Day three was similar to day one in that the testimony from Melosky and Sweeney, defending themselves, was completely different from that of those on day two for the prosecution.
According to the Morning Call, Melosky took the stand for 30 minutes and while there his testimony was summarized as follows:
he rebutted prosecution witness after prosecution witness, including a policeman who testified that Melosky was agitated and drunk during the post-game melee Sept. 7 at Al Erdosy Stadium in Northampton. Melosky said they were lying or mistaken.And that:
When asked about testimony given Wednesday by George Stilgenbauer, who said he saw Melosky hit Newhart, Melosky said, ''He's lying.'' Melosky said he was agitated because Stilgenbauer ''falsely accused me of hitting a kid.''Melosky stood by his story that he threw no punches:
''I didn't punch or hit anyone,'' Melosky said. ''It was all very chaotic.''The article concludes with the Asst. DA's assessment:
He said he pushed and shoved people who were between him and his father and pulled the unidentified attacker off. ''I didn't hit any kid,'' he said. ''That was my dad. I was going to his aid.''
Lewis was disappointed with the outcome of the trial because, she said, ''I believe the evidence strongly supported the charges. However, I respect the jury's verdict, and I respect the students who testified. It was a courageous thing to do, because the justice system can be intimidating for them to deal with.''I have to believe this was a case where you had to be there on the jury with knowledge of the instructions given to you by the judge. There were two very different stories put forward, and if the charge was you must know beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of these charges, it could be easy to see where the jury said these stories are so different I have a doubt, therefore not guilty.
On the other hand, the consistency of the story by those testifying for the prosecution was done by individuals with nothing to gain. Whereas those testifying for the defense had everything to lose. It appeared that Melosky, his father, and family friend Sweeney were the three who testified. Two of the three faced charges, the third was speaking on behalf of his son and longtime friend. They had a lot to lose. In this respect, I'd personally find the prosecution witnesses more creditable than the defense, but that is not how the justice system is set up.
To Lewis' point, the jury does have a tough job to do - not to mention a specific one. Having been on a jury (civil not criminal) I know it took our group five minutes or so to determine how we wanted to make a decision. We had three or four questions to answer. Some were clear we agreed and put them aside. Others required consideration and conversation. The time this jury took leads me to believe that some component of their instructions (I'm guessing beyond reasonable doubt) was so evident it was a no-brainer to have finished so quickly.
I think at the end of the day, Melosky has been found not guilty in court, but even so, he has not been exonerated in the public eye.
I don't doubt Nazareth will keep him on as head coach, nor do I doubt the officials who hired him will feel vindicated, but I also wonder if this case hasn't made even more people wonder if this is the right person to lead a high school team and represent the school and community.
7 comments:
Ross
I am sure we will hear from the coach again. I turned to you post this morning expecting to find a rabbit pulled out of a hat by the Melosky team but your report goes along with the Express-Times. Why would a jury take the word of two thugs on this matter? The jury will live to rue this decision.
To clarify, I was not there, only read reports in both the Express and Call.
Given first two days, I was stunned to see the verdict last night.
If anything, the defense said Melosky was no where near Newhart, yet we Sweeney said he was holding him down and Melosky's father was near Sweeney, so by extension if Rob went into the crowd, throwing punches or not, he was near Newhart.
Further, the two adults, police officer, and students had nothing to gain by testifying against Melosky, and their testimony from the newspaper accounts was very consistent. Since they didn't all know one another, it seems hard to believe they'd collude to have created consistency.
Personally, I believe the testimony from the prosecution's witnesses for these reasons.
The jury, I have to also believe, was told they had to 'know' he intentionally punched or intended to punch or something along those lines, the victim.
It would be easy enough to say, well he might not have if Sweeney was holding him down, or he was swinging wildly yes, he connected yes, but he didn't intend to specifically hit that person.
Maybe I'm trying to hard to understand the other perspective, but the one thing that is clear is that 15-19 minutes meant they hardly discussed it - it was a no-brainer.
The bottom line is the jury probably did their job based on the evidence and instructions - if there is fault it is with what was presented or the instructions given (and by that I mean our system as a whole not Moran's specifically).
Again not having been there I don't know who all testified, but I didn't see where the police officer did, nor was anything reported from the friend who he asked to intervene.
That could have been interesting and enlightening testimony as well, if not for the case, then for what we might expect from Melosky in the future in how he handles situations representing the school as a coach.
Can the teaching job be far behind? You know that was prmosed to him when he was hored an IF the legal situation was resolved favorably.
That PLUS Parkland wants out from under him in the worst way.
I mean he was relieved of his coaching AND assistant athletic director jobs a few years ago. He hung on to his teaching job by the skin of his teeth.
Can the teaching job at Nazareth be far behind? You know that was promised to him when he was hired an IF the legal situation was resolved favorably.
That PLUS Parkland wants out from under him in the worst way.
I mean he was relieved of his coaching AND assistant athletic director jobs a few years ago. He hung on to his teaching job by the skin of his teeth.
There is a difference between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".
Having said that -
It was relayed to me by someone who attended the entire proceeding that the Judge's instruction to the jury was, both in tone and words, very cautionary and guiding in favor of the defendant. He rambled on for over 45 minutes, obfuscating closing arguments. While we won't be able to tell his demeanor, it will be interesting to see if a transcript can shed some light on this.
Those of us reading the accounts of the trial and making comments spent more time considering this case than the jury did in deliberating. While I wasn't present for the jury instructions, many of them are standard instructions, in which jurors are told they must discuss and evaluate the evidence presented. Two full days of testimony was presented and could not possibly have been discussed in a matter of 15 minutes by twelve people. My guess is the jurors voted on a foreperson, which they are instructed to do, then took a straw poll and since it was unanimous, they stuck with that as a verdict.
I was present for the opening remarks by Judge Moran who spent some time advising the jury on their job while listening to the testimony. Again, I don't believe they spent any time on trying to reconcile the different stories put forth by all of the witnesses. I don't think they thought or considered the various motives by the witnesses, including the very experienced police officer who filed the charge. This would have been part of the jury instructions given to the 4 men and 8 women who decided the case.
I would call this a sympathy verdict--they simply didn't want Mr. Melosky's career to be over.
A sympathy verdict for a guilty man is the same as turning a publicly funded monster loose on innocent kids.
I'd hope they did it because they felt they had no choice but to let him go because of the instruction, or some other technical reason. The alternative is not to pleasant to think about.
Post a Comment