EX-CITY COP CONVICTED

He was protecting former classmate

He was protecting a fellow officer in a cover-up, DA said.

The irony was striking: The off-duty Pittsburgh police officer accused of pulling a gun on another motorist during a road rage incident two years ago was found not guilty, but his academy classmate, who was accused of trying to help cover up the incident, was found guilty.

The jury deliberated for eight hours Thursday before returning its verdict against Kaelen O’Connor, 33. Mr. O’Connor was terminated from the police force after he was charged with obstruction of the administration of law and hindering apprehension following an incident on May 3, 2017, on Chartiers Avenue in the West End.

The officer he was protecting, Robert Kramer, was acquitted of a single count of simple assault in February. The jury deliberated in his case for just 45 minutes.

He has been reinstated to the police force after initially being fired.

“The irony of Kramer walking ... and this verdict is absolutely insane,” defense attorney William Difenderfer said following the verdict.

Sentencing on the two misdemeanor counts is scheduled for Aug. 12. Probation is within the recommended guidelines.

Mr. O’Connor’s trial began Tuesday before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Mark V. Tranquilli. On Thursday afternoon, the jury submitted two questions to the court, asking for the definitions of “official duty” and “breech of official duty,” as related to the obstruction charge.

On May 3, 2017, a man named Jesse Smith called 911 shortly after 3 p.m. to report that a man in a black Mercedes had pointed a silver revolver at him in traffic. Mr. Smith provided a partial plate number.

Mr. O’Connor, who was one of the first officers to respond, was able to find a full plate number, which showed a black Mercedes registered to Officer Kramer at an address on Climax Street.

Both Mr. O’Connor and Officer Kramer testified for the defense Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. O’Connor testified that after he discovered that the suspected plate was registered to Officer Kramer, he called him to see where he was.

Officer Kramer told him he was at a Giant Eagle parking lot, waiting to fill a prescription. Mr. O’Connor asked if he’d been involved in any kind of road-rage situation, and Officer Kramer said he had not.

That, Mr. O’Connor said, was enough for him to believe Officer Kramer. When Mr. O’Connor submitted his police report, it did not include the full plate number he’d discovered or Officer Kramer’s name or any reference to him. The prosecution said that was done purposefully to cover up Officer Kramer’s potential involvement in what happened.

But during closing arguments Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Difenderfer said that was not the case, and that his client referred the investigation to detectives in his zone — just like he should have.

Mr. Difenderfer told the jury that the main issue in the case was his client’s state of mind that day.

“What was his intent?” the defense lawyer asked. “These are specific intent crimes.”

If Mr. O’Connor intended to cover up Officer Kramer’s involvement, then he wouldn’t have checked the box on his report indicating that detectives should follow up on the investigation, and he wouldn’t have given Mr. Smith the full license plate number.

“There’s a lot of things he could have done to cover up,” Mr. Difenderfer said.

The attorney noted, too, that Mr. O’Connor did not put any false information in the report.

Mr. Difenderfer told the jurors to consider the credibility of the witnesses, as well. Mr. O’Connor testified that Mr. Smith acted like a “complete nut job” when he arrived at the scene that afternoon. He also accused Mr. Smith of lying on the stand.

But Assistant District Attorney Jon Pittman, in his closing, told the jury that Mr. Smith denied having received the plate number from the officer, and that instead, he’d overheard it the day of the incident. Also, the prosecutor continued, the only reason the case ever came to light was because Mr. Smith called the zone detectives a month later.

Mr. Pittman said during his closing that Mr. O’Connor did a great job figuring out the full plate number. But, as soon as the officer learned that the plate traced back to his academy classmate and fellow officer, he changed how he worked and wrote a “generic report” that would give detectives nothing to go on.

Mr. O’Connor submitted a very vague and brief report, omitting Officer Kramer’s name, as well as the full plate number he’d obtained, Mr. Pittman said.

“Why would he not have put any of this into a report?” the prosecutor asked. “An omission of action to perform your duty is enough to meet the elements of obstruction and hindering.”

Mr. O’Connor was obligated to contact a supervisor as soon as he knew the alleged suspect was a police officer, Mr. Pittman argued.

“Why didn’t he?” he asked. “He didn’t want his friend to get arrested or to be seen as a suspect in this case.”

“The irony of Kramer walking ... and this verdict is absolutely insane.” — William Difenderfer, defense attorney