I can say
17.
anything I want to anybody. This is the best that the City of Parma has to impute what Mr.
18.
Odolecki is thinking on these two occasions when he got cited. I think it was an editing
19.
mistake to keep in the part that said I' m here to educate people about their rights . I asked
20.
Captain Manning, you heard that part, right, we all heard that, do you have any reason to
21.
doubt Mr. Odolecki' s sincerity when he says I'm here to stick up for people' s rights. He had
22.
no reason to doubt Mr. Odolecki' s sincerity in saying that. Does that give you a reasonable
23 .
doubt that his purpose was to prevent, can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that his purpose
24.
was to prevent or obstruct police business? Mr. Odolecki's very, very much in the habit of
25.
questioning what the police does, not illegal. Good tactics, bad tactics, guys on Trial, there
318
1.
are prices to pay. You're not here to decide whether or not they' re good or bad tactics, you're
2.
here to decide whether there was a purpose to prevent or obstruct or a purpose to push back
3.
on what Mr. Odolecki perceives, Captain Manning testified to this effect too, so what he
4.
perceives to be misconduct on some occasions by the police. I don't know if you got a TV.
5.
I taught a class at Cleveland Marshall for 10 years. For nine years of those classes I used a
6.
police record that involved a police shooting that happened inside a guy's own house and for
7.
all the mountains of law on police conduct, couldn't find
8.

9.
10.
11 .
BY MR. TRASKA:
In nine years couldn't find a case exactly like this. It stayed interesting for nine
12.
years. It was difficult, really difficult, a close call, you know. Police sift the balance, the
13 .
balance between how far can the police go, where are the police constrained. Nobody in their
14.
right minds would say that the police can do whatever want, you know, nobody's -- you
15 .
haven't heard the City make that argument, that's not what the case is about. But you did hear
16.
Captain Manning say that he doesn't question Mr. Odolecki's motivations. You know,
17.
something to the effect that he might think he's misguided, but he doesn't doubt his sincerity.
18.
So to bring it back to what he's charged with, can the State show you beyond a reasonable
19.
doubt that his purpose, purpose was to prevent or obstruct business. Or is his purpose to
20.
get close to people who are being handled by the police and suggest to them what they might
21 .
not know which is that, hey, you got rights. Similarly misconduct at the site of an emergency,
22.
the statutory language requires that you find beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a purpose
23.
to hamper. Mr. Odolecki's purpose, you know there's no argument here that he has any idea
24.
what's really happening on that bridge and despite the opportunity to say you know there 's
25.
four or five police officers there, could they say, I know this guy, I know what he's trying to
319
1.
do, gee, could I appeal to his humanity and say this situation, you're barking up the wrong
2.
tree, please cut it out. We don't know how Mr. Odolecki would have reacted to that approach
3.
because what he got instead was Officer Gillissie rushing across the street and smacking the
4.
camera out of his hands and yelled at him. I don't know why the same guys who are doing
5.
excellent work with a youth in trouble, aren't looking to keep the peace with respect to
6.
something that can effect that situation. Daniel has no idea that he ' s being taped until he
7.
hears it from the police officers. I'm not saying that that's, you know, that' s an excuse but
8.
that' s the reason why this situation escalated. Did my client have any way of knowing that,
9.
no . If my client had been told something without evading Daniel' s right to privacy at that
10.
terrible moment, yes, but that's not the approach they took. The remaining charges,
11.
obstruction and again you have to ask yourself about the privilege. Disorderly conduct with
12.
the foul language. You're doing something that you know you've done the homework, you
13.
know it's within your rights and the police officer comes up, skips the niceties, smacks your
14.
stuff out of his hand, tells you to go away, you saw the video, again you saw what the video
15.
is. You might be a little bit riled after that so I'd ask you to evaluate Mr. Odolecki' s
16.
subsequent conduct in light of what didn't happen, in light of the Officer Gillissie showing
17.
no interest in trying to diffuse rather than to confront. And by confront, again, you saw the
18.
video. He thinks he can say anything he wants, what he wants, regardless of consequences,
19.
look, I feel this bears repeating, that statement was in the context of explaining what happened
20.
in Zanesville and the, what might appear to be the lack of decorum in terms of the language
21.
being used around kids. I think it made a lot of sense, if you don't want kids to be around the
22.
language than a protest is not the place for them. It's -- nobody controls the language that's
23 .
going to be used but you do know that tempers are going to be running high. Please don't
24.
accept the Prosecution' s invitation to bootstrap that statement taken out of context and say,
25.
oh, well, that has to have been what Mr. Odolecki was thinking at these other times. Instead
320
1.
you've heard he's in the business of fighting back on what he perceived to be misconduct
2.
and rightly or wrongly, nobody has questioned his motives. I don't agree with the tactics,
3.
I don't expect you to agree with the tactics, I don't expect you to agree with the language
4.
but it isn't a crime. Thank you very much. We will ask that you return a verdict of Not
5.
Guilty on all counts.
6.
7.
8.
THE COURT: Thank you Counsel. Mr.

Spellacy?
9.
10.
RE-BUTTAL CLOSING ARGUMENT

BY MR. SPELLACY:
11.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is not a coincidence, it is not a coincidence as Counsel
12.
for Mr. Odolecki would like you to believe. That, that videotape of where he says I can do
13.
or say what I want, it doesn't matter whether children are around or not, it's not a coincidence
14.
that that's exactly what happened on July 29, 2015. Those aren't my words. That's not me
15.
saying this is how he feels, that's him saying how he feels. You don't have to believe me,
16.
all you have to do is believe him. I don't know that I've ever had that in a case before. All
17.
you have to do is believe the Defendant's own words. As far as Mr. Odolecki, according to
18 .
Counsel all he's doing is sticking up for people's rights, he had no idea, no idea, what was
19.
going on on July 29, 2015. But we' re taught, by our parents in grade school, at a young age,
20.
that when you see emergency lights, when you see four, five police cruisers, four, five police
21.
officers, people crying, that that's an emergency. Use your common sense with respect to
22.
that. They want you to believe that there's no emergency because the officers got him settled
23.
down, then why are we waiting for an ambulance if there's no emergency? He had no idea
24.
what was going on but you know what Mr. Odolecki didn't care. That's clear. He doesn't
25.
care because he has no regard, none, for authority or for the law. You're going to see the
321
1.
law, you're going to see -- you're going to hear the jury instruction, you' re going to get
2.
to take it back with you. He doesn't care. And he didn't care when Sergeant Gillissie came
3.
up to him and said get out of here, go across the street. Watch it again, three times, no I
4.
won't, no I won't, this is public property. Well guess what, it' s the scene of an emergency.
5.
He had no right to be there. You' re not going to hear any instruction of his right to be at
6.
an emergency. Like I said, you walk up on an emergency and a police officer says go, you've
7.
got to go. He refuses, multiple occasions. You know much is being said about, by Counsel,
8.
about Captain Manning -- Captain Manning said that he doesn't disagree or doesn't,
9.
something about Doug Odolecki' s motives, I don't believe that was the testimony. And
10.
frankly as good as Captain Manning is, he'd be hard pressed to try to get into Mr. Odolecki's
11.
head. He ' d be hard pressed. I think the comment was, maybe he believes in what he's doing
12.
or something to that effect. I ask you to think about what was going on on July 29, 2015.
13.
I ask you to think about who deserved an explanation as to what was going on and who had
14.
no right to receive an explanation as to what was going on. I mean, are they really asking you
15.
to determine that the officer should have left this poor 17 year old who was about to jump
16.
off a bridge and go to Mr. Odolecki, leave an emergency situation so that they can calmly
17.
explain to him, Mr. Odolecki, sir, somebody is about to jump off a bridge and was trying to
18.
jump off a bridge, can you please leave. Use your common sense. Use your common sense.
19.
I ask you to return a Guilty verdict on all counts. Thank you.
20.
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
21.
All right. At this time ladies and gentlemen I am going to read to you the jury instructions.
22.
You have heard the evidence and the arguments of counsel. The Court and the jury have
23 .
separate functions. You decide the disputed facts and the Court will provide the instructions
24.
oflaw to you. It is your sworn duty to accept these instructions and to apply the law as it
25.
is given to you. You are not permitted to change the law or to apply your own conception
322
1.
of what you think the law should be. A criminal case begins with the filing of a Complaint.
2.
The Complaint informs the Defendant that he has been charged with an offense. The fact
3.
that it was filed may not be considered for any other purpose. The Plea of Not Guilty is
4.
the denial of the charge and puts in issue all the essential elements of the offense. The
5.
Defendant is presumed innocent until his Guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
6.
The Defendant must be acquitted unless the City of Parma produces evidence which convinces
7.
you beyond a reasonable doubt of every essential element of the offenses charged in the
8.
Complaint. Reasonable doubt is present when after you have carefully considered and
9.
compared all of the evidence, you cannot say you are firmly convinced of the truth of the
10.
charge. Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense. Reasonable doubt
11.
is not mere possible doubt because everything relating to human affairs or depending on
12.
moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
13.
is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it
14.
in the most important of his or her own affairs. Evidence is all the testimony you received
15.
from the witnesses, Exhibits admitted during the Trial, facts agreed to by Counsel and any
16.
facts which the Court requires you to accept as true. Evidence may be direct or circumstantial
17.
or both. Direct evidence is the testimony given by a witness who has seen or heard the facts
18.
to which he or she testified. It includes Exhibits admitted into evidence during the Trial.
19.
Circumstantial evidence is the proof of facts or circumstances by direct evidence from which
20.
you may reasonably infer other related or connected facts which naturally and logically follow
21.
according to the common experience of mankind. To infer or to make an inference is to reach
22.
a reasonable conclusion of facts which you may, but are not required to make from other facts
23.
which you find have been established by direct evidence. Whether an inference is made rests
24.
entirely with you. Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are of equal weight. The
25.
evidence does not include the Complaint, the Opening Statements or Closing Arguments of
323
1.
Counsel. The Opening Statements and Closing Arguments of Counsel are designed only to
2.
assist you. They may not be and are not evidence. Statements or answers that were stricken
3.
by the Court or which you were instructed to disregard, are not evidence and must be treated
4.
as though you never heard them. You must not speculate as to why the Court sustained the
5.
objection to any question or what the answer to such question might have been. You must
6.
not draw any inference or speculate on the truth of any suggestion including the question
7.
that was not answered. You are the sole judges of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses
8.
and the weight of the evidence. To weigh the evidence you must consider the credibility of
9.
the witnesses, you must also apply the test of truthfulness, which you apply in your daily
10.
life. These tests include the appearance of each witness on the stand, his or her manner of
11.
testifying, the reasonableness of the testimony, the opportunity he or she had to see, hear and
12.
know the things concerning that which he testified. His or her accuracy of memory,
13 .
frankness or lack of it, intelligence, interest and bias if any together with all the facts and
14.
circumstances surrounding the testimony. Applying these tests you will assign to the
15.
testimony of each witness such weight as you deem proper. You are not required to believe
16.
the testimony of any witness simply because he or she was under oath. You may believe
17.
or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony of any witness. It is your province to determine
18.
what testimony is worthy of belief and what testimony is not. Some things you may consider
19.
in weighing the testimony of identifying witnesses are, the capacity of the witness, that is
20.
age or intelligence and the opportunity of the witness to observe. The witnesses degree of
21.
attention at the time he or she observed the offender. Whether the witness had occasion to
22.
observe the Defendant in the past. All surrounding circumstances under which the witness
23 .
had identified the Defendant. If after examining the testimony of the identifying witnesses,
24.
you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant is the offender, you must
25.
find the Defendant Not Guilty. It is not necessary that the Defendant take the witness stand
324
1.
in his own defense. He has a Constitutional Right not to testify and the fact that the Defendant
2.
did not testify must not be considered for any purpose. A number of Exhibits and the
3.
testimony related to them have been introduced at Trial. You may consider whether the
4.
Exhibits are the same object and in the same condition. You will determine what weight, if
5.
any, the Exhibits should receive in the light of all evidence. As to the charges. Count one,
6.
obstructing official business. The Defendant is charged with obstructing official business.
7.
Before you can find the Defendant Guilty of this particular charge, you must find beyond
8.
a reasonable doubt that on or about the
9.
County, State of Ohio, the Defendant, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent
10.
obstruct and/or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within his
11.
official capacity did an act that hampered and/or impeded the public official in the
12.
performance of his lawful duty. Count two. Obstructing official business. The Defendant is
13.
charged with a second count of obstructing official business. Before you can find the
14.
Defendant Guilty of this charge, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about
15 .
July 29, 2015, and in the City of Parma, Cuyahoga County, State of Ohio, the Defendant
16.
without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct and/or delay the performance
17.
by public official of any authorized act within his official capacity did an act that hampered
18.
and/or impeded the public official in the performance of his lawful duty. Privilege means,
19.
an immunity, license or right conferred by law or bestowed by express or implied grant or
20.
arising out of status, position, office or relationship or growing out of necessity. Purpose.
21.
Purpose to prevent, obstruct and/or delay is an essential element of the crime of obstruction
22.
of official business. A person acts purposely when it is his specific intention to cause a
23.
certain result. It must be established in this case that at the time in question there was a certain
24.
result. It must be established in this case that at the time in question there was present, in the
25.
mind of the Defendant, a specific intention to hamper and/or impede the Parma Police from
13th
day of June, 2014, in the City of Parma, Cuyahoga
325
1.
the performance of their lawful duty. Purpose is a decision of the mind to do an act with a
2.
conscious objective of producing a specific result or engaging in specific conduct. To do an
3.
act purposely is to do it intentionally and not accidentally. Purpose and intent mean the same
4.
thing. The purpose with which person does an act is known only to himself unless he
5.
expresses it to others or indicates it by his conduct. The purpose with which a person does an
6.
act or brings about a result is determined from the manner in which it is done, the means used
7.
and all of the other facts and circumstances in evidence. Proof of motive is not required. A
8.
public official means any elected or appointed officer or employee or agent of the State or
9.
any political subdivision thereof, whether in a temporary or permanent capacity and including
10.
without limitation, legislators, Judges and law enforcement officers. Lawful duties means
11.
any act or acts required by law. Count three, misconduct at an emergency. The Defendant is
12.
charged with misconduct at an emergency. Before you can find the Defendant Guilty of this
13 .
charge, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about July 29, 2015 and in the City
14.
of Parma, Cuyahoga County, State of Ohio, the Defendant knowingly hampered the lawful
15.
operations of a law enforcement officer in his duties at an emergency. A person acts
16.
knowingly regardless of his purpose when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause
17.
a certain result. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such
18.
circumstances probably exists. Since you cannot look into the minds of another, knowledge
19.
is determined from all the facts and circumstances in evidence. You will determine from
20.
these facts and circumstances whether there existed at the time in the mind of the Defendant
21.
an awareness of the probability that he was hampering the lawful operation of a law
22.
enforcement officer in his duties at an emergency. Emergency. It means an unexpected and
23.
usually dangerous situation that calls for immediate action. An unforeseen combination of
24.
circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action an urgent need for
25.
assistance or relief. The term law enforcement officer means and includes a municipal
326
1.
police officer. Physical harm to a person means any injury or other physiological impairment
2.
regardless of its gravity or duration. Count four disorderly conduct. The Defendant is charged
3.
with disorderly conduct. Before you can find the Defendant Guilty of this charge you must
4.
find beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about July 29, 2015 and in the City of Parma,
5.
Cuyahoga County, State of Ohio, the Defendant recklessly caused inconvenience, annoyance
6.
or alarm by communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to another person.
7.
When the words spoken are likely by there very utterance to inflict injury or to provoke the
8.
average person to immediate retaliatory breach of the peace. A person acts recklessly when
9.
with heedless indifference of the consequences he perversely disregards a known risk that his
10.
conduct is likely to cause a certain result or to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless
11 .
with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences he
12.
perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist. Risk means
13 .
a significant possibility as contrasted with a remote possibility that a certain result may occur
14.
or that certain circumstances may exist. All right ladies and gentlemen you will have with you
15.
in the jury room the following verdict forms. There are four of them. The first one states,
16.
you' 11 see on all four it has the title Parma Municipal Court, City of Parma is the Plaintiff,
17.
Douglas Odolecki is the Defendant and you'll read on each one of them the word Verdict.
18.
On the first one it will state, we the jury find the Defendant Douglas E. Odolecki and then
19.
it will tell you to please indicate Guilty or Not Guilty in this space provided. It then goes
20.
on to state, this one is for obstructing official business, on or about June 13, 2014 in
21.
violation of Parma Codified Ordinance. Each juror is required to write his or her name on
22.
this document. On the second verdict form it will be the same one, this one will be for
23.
obstructing official business. On or about July 29th and again, you' ll need write the word
24.
Guilty or Not Guilty on this line and all jurors must write their names on these lines. The
25.
third verdict form this one will state, misconduct at an emergency. On or about July 29,
327
1.
2015 , again, you'll need to write in the word Guilty or Not Guilty at this line, all jurors must
2.
write their name on these lines. And on the fourth verdict form, disorderly conduct. On or
3.
about July 29, 2015 , again, here you'll write either Guilty or Not Guilty. All jurors again
4.
must sign their names. When you have reached a verdict you will complete the form which
5.
corresponds to your decision and again sign the verdict form in ink. You may not discuss
6.
or consider the subject of punishment. Your duty is confined to the determination of the
7.
guilt or innocence of the Defendant. In the event you find the Defendant Guilty, the duty to
8.
determine the punishment is placed by law upon the Court. You must not be influenced by
9.
any consideration of sympathy or prejudice. It is your duty to carefully weigh the evidence,
10.
to decide all disputed questions of fact, to apply the instructions of the Court to your finding
11 .
and to render your verdict accordingly. In fulfilling your duty your efforts must be to arrive
12.
at a just verdict. Consider all the evidence and make your findings with intelligence and
13.
impartiality and without any bias, sympathy or prejudice so that the City of Parma and the
14.
Defendant will feel that their case was fairly and impartially tried. If during the course of
15.
this Trial the Court said or did anything that you consider an indication of the Court' s view
16.
on the facts, you are instructed to disregard it. It may be difficult for you to remember all
17.
these instructions that you have been given. If during deliberations you cannot remember or
18.
are in doubt about a portion of the instructions you may request information. The foreman
19.
must put the question in writing indicating specifically what is being requested. Such
20.
communication then will be delivered to the Bailiff. I will indicate to you ladies and
21 .
gentlemen that you will be taking with you a copy of the jury instructions back into the jury
22.
room for your deliberation purposes. Your initial conduct upon entering the jury room is a
23.
matter of extreme importance. It is not wise immediately to express a determination to
24.
insist upon a certain verdict because if your sense of pride is aroused you may hesitate to
25.
change your position even if you later decide you are wrong. Consult with one another
328
1.
consider each other's views and deliberate with the objective ofreaching an agreement if
2.
you can do this without disturbing your individual judgment. Each of you must decide this
3.
case for yourself but you should do so only after a discussion and consideration of the case
4.
with your fellow jurors. Do not hesitate to change an opinion if convinced that it is wrong.
5.
However, you should not surrender honest conviction in order to be congenial or to reach
6.
a verdict solely because of the opinion of other jurors. Miss Pokorny you were selected to
7.
serve in the event of a misfortune to a member of the panel. It will not be necessary for
8.
you to serve further. You are not to discuss this case or to tell anyone how you would have
9.
voted until after your jury has returned a verdict. Is there anything we have in addition for
10.
Miss Pokorny, from either side?
11.
MR. SPELLACY: No Your Honor.
12.
THE COURT: Okay. Miss Pokorny on
13.
behalf of the City of Parma, on behalf of the Judges, the Court, Mr. Odolecki, I'm sure, Mr.
14.
Gold, we thank you for your service, we thank you for your time. Sometimes this is the
15.
hardest position because you have to listen to everything but you don't get the chance to
16.
finish that final leg of this tour. You are more than welcome to stay here, you're not going
17.
to be able to go back into the jury room but you're more than welcome to stay if you wanted
18.
to. Do you have your coat and purse?
19.
MISS POKORNY: It' s in the jury room.

THE COURT: Okay so I'm going to have
20.
21.
Kim take you back there. Again, on behalf of the City, on behalf of all the Judges here at
22.
the Court, the Parma Police Department, Mr. Spellacy, Mr. Gold, Mr. Odolecki, we thank
23.
you for your time and your service.
24.
25.
MISS POKORNY: Thank you.

THE COURT: You're very welcome.
329
1.
On behalf of the public and the parties the Court expresses appreciation for your services
2.
ladies and gentlemen in performing this important public function. After your verdict is
3.
returned and your jury services are completed you may discuss this case with anyone, but
4.
you are not required to do so. Whether you discuss this case with Counsel or anyone else
5.
after you are discharged is a matter of your own free choice. All right the Court will place
6.
in your possession a number of Exhibits, now the foreman or forelady will retain possession
7.
of these records, including the verdict and return them to the Courtroom. The foreman will
8.
see that your discussion are orderly and that each juror has the opportunity to discuss the
9.
case and to cast his or her vote. Otherwise the authority of the foreman or forewoman is the
10.
same as any other juror. Until your verdict is announced in open Court, you are not to disclose
11 .
to anyone the status of your deliberations or the nature of your verdict. All right Mr. Spellacy
12.
anything else at this time?
13 .
14.
15.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further, thank you Your Honor.

MR. GOLD : No thank you Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. After you retire
17.
ladies and gentlemen you' ll select a foreman or a forelady and whenever all eight of you
18.
reach a verdict and it has to be all eight, it has to be a unanimous decision. At that time
19.
you' 11 sign the verdict form in ink and advise the Bailiff by using the telephone in the
20.
jury room. And Kim will take you back there and I think she has the number written on
21.
the board up there so you' 11 be able to have direct contact that way with Kim. If again
22.
there are any questions that you have, call her and she ' ll go in and see if she can assist. We
23 .
will gather up all the Exhibits for you. I'm going to get you a clean copy of the jury
24.
instructions, we will send that back to you. Now it is 4:27, I believe we spoke yesterday
25.
and it was everyone' s agreement that we would stay until 5:00 o'clock, is that still okay
330
1.
with everyone? Can I have a raise of hands if there is somebody that has an issue that can't
2.
stay until at least 5:00 o' clock. At least you'll be able to get in there and get yourself
3.
settled a little bit, pick your foreperson, get a little bit accomplished. Tomorrow morning,
4.
can we have you back here 8:30, quarter to nine? If we get you back here by quarter to
5.
nine tomorrow so we get you back into the jury room at 9:00 o'clock and you can start your
6.
deliberations right at 9:00 o' clock. There is no time limit at this point that you have, you
7.
can deliberate as long as you need. It's again, if you want to bring lunch you can go ahead
8.
and do that, if you want to work through lunch, and we'll be in contact, Kim will be in
9.
contact with you throughout the deliberation process. Okay. Anything else gentlemen at
10.
this point?
11.
MR. SPELLACY: No Your Honor.
12.
MR. GOLD: Could we have a real brief sidebar Your Honor.
13.
14.
THE COURT: Sure.

15.
16.
17.
18.
THE COURT: I want to give them a clean

copy of the jury instructions because I wrote on mine.
MR. SPELLACY: There is one thing on the jury instructions Judge that was
read, physical harm.
19.
20.
21 .
THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SPELLACY: It's not an element so that it was on Page -- furthermore
finding physical harm to persons --
22.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: What page are you on?

MR. SPELLACY: Page 13.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SPELLACY: That's not an element of anything, it's not an element of the
331
1.
offense of --
2.
3.
THE COURT: Oh, you know what, did it go

to the Felony Charge, did it go to the additional finding.
4.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes.
5.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SPELLACY: So ifwe could just, I mean there was no harm to read it, but
6.
7.
if we could just delete that.

THE COURT: Do you see where that is?
8.
9.
MR. TRASKA: Yes physical harm to persons.
10.
THE COURT: Okay.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: Because you deleted the additional finding.
12.
13.
THE COURT: I deleted the felony additional

finding.
14.
MR. SPELLACY: But you didn't delete the physical harm.
15.
THE COURT: Okay.
16.
MR. SPELLACY: Definition.
17.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to get them
18.
a clean copy of this. Okay. I think I'll just put on the record, I don' t think it needs to be said
19.
but I will say it nonetheless. The rules that I said at the beginning of the Trial still stand.
20.
There is to be no outburst here in the Courtroom at all. Cellphones are to be turned off. If
21.
there ' s any disruption in the Courtroom during this portion of the Trial, the person or persons
22.
making the disruptions are subject to a contempt charge and/or being removed from the
23.
Courtroom. Everybody has behaved in a very professional manner and I expect it to continue
24.
until the conclusion of all this. Kim is going to get the jury right now.
25.
MR. GOLD : Excuse me Your Honor?
332
THE COURT: Yes.
1.
MR. GOLD: I think that we still have to get the stipulation on at some point also.
2.
THE COURT: Okay.
3.
MR. GOLD: I don't know if you want to do that after.
4.
THE COURT: We can do that after.
5.
MR. GOLD: Okay.
6.
THE COURT: Thank you for reminding me
7.
8.
9.
about that.
10.
THE COURT: Thank you ladies and
11.
gentlemen, please be seated. Ladies and gentlemen would you please identify your foreperson.
12.
Ma' am would you please stand. The jury has deliberated; is that correct?
13.
FORELADY: Correct.
14.
15 .
16.
17.
THE COURT: And you have reached a

unanimous decision on each one of the counts; is that correct?
FORELADY: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. Kim would you
18.
get that. All right everything seems to be in order here. The jury has made their decision.
19.
On each one of the verdict forms there are eight signed signatures all in ink. The Court will
20.
read them as follows, count number one, we the jury find the Defendant, Douglas E. Odolecki,
21.
Guilty of obstructing official business on or about June 13, 2014 in violation of Parma
22.
Codified Ordinance 606.14, again, this is signed by all eight jurors. Count two, we the jury
23.
find Douglas E. Odolecki Guilty of obstructing official business on or about July 29, 2015
24.
in violation of Parma Codified Ordinance 606.14, again this verdict form is signed in ink
25.
by all eight jurors. Count three, we the jury find the Defendant Douglas E. Odolecki Guilty
333
1.
of misconduct at an emergency on or about July 29, 2015 in violation of Parma Codified
2.
Ordinance 648.07. Again, this verdict form is signed in ink by all eight jurors. Count four,
3.
we the jury find the Defendant Douglas E. Odolecki Guilty of disorderly conduct on or about
4.
July 29, 2015 in violation of Parma Codified Ordinance 648.04, this verdict form is signed in
5.
ink by all eight jurors. Mr. Spellacy, anything?
6.
MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further Your Honor, thank you.
7.
8.

MR. GOLD: Motion to continue Trial -- or continue Bond Your Honor.
9.
10.
11.
THE COURT: We're not going to talk

about that in front the the jury.
MR. GOLD: I'm sorry.
12.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of
13.
the jury thank you so much. Your service here is now complete. On behalf of the City of
14.
Parma, on behalf of the Court and all three Judges here I would like to personally thank you
15.
for your time for your patience, for your consideration and for the hard work that you did
16.
here today. We know that this isn't an easy process, we know that you give up a lot to be
17.
here and I think that everyone associated with this particular case is truly grateful for
18.
everything that you've done. We can't do this without you, you know, if you took that notice
19.
that said perspective juror you know and threw it away and didn't respond, we can't do this
20.
without you so we truly appreciate your time and effort. Mr. Spellacy anything that you
21.
wanted to address with the jury at this time?
22.
MR. SPELLACY: No thank you for your service.
23.
24.
25.
THE COURT: Mr. Gold anything you'd like

to address with the jury at this time.
MR. GOLD: No Your Honor, thank you very much.
334
1.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and
2.
gentlemen you are now dismissed. I'm going to have Kim take you back to the jury room
3.
where you can collect your belongings and you're free to leave. Thank you again very
4.
much.
5.
6.

THE COURT: All right please be seated.
7.
I do want to put on the record a stipulation that was made and I have to get Kim for that
8.
because she has the written question. As the parties were made aware the jury did have
9.
a question that they did ask us, let me just wait for Kim. All right for the record, while the
10.
jury was deliberating they asked the following question, quote, how did the Law Department
11.
determine the verbiage turn now on the -- how did the Law Department determine the
12.
verbiage turn now on the sign should be removed per law. That was the question that the jury
13.
asked. The response that was given after discussions with Counsel was as follows, you have
14.
been provided with the instructions oflaw and all of the evidence. The Court cannot give
15.
you any additional instruction as to this question. So that was the question from the jury and
16.
that was the response that the Court gave. Mr. Spellacy?
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
MR. SPELLACY: Yes that response that was given was agreed to by the
Prosecution as well as both Mr. Gold and Mr. Traska.
MR. GOLD: That is the defenses understanding as well.
THE COURT: Okay, very good. All right
22.
before we go any further. Mr. Odolecki you have the right to Appeal this conviction. You
23 .
have the right to Appeal or seek leave to Appeal the Sentence which this Court will now
24.
impose. If you are unable to pay the cost of an Appeal, you may qualify to Appeal without
25.
payment. If you are unable to afford a lawyer for an Appeal one may be appointed to you
335
1.
without cost. If you are unable to pay the cost associated with an Appeal these costs may be
2.
provided to you without cost. All right. Now, with that being said the Court is going to move
3.
directly to Sentencing. Mr. Spellacy, any objection?
4.
5.
6.
7.
MR. SPELLACY: No objection Your Honor.

MR. GOLD: No objection Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Every day we
8.
hear about Police Officers that are being shot at and killed and spit at and things thrown at
9.
them and names being called. This happens every day, we hear it every day and every day
10.
that these same very Police Officers that we are spitting at and calling names at and throwing
11.
things at and shooting at and killing, are the very same Police Officers that we're calling to
12.
say, please help us. Help me because somebody ran into my car, help me because somebody
13.
broke into my house, help me because my son is about to kill himself. The very Police
14.
Officers that we have mother fucked and called pigs and spit at and thrown things at are the
15.
same individuals that we call and what is so remarkable about this is, they come, they come,
16.
they come to the same people that call them names and tell them how much they hate them,
17.
we hate you, we despise you, but yet come when we call and these officers come. On a
18.
personal note my child said to me one day, mom, I want to be a police officer and my first
19.
response is, please don't and I had to take a step back because it's not that I don't appreciate
20.
the profession, but I don't want my child to be spit at and things thrown at and shot at and
21.
killed, I don't want that for my child so I have to beg my son, don't be a Police Officer. No
22.
matter what we do, no matter what we say to these men and women, when we call them, they
23.
come. I have to say, I have to say this, you people are far better than I could ever be. When
24.
is it going to stop? You know when are we going to stop doing this? When are we going to
25.
stop saying, we hate you, we hate you, we hate you but help us. When are we going to
336
1.
appreciate what these men and women do? They don't make the law. If you don't like the
2.
law, go to the people that make it. You don't like the speeding rules, go to the people that
3.
make the rules. They' re just the bearer of bad news, they have to follow the rules and what's
4.
so troubling about this case is as we sat and watched, they weren't doing anything wrong.
5.
They were called to help. That' s all they were doing. It's just so sad. When is this going to
6.
stop. I don't know when it's going to stop. I have no control over when it's going to stop but
7.
I'll tell you what, I have a little bit of control, I could maybe stop it for a little bit of time,
8.
just a little bit of time. On count one, obstructing official business.
9.
MR. SPELLACY: Judge can we approach?
10.
11.
THE COURT: Yes. That's fine, thank you.

Does your client have anything he'd like to say? And/or you and I apologize for not giving
him that opportunity, he certainly has the right to respond.
12.
13.
MR. TRASK.A: Your Honor Mr. Odolecki has a few words he ' d like to say to
the Court.
14.
THE COURT: His right, please.
15.
MR. TRASK.A: Thank you.
16.
MR. ODOLECKI: Your Honor I'd just like to say that these days the conversation
17.
of police brutality and abuse is on the forefront of everyone's mind. It's not something that
18.
is not happening just because we're you know trying to mask it and I just, I just feel that I
19.
don't want to have to be shot to prove that point okay by a Police Officer. You may call the
20.
police, I would never call the police, never. I can take care of my own things, I don't need
21.
them. I don't want their service, I don't want to have to pay for it, but I'm forced to . There
22.
is a problem here in the Parma Police Department. There's a problem in Police Departments
23.
across the Country and that's the fact that the thin blue line protects them, they protect each
24.
other from things that are, that each other do and they try to make sure that they don't
337
1.
get in trouble for those things and alls I'm trying to do by filming them is make sure that
2.
if that happens that they can' t just come in here and say, you know, I'm a decorated officer,
3.
I've done all this service and everything like that so you have to excuse the fact that I just
4.
assaulted someone on video, you know, I want to make sure that they, that there is at least
5.
the evidence there that it happened so --
6.
THE COURT: Mr. Odolecki, I have to
7.
interrupt. But what about you sir? What about you? You come close to assaulting, you're
8.
almost like a bully, you're almost like a bully, you know they can't respond, you know, you
9.
know they can't -- you know I wonder what would happen if it were just you and average
10.
Joe out on the street and you' re doing this to average Joe, I wonder what that response would
11 .
be and I have to interrupt you again to say, we watched this video, those individuals, those
12.
Police Officers were doing nothing wrong, nothing wrong and but for the grace of God, but
13.
for the grace of God, that young man didn' t jump. How would you have felt, and you don't
14.
have to answer, how would you have felt, if he jumped? And as an aside, if I were just the
15.
regular average Joe, and ifl were the mother and that particular scenario, sir, I guarantee
16.
you, you would have to call the police to get me off of you. So I hear what you're saying and
17.
you do have certain Constitutional Rights that we all have, but sir, that's a power that we
18.
have our voice is a power but with great power comes great responsibility.
19.
MR. ODOLECKI: I'm well aware of that Your Honor.
20.
21.
THE COURT: And I don't think you are.

MR. ODOLECKI: I -- just to respond to that last bit that you said.
22.
23.
THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ODOLECKI: The only thing that I have to say about that is I approached the
24.
scene of this and didn' t say a word. It wasn't until I was taunted by them, well I'm not even
25.
go to use the word taunted.
338
THE COURT: You know what, you can
1.
2.
3.
say whatever you want to me.

MR. ODOLECKI: I was, I was, they interacted with me first. Alls I was doing
4.
is filming. If they hadn't have done what they had done, that video would have come out and
5.
I would have created a story that said, hero cop saves kid from suicide. But that' s not what
6.
happened. Instead I was lied to, assaulted, had to try to have my camera blocked, which to
7.
me is a violation of my rights. So, I mean, I'm sorry for whatever the pain caused or whatever
8.
but I just can't, I can't just stand idly by while this is happening, because as Mr. Spellacy
9.
said to the jury many times, this is your community, well guess what, it's my community too
10.
and I'm sorry if you feel a certain way about that, but it is my community as well.
11.
12.
THE COURT: Thank you Mr. Odolecki.

MR. ODOLECKI: Sure.
13.
14.
15.
THE COURT: Mr. -- did you have more?

MR. ODOLECKI: No.
16.
MR. GOLD : I'd like the Court in considering its Sentence to consider that you
17.
know I think that these the factual circumstances presented here really it raise some issues
18.
of first impression. These -- this was a -- the scene, first, you know we start with the
19.
checkpoint, the law is not super clear on that, there' s no other case out there that went so
20.
far as to affirm any kind of conviction for the kind of conduct that we're talking about here.
21.
This was a rather novel issue and I think that you could probably take many different
22.
lawyers and many different Judges, much less many different jurors and arrive at different
23.
opinions and conclusions about what may or may not, what was or was not protected speech
24.
in that situation and there would be genuine disagreements based on what we understand
25.
the law to be. The situation with the, the, the Snow Road bridge incident, it raises, I mean
339
1.
it's, on one hand, you know, I mean there's general kind of idea of you know do we have
2.
a right to film, well generally, I think that it's Mr. Odolecki' s genuine belief at least that
3.
he does and maybe you know this is one of those cases where you've got this exception
4.
based on these circumstances that if it's an emergency by nature of it's very definition, it
5.
was unexpected. It was a different kind of situation, there was information that you know
6.
not known to Mr. Odolecki that may or may not have changed things but it was, one thing
7.
was clear is that he didn't have all the information and that doesn't necessarily maybe mean
8.
that the police didn't have a right to tell him to leave but from, you know, just when you're
9.
operating under this general understanding that, you know, we can film, and the lines not
10.
real clear maybe because it' s such a fact specific determination of what is or isn't an
11.
emergency and we saw I think even in some of the testimony that you know when the
12.
question is asked when does that emergency end, that was the answer we were given well
13.
you have to look at the facts and you know maybe when the scene is cleared but I think we
14.
can all agree that just because we see police with lights, that's not necessarily an
15.
emergency and in fact the Parma Police you know have been filmed by Mr. Odolecki before
16.
and there ' s never been any kind of suggestion that, that, you know, that those were
17.
emergencies that you know his filming was somehow acting in misconduct. So, I mean, you
18.
know it' s a lot of information I think to process at one time and when you're I think as
19.
driven as someone like Mr. Odolecki, feel as strongly as he does about what we' ll call police
20.
accountability, maybe you don't, you don't, it's tough to appreciate just what you're doing
21.
is not helping and you know, and with respect to the -- and I' ll lump that in with the
22.
obstructing official business at the bridge because I think that you know my, what I'm
23.
suggesting to the Court would ring true for that as well. And finally with respect to the
24.
disorderly conduct you know I think that, I don't think that Mr., you know, I don't want
25.
to speak for Mr. Odolecki but I don't think that we would agree that it's okay in all
340
1.
circumstances to throw "F" bombs around particularly in the presence of children but
2.
again you know it kind of brings me back to my, one of my questions in voir dire, you know
3.
if you had one of your children at a Steelers, Browns game and you saw that language you
4.
know would you expect that you know they would haul that person away. You know
5.
anyone who has been to a game has seen that that just doesn't happen you know and you
6.
know this situation is different also then maybe like a protest, counter protest situation. This
7.
was a little bit different but so I it's not to say that in all situations that kind oflanguage should
8.
be tolerated around children but I think that you know what is clear is that there was some
9.
kind of physical altercation that it appeared at least between Officer, Sergeant Gillissie and
10.
the Defendant. At a minimum you know there was contact with Sergeant Gillissie and the
11.
camera and not to say that it excuses the language that was used after the fact but I think
12.
you know our basic common experience can tell us that when something like that happens,
13.
you can lose your cool and so you know all I'm suggesting to the Court is that consider that
14.
Mr. Odolecki is human and that you know, you know he could be just as prone as any of
15.
us to losing our cool. So you know in conclusion I would like the Court to you know
16.
consider that you know due to some of the unique circumstances of these cases, as well as
17.
some of the, the context, which might not, at least in this situation, have been determinative
18.
as to guilt or innocence, I would at least like the Court to consider all of that as it delivers
19.
its Sentence to Mr. Odolecki today. Thank you.
20.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. On
21.
count one, obstructing official business on 6/13/14, 90 days in jail, $200.00 fine, Court costs
22.
are imposed. On count two, misconduct at an emergency on 7/29/15, 180 days in jail, $200.00
23 .
fine, Court costs are imposed. On count three, obstructing official business on 7/29/15, 90
24.
days in jail, $200.00 fine . On count four, disorderly conduct of7/29/15, 30 days in jail,
25.
$100.00 fine. The Court has imposed a 390 day Sentence, your jail time will run consecutive,
341
1.
jail time starts today.
2.
MR. GOLD: Your Honor?
3.
THE COURT: Yes.
4.
MR. GOLD: I believe that count two the misconduct at the scene of an
5.
emergency was a fourth degree misdemeanor as I look at the Parma Municipal Ordinance.
6.
There was no finding of physical, risk of physical harm.
7.
THE COURT: The finding of physical
8.
harm went to the felony charge, if there were to be a felony, and there wasn't a felony filed
9.
on this.
10.
MR. GOLD: It' s a fourth degree misdemeanor Your Honor.
11.
MR. SPELLACY: I'll check the code book Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.
12.
13.
MR. SPELLACY: What' s the section Judge?

THE COURT: The section is 648 .07.
14.
15.
MR. SPELLACY: It is an M-4 Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. The Court will
16.
17.
correct itself. Misconduct at an emergency, Parma Codified Ordinance 648 .07 is a fourth
18.
degree misdemeanor. Sentence shall be 30 days in jail, $200. 00 fine, Court costs are
19.
imposed. Count three, obstructing, 90 days in jail, $200.00 fine, count four, disorderly
20.
conduct, 30 days in jail. Count one, obstructing, 90 days injail. Jail time will run
21.
consecutive. Jail time starts today.
22.
23.
24.
25.
MR. GOLD: Your Honor -THE COURT: Mr. Gold anything further?
MR. GOLD : May I make a Motion to Continue Bond Pending Appeal?
THE COURT: Your Motion is denied. Mr.
342
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Spellacy anything else?

MR. SPELLACY: Nothing further, thank you Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
343
1.
LIST OF WITNESSES
2.
NAME
3.
Shaunda Hall
EXAMINATION
PAGE
LINE
Direct
130
10
4.
Cross
147
12
5.
Re-Direct
160
6.
Re-Cross
160
21
7.
Re-Direct
164
Direct
166
9.
Cross
184
10.
Re-Direct
216
11.
Re-Cross
221
11
Direct
224
13.
Cross
231
19
14.
Re-Direct
238
Direct
240
15
16.
Cross
255
17.
Re-Direct
270
18.
Re-Cross
272
12
19.
Re-Direct
275
10
Direct
277
21.
Cross
281
22.
Re-Direct
286
20
23.
Re-Cross
288
8.
12.
15.
20.
24.
25.
Sergeant Ken Gillissie
Officer Michael Tellings
Captain Joseph Manning
Officer James Manzo
344
1.
2.
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, do hereby swear that this is a true and accurate transcript of
3.
the proceedings of The City of Parma versus Douglas E. Odolecki, held before the Honorable
4.
Deanna O' Donnell, in the Parma Municipal Court, County of Cuyahoga, on the
5.
11th day of February, 2016, to the best of my ability.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
CELESTE A. BAKER
9t\ 1ot\ and

Trial Transcript For D. Odolecki (Feb 2016)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Trial Transcript For D. Odolecki (Feb 2016)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1.

CUYAHOGA COUNTY OHIO

CASE NO. 14CRB02839 & 15CRB03055

Deanna O ' Donnell, in the City of Parma, Ohio.

On Behalf of the Plaintiff

JOHN W. GOLD & PETER TRASKA

On Behalf of the Defendant

THE COURT: The City of Parma versus

MR. SPELLACY: Your Honor we had previously filed a Motion in Limine,

probative of any untruthfulness or truthfulness. So I haven' t received a response to that that

to hear. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Gold?

THE COURT: Hold on, hold on. Can

Pretrials in this case.

THE COURT: But you' re not saying that

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SPELLACY: Thank you Your Honor.

to be unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints, what he deems to be excessive force matters, what

that it's possible really to dissect --

THE COURT: Can I interrupt? What does,

of Mr. -- of Officer Manzo in this particular situation. I would certainly be amenable to

done, if there's a way to do that.

THE COURT: Can I interrupt you. So

information on the checkpoint.

THE COURT: Wouldn't you want to show,

MR. SPELLACY: Mr. Odolecki was not arrested he was handed --

MR. GOLD: He was cited.

MR. SPELLACY: -- he was handed a citation.

THE COURT: Let me stop you there. So

MR. SPELLACY: Can I respond to that?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE COURT: Let Mr. Gold finish first.

Were you finished ?

THE COURT: Mr. Spellacy?

THE COURT: Can I interrupt you?

MR. SPELLACY: Yes.

THE COURT: Isn' t that on all police

THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, sir, we're

THE COURT: But he can post on it.

MR. GOLD: He can post on the Facebook Page --

THE COURT: Can I post on it? Can I

THE COURT: Hold on, hold on, hold on,

THE COURT: Facebook, okay.

THE COURT: For a specific website.

THE COURT: So ifl go like www. MR. GOLD : copblock.org.

THE COURT: Can I post on that?

THE COURT: I have to go to Facebook

was taken from copblock.org.

THE COURT: Okay so I think we ' ve

MR. SPELLACY: Unfounded allegations.

day we're talking about speech case. The question is whether --

THE COURT: But should a jury, I mean,

that one. What else do we have Mr. Spellacy?

THE COURT: Mr. Gold anyone in here

THE COURT: The gentleman behind you?

THE COURT: Mr. Gold can you identify

THE COURT: Adam Miller, M-1-L-L-E-R?

THE COURT: M-U-E-L-L-E-R?

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MUELLER: Do you want an address?

THE COURT: Yes please.

THE COURT: Keene?

THE COURT: All right sir then if you would