The jury was picked and opening remarks were made by the prosecution and defense attorneys on Tuesday in the trial of Rob Melosky, Nazareth's new head varsity football coach.
Melosky is charged with simple assault, disorderly conduct and harassment charges.
Previously, only the prosecution's story was reported regarding the night of the incident following the Northampton vs. Whitehall football game - that being a 72 year old man, Sweeney, got in an altercation with a 17 year student, Weiner, and a third student Newhart stepped in to stop the two from fighting, at which point Melosky struck Newhart multiple times in the face shouting, "Do you know who I am?" until the boy was on the ground and blacked out. Also added to this description by Assistant DA Kelley Lewis was that Melosky "smelled of alcohol" and was belligerent and uncooperative as police attempted to sort out what happened that night (according to the Express-Times - read it here).
The defense has a very different perspective on the evening in question. Defense attorney Heitczman said the Northampton students were hyped on adrenaline and alcohol, and Weiner alone was shouting "Whitehall Sucks", which prompted Sweeney to take a few steps toward the boy and say "You shouldn't be hollering."
Heitczman then said Newhart stepped between the two and threatened to kill Sweeney. From this point, somehow Newhart winds up on the ground as the students swarm around Sweeney and Newhart can be heard yelling "Let me up".
Also at this time, and also uncertain of how it happened, Melosky's father was on the ground in the same area. Melosky pushed his way through the crowd and helped his father up never once coming near, let alone touching, Newhart.
This according to the Morning Call article - read it here.
The trial resumes today at 9:00 a.m. in Northampton County Courthouse.
It is interesting to me that it was both Melosky and Sweeney were charged, not the students, and also since they are being tried seperately it appears Melosky's attorney is going to put as much on Sweeney as possible to save his own client.
Considering how different the two views are, it will be interesting to hear the testimony from witnesses to see whose story is more accurate.
3 comments:
Thank you to the reports of The Express Times and The Morning Call for their accurate stories about the pending trial. It will be interesting to see how the jury of mostly women handle this case.
It did not appear to me that the defense strategy included pushing most of the blame onto Mr. Sweeney, but the story they wish to paint is that Mr. Melosky was at the football game with family and friends and came to the aid of his father and doing no harm to anyone else. It did not appear that Mr. Sweeney's attorney was in attendance at the trial.
This trial may leave more questions for the Nazareth community than simply what happened at that one football game. For example, what explanation of the events did Melosky actually give to those who hired him? It isn't clear whether his story to the school district is the same as the one his attorney is pushing to the jury this week. I wonder if anyone from the school board is attending the trial to hear the testimony both for and against Melosky. Even without a conviction, much of the testimony could be relevant to whether this man is retained as our football coach. The Commonwealth's attorney indicated her witnesses will testify to Melosky being under the influence of alcohol at a high school football game and was out of control, using profanity towards young people. Even without a conviction, what if this testimony is credible?
Finally, there is the possibility the trial will not be completed by Monday. Who then will run the first Nazareth High School Football practice?--this would appear to be the least of our problems as a community.
Maybe my description was too harsh, but my intent was that since they are being tried separately, obviously it is in Meloskey's best interest to direct attention to Sweeney, and vice-versa, whereas had they been tried together (and maybe we now know why they weren't)it would have been a tougher defense for both.
His lawyer noted Sweeney took steps toward the students, addressed the students, etc., whereas Melosky had no contact with them at all.
I'd imagine Sweeney's lawyer will likewise emphasize his client had not engaged, but been engaged by the students. Again, distancing oneself from the charge.
The school officials aspect is interesting as well. Not only should they want to collaborate what he says under oath with what he told them, but further, if his version of the story is not the one that comes out as correct, wouldn't he have in fact provided false information in order to get hired?
I'd think that would be immediate grounds for dismissal.
If profanity around young people was reason for dismissal, I don't think there would be too many HS football coaches left from what I've heard and seen mouthed on the sidelines through the years;-)
The alcohol is also an issue to consider from the standpoint that it was in public and at a school event (though not one he was officially involved with).
Again, should be interesting as this moves forward.
If Melosky is acquitted, Lesky will say that Melosky's version in court is exactly how the Superintendent remembers it. If convicted, he will say "That's not the story we got", show the requisite indignation, and distance himself from the guy and set up the termination.
Lesky wanted to do this hire so badly, he ignored all the other information and reputation that trailed the coach.
He should offer his resignation and the Board should accept. But you have a better chance of seeing God.
Post a Comment