Speaker 3: By Billy Cunningham. The great American.
Speaker 1: Joining us now is Connie Pillach, the Helmbi County prosecutor.
Speaker 1: And Connie Pillach welcome again to the Bill Cunningham Show.
Speaker 1: And before we talk about Hinton, which you know is
Speaker 1: another big story. In my interview with Sarah, we talked.
Speaker 1: She talked about how one murder case is treated differently
Speaker 1: than the other, how her husband's murder Patrick was treated
Speaker 1: differently than the murder of a police officer. Can you
Speaker 1: articulate as to why your office calls the death penalty
Speaker 1: to be issued in one case and not the other.
Speaker 2: Well, thanks so much for having me again, Bill, I
Speaker 2: really appreciate you including me and letting me talk about
Speaker 2: the stuff that's going on in our office. I think
Speaker 2: I put all the information about the reason for the
Speaker 2: death penalty and the deputy who was slain case, and
Speaker 2: there's of course very specific provisions of law that allow
Speaker 2: for that. But for the for Miss Henting, Miss Henninger's
Speaker 2: call a case of her husband, I just got to
Speaker 2: let that play out in the courts.
Speaker 1: All right, as far as h as far as that
Speaker 1: is it a policy decision or this is something I've
Speaker 1: read some commentary on social media that many times the
Speaker 1: system values the life of a police officer as we
Speaker 1: should above the life of may I use the term civilian.
Speaker 1: And when the police officer is murdered, you're murdering not
Speaker 1: just a person, but the representative of us. And that's
Speaker 1: a very serious matter. Did that play into it that
Speaker 1: some social media might say, you know, she'll go after
Speaker 1: a cop killer more than she'll go after just a murder.
Speaker 3: Is that part of it?
Speaker 2: No, No, there's no policy like that. These are done
Speaker 2: by a case by case basis and also in accordance
Speaker 2: with the law and what the law allows or requires
Speaker 2: me to do.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's move on to the hinting matter.
Speaker 1: You had an extensive news conference yesterday and as far
Speaker 1: as Rodney Hinton Junior and of course his murder, and
Speaker 1: then also you had the non indictment of the police
Speaker 1: officer who killed Ryan Hinton. What were the two or
Speaker 1: three key facts in your mind, Connie Pillage, is about
Speaker 1: why you did not indict the police officer. Can you
Speaker 1: tell the American people two or three good reasons you
Speaker 1: decided not to do it?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and you know, and of course it was a
Speaker 2: very extensive press conference yesterday. But look, we looked at,
Speaker 2: first of all, what the law requires, and the United
Speaker 2: States Supreme Courts gives a very specific guidance that have
Speaker 2: been refined over the last bunch of decades how we
Speaker 2: make these decisions. And one of the big things was
Speaker 2: that we have to view this evidence in the eyes
Speaker 2: of what one would call a reasonable officer at the scene,
Speaker 2: in his shoes, through his eyes, and with the knowledge
Speaker 2: that would have been known at the time. The second
Speaker 2: thing is when we looked through the body camped footage,
Speaker 2: we saw the scene, we saw the things that transpired,
Speaker 2: We heard one of the officers alert everybody there that
Speaker 2: there was a gun. And the third thing were the
Speaker 2: statements of the witnesses. The Cincinnati Police interviewed the witnesses
Speaker 2: that were there, and the interviewed some of the passengers
Speaker 2: of the vehicle they were also witnesses to So those
Speaker 2: are three things combined that led me to make that decision.
Speaker 1: Connie kellych prosecutor, you made the statement yesterday that the
Speaker 1: officer officer A and it's going to be said, his
Speaker 1: name's going to be revealed soon by civil lawsuits by
Speaker 1: Fanon Rucker.
Speaker 3: But nonetheless, I'll call him.
Speaker 1: Officer A perceived the gun was pointed at him when
Speaker 1: he fired the shots. The video, I think is unclear
Speaker 1: one way or another. I've watched it probably ten times.
Speaker 1: You probably have watched it one hundred times.
Speaker 3: Do you clearly.
Speaker 1: See the gun of Ryan Hinton, pointed out the police officer.
Speaker 2: Well, the thing we have to look at is what
Speaker 2: the law requires me to study, and that is that
Speaker 2: we have to put our review into the position of
Speaker 2: a reasonable officer at the scene and standing in the
Speaker 2: officer's shoes, running around the side of that dumpster, which
Speaker 2: is five feet wide, and seeing the young man running
Speaker 2: at him. The officer stated that he saw the weapon
Speaker 2: and he had about a half a second to make
Speaker 2: a decision. He was he believed it was The Officer
Speaker 2: A believed the gun was in Rodney Hinton's hand and
Speaker 2: that it was pointing at him in what we call
Speaker 2: a bladed stance, and that was certainly he was put
Speaker 2: on the alert by one of the other officers who yelled, hey,
Speaker 2: this guy's got a gun. He's got a gun. And
Speaker 2: we also had that corroborated by one of the witnesses
Speaker 2: in the in the in the vehicle and so when
Speaker 2: you have these kinds of events within literally for seconds,
Speaker 2: you can look at a body worn camera that has
Speaker 2: a wide angle lens and therefore distorts the spatial details
Speaker 2: of the scene. But you also have to understand there's
Speaker 2: more than body worn camera. There's there's what the officer
Speaker 2: believed he saw, what the other officer yelled about, there
Speaker 2: being a gun. When these all things have to be
Speaker 2: taken in total, you can't just look at one simple thing,
Speaker 2: and that's what the Supreme Court tells us. You cannot
Speaker 2: look at one item. You got to look at all
Speaker 2: the circumstances.
Speaker 1: And in the officer's mind, he believed, having heard he's
Speaker 1: got a gun. Gun, gun, gun, and he did not
Speaker 1: pull out his service weapon until after a fellow officer
Speaker 1: said he had a gun.
Speaker 3: Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Oh, yes, that's correct, and we have we have video
Speaker 2: evidence of that.
Speaker 1: As far as the actual shots themselves, I had on
Speaker 1: Michael Wright, who's with the Cochrane Law firm. He's a
Speaker 1: he's a lawyer, along with Anon Rucker. Each of them
Speaker 1: have said that some young man, a teenager, should not
Speaker 1: be shot for stealing a car. And I'm thinking, well,
Speaker 1: that's a nice argument. In a closing statement. But that's
Speaker 1: not factually accurate. But how would you respond to some
Speaker 1: who say, like an On Rucker and Michael Wright, that
Speaker 1: this particular of Ryan Hinton was killed because he was
Speaker 1: stealing a car? Is that factually accurate?
Speaker 2: Well, that's no, it's not. But the whole situation's tragic. Bill.
Speaker 2: You know that some kid going down this path and
Speaker 2: getting having a gun, and it's all as the police
Speaker 2: chief said, when you mess around with stolen guns, a
Speaker 2: tragedy happens, and that's what happened here.
Speaker 1: How relevant were the photos? I thought the photos you
Speaker 1: displayed yesterday were just It doesn't mean he's guilty or
Speaker 1: not guilty, but to have a at that point, I
Speaker 1: think he was seventeen years old. He turned eighteen a
Speaker 1: few days before he was killed. That he had in
Speaker 1: possession the actual gun found at the scene. Isn't that
Speaker 1: a rather important fact that we knew he had possession
Speaker 1: of the gun, He had possession of the gun a
Speaker 1: few days before, and the same gun was found at
Speaker 1: the scene.
Speaker 2: Well, we did include that in the press conference, just
Speaker 2: to show that this was his gun, because that's what
Speaker 2: we found at the scene.
Speaker 1: One other quar rush has risen from the other side,
Speaker 1: and that is. The day after the shooting, Chief of
Speaker 1: Police Teresa Thiji held a news conference and said that
Speaker 1: in this case, the officer shot mister Hinton, Ryan Hinton
Speaker 1: in the chest and the bullet came out the back
Speaker 1: as if they were facing each other. Number one, did
Speaker 1: you hear what you said at the news conference? Number two?
Speaker 1: Is that factually inaccurate?
Speaker 2: I wasn't at the news conference, but I am aware
Speaker 2: of the coroner's report that showed the bullet entered in
Speaker 2: the side of the left side of his chest and
Speaker 2: exited the front of the chest. That's right, That's what
Speaker 2: we have. Those are the facts we rely on in
Speaker 2: this review.
Speaker 1: Have you discussed this the chief of police THEIGI to say, hey,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, twenty four hours after this event kind
Speaker 1: of quiet things down, do we know what the facts are?
Speaker 3: Have you said that to her?
Speaker 2: No? No, But I do think she's bound by the
Speaker 2: collaborative agreement to have some sort of press conference within
Speaker 2: around twenty four hours of any critical incident like that.
Speaker 2: And I mean it's the chief is, as far as
Speaker 2: I compell, is trying to do the best you can
Speaker 2: and I can't tell her what to say as not
Speaker 2: her lawyer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, As far as the other three individuals involved in
Speaker 1: this action, who as Jarell Austin and de Anthony Bullocks
Speaker 1: and Sincere Grigsby, did you give consideration to the activities
Speaker 1: that they engaged in? And by that I mean did
Speaker 1: they kind of identify the gun as being used by
Speaker 1: Ryan Hinton in the car? Did they say that was
Speaker 1: Ryan Hinton's gun or is that someone else's gun?
Speaker 2: I can't tell you what witness said that, but somebody
Speaker 2: did see did describe Ryan's gun to us?
Speaker 1: As far as the grandeury presentation, as you know that
Speaker 1: you don't have to present the case the grand jury.
Speaker 1: In fact, you can not present it. There's one prosecutor
Speaker 1: locally in Butler County, Mike Moser, who does present every
Speaker 1: police shooting to a grand jury. Other prosecutors in Claremont, Warren,
Speaker 1: and I know in Boone, Kenton, and Campbell they do
Speaker 1: not present the case. Well, what is the fact that
Speaker 1: determines whether or not County Pillage will present or not
Speaker 1: present a police shooting to the grand jury in Hamley County.
Speaker 2: Well, after our review, if I can't make a determined determination,
Speaker 2: then I will have to present it to grand jury.
Speaker 2: But in the four police involved shootings that we've had
Speaker 2: since I became prosecutor on January sixth, I was able
Speaker 2: to determine. I felt comfortable that I was doing the
Speaker 2: right thing in accordance with the law, and was able
Speaker 2: to make a decision.
Speaker 1: You're not required by law to give it to the
Speaker 1: grand jury. Is that fair to say? There was also
Speaker 1: an interview conducted in which Fannon Rucker said that, among
Speaker 1: other things, we don't know the officer's background who killed
Speaker 1: Ryan Hinton. We know his jacket with the citizens Complaint
Speaker 1: authority with internal investigations is not empty, so he's kind
Speaker 1: of besmirching the character of officer. A did you take
Speaker 1: into account the history of the police officer when you
Speaker 1: decided not to cause his indictment.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't think any of that was relevant.
Speaker 3: As far as uh further investigation is this? Uh?
Speaker 1: The matter is taken six weeks to get to get
Speaker 1: to this point. As far as you're concern, is this
Speaker 1: matter concluded relative to these officers? No other charges will
Speaker 1: be fought against any officers involved in this shooting of
Speaker 1: Ryan Hinton?
Speaker 3: Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 3: Well, thank you. Uh.
Speaker 1: And one thing that's gonna happen is I think sometimes
Speaker 1: the federal authorities may get involved in some of the
Speaker 1: police shootings. It's quite unlikely in this case for all
Speaker 1: kinds of reasons. But so far you've had four police shootings,
Speaker 1: which is quite unusual, and in your first five months
Speaker 1: in office. Uh, that's part of this part of the deal.
Speaker 1: Is there any connection. I watched the news conference. One
Speaker 1: of the reporters asked you, are these four events somehow
Speaker 1: connected one to the other? Which I thought was kind
Speaker 1: of a stupid question, by the way, because they're completely unconnected.
Speaker 1: But if the message is sent by some that this
Speaker 1: prosecutor is gonna is gonna lean on the side of
Speaker 1: police when it comes to police shootings, I think that's incorrect.
Speaker 1: Every case stands on his own completely. I mean, every
Speaker 1: every factual situation is completely different. But for those who say,
Speaker 1: our new new prosecutors got four of these, everyone's been absolved,
Speaker 1: Nune's percented to the grand jury, what's your response to that?
Speaker 2: Well, look, I take these cases extremely seriously. Of the
Speaker 2: four off turn VOB shootings we've had, I personally responded
Speaker 2: to three of them and was able to look at
Speaker 2: the scene myself, and they're all different. They were caused
Speaker 2: by different people and under different circumstances. And I think
Speaker 2: my job is to look at what happened, apply the
Speaker 2: law as the State of Ohio and the United States
Speaker 2: and the Supreme Court telled me to do, and that's
Speaker 2: what happened. I can't tell you what will happen the
Speaker 2: next time we have a critical incident like that, because
Speaker 2: I don't know the fact of that yet.
Speaker 1: No, every case is determined by facts, application of the law,
Speaker 1: and none of the cases are conducted to each other.
Speaker 1: In fact, they're completely unconnected. Did you consult with other
Speaker 1: prosecutors in the region about whether to proceed to indictment
Speaker 1: or not? Was this crictly your decision? Did you talk
Speaker 1: with with any of the other prosecutors in the county?
Speaker 2: Are well? I am. I am a member of the
Speaker 2: Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, and all the members these are
Speaker 2: all the elected prosecutors in the state. I serve on
Speaker 2: four committees. So I have definitely been getting to know
Speaker 2: my colleagues across the state and learn the things that
Speaker 2: they've gone through. But what was most important to me
Speaker 2: here was my senior leadership team who worked very closely.
Speaker 2: They worked really hard to put that presentation together. I
Speaker 2: when you saw all these photos, well those were one
Speaker 2: one hundredth of a second stops still shots of the video.
Speaker 2: They worked very hard to put that together for me
Speaker 2: so I could explain everything and so we could make
Speaker 2: a determination here. I based my decision on the scrutiny
Speaker 2: they gave and their recommendation to me, then my own
Speaker 2: review of what they've presented to me.
Speaker 1: And a prosecutor, as you know, must only present cases
Speaker 1: of the grand jury if they believe a crime has
Speaker 1: been committed and they can get a conviction a trial.
Speaker 1: And I assume the fact you did not convene a
Speaker 1: grand jury to present the case in the case that
Speaker 1: based upon six weeks of hundreds of hours of work,
Speaker 1: split second videos down to pictures, forensic evidence. I think
Speaker 1: the County corner has given you all the toxicology or
Speaker 1: whatever that. But by the way, did the toxicology show
Speaker 1: anything that Ryan hitting anything in his body or not?
Speaker 2: You know, Bill, I don't remember, but it wouldn't make
Speaker 2: a difference in this case.
Speaker 1: He could have been high as a kite. It's not
Speaker 1: relevant to him being shot. All right, Well, thank you
Speaker 1: Connie Pillage. Once again, We'll see what happens on the
Speaker 1: next I've had you on each time there's been a
Speaker 1: police shooting. I kind of hope there's no more police shootings.
Speaker 1: I kind of hope they're in but you never know.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you so much for getting with me.
Speaker 2: I appreciate you happing me on.
Speaker 3: Connie Pillage, Thank you very much. Thank you. All right,
Speaker 3: let's continue with more.
Speaker 1: There's the perspective of Connie Pillage, and I want to
Speaker 1: support her decision in this case one thousand percent because
Speaker 1: I understand there's money to be made by some lawyers
Speaker 1: who are acting as if they're aggrieved and they're going
Speaker 1: to go to the city of Cincinnati to seek money.
Speaker 1: And I'm referring specifically to Fanon Rucker and Michael Wright
Speaker 1: of the Cochrane Law firm, and who knows what the
Speaker 1: city's going to do down the road. If in this
Speaker 1: case the city pays money, it's a slap in the
Speaker 1: face of the police force, because in this case, if
Speaker 1: this is not a justified shooting, then there can be
Speaker 1: none in Hambleton County. And I want to compliment Connie
Speaker 1: pillage in this case, and the other three for making
Speaker 1: the right decisions. So let's continue with more. And whether
Speaker 1: they can get money out of the city, that's likely.
Speaker 1: I'm willing to bet you hot fut Sunday right now
Speaker 1: than the next one to three years. They pay the
Speaker 1: estate of Ryan Hitting some money. That's what the city
Speaker 1: tends to do. But in this case it was completely
Speaker 1: a justified police shooting. Let's continue with more. One twenty
Speaker 1: five Homeo Reds playing tonight, we hope based upon the
Speaker 1: weather A news radio seven hundred WLW