Roebling demonstrator found guilty of failure to disperse

A jury found Suzanne Bratt, one of 15 people arrested in a chaotic encounter with Covington Police last summer, guilty of failing to disperse, a misdemeanor, Wednesday.

Her trial lasted about six hours, including preliminary motions and jury selection, and the jury deliberated for about 15 minutes before rendering a unanimous guilty verdict. As a sentence, Bratt must pay a $250 fine but will not serve any jail time. With court costs, Bratt now owes the Kenton County District Court $394, which she must pay by May 8.

Bratt had also previously been charged with resisting arrest (a misdemeanor), but that charge was dropped the day before her trial.

Bratt’s trial marks the end of the court’s actions against people whose felony rioting charges were dropped at a hearing in July. Three of the demonstrators – Brandon Hill, Logan Imber and Ameer Alkayali – had the probable cause for their felonies upheld, but their trial dates have not been set yet. Only one other person arrested on the bridge, CityBeat Photo Intern Lucas Griffith, has gone to trial. Everyone else was either granted time served in July or had their charges dropped later after taking deals with prosecutors.

“What this case boils down to is that protesting does not give you a right to not listen to lawful orders by the police,” said Holli Spaulding, who served as one of the prosecutors, during opening remarks. “It does not give you the right to block traffic.”

Much of the debate between the attorneys during the trial focused on whether or not Bratt had willingly disobeyed an order from Covington Police Officer Ross Woodward, seen in the video below brandishing a collapsible baton, or whether she was intending to comply but couldn’t due to her position on the bridge railing and the overall chaos of the environment.

Woodward had instructed Bratt to move off the railing where she was standing and onto the walkway. When she failed to comply, he pulled her from where she stood onto the bridge’s metal surface.

The evidence in Bratt’s trial consisted largely of police body cam footage, testimonials from Woodard, another Officer, Robert Fain, and Bratt herself. The encounter was preceded by a vigil in Cincinnati put on by inter-faith group Ignite for Peace for former Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Chaplain Ayman Soliman, who at the time was being detained in Butler County Jail following the revocation of his asylum status.

A portion of the vigil had split off from the main locale in Cincinnati and attempted to walk across the bridge, where they encountered police.

Bratt did not know Soliman but knew a priest familiar with him, hence her attendance at the vigil. Bratt is active in her church, sings in the choir there and is currently the Interim Head of the University of Cincinnati’s Performing Arts Library. The courtroom benches were packed with people Bratt knew from both her professional and spiritual life.

During jury selection, most of the people said that the were not even aware of the July protest, and only one or two had even a cursory knowledge of Soliman. One man admitted that people standing on bridge designed for vehicle traffic didn’t sit right with him, but he was not in the end selected to be a juror. Media and members of the public were not allowed to talk to or photograph jury members.

The question of Bratt’s intentions quickly became a center point for the jury to deliberate.

“Suzanne did not intentionally refuse to disperse,” said Defense Attorney Daniel Schubert. “I want to plant that flag right here now because, honestly, that’s the question that you’ve [the jury] been brought here to answer based on the evidence. The reason she never made it to the walkway is because she got manhandled and tackled by Officer Woodward.”

The prosecutors’ case relied heavily on the police officers’ repeated orders to people to disperse and move off the road onto the sidewalk, which they argued justified Woodward’s actions. Fain was among the first to arrive on the scene and had issued multiple orders to disperse over his cruiser’s PA system.

Other officers had also arrived and issued similar orders verbally.

The defense argued that Bratt, as evidenced by her position off the road itself and onto bridge railing, indicated that she was in the process of moving away. They also pointed out that several other people had not immediately moved onto the sidewalk after being ordered to but were never tackled or arrested.

Bratt said during her testimony that she assumed the vigil had gotten a permit to be on the bridge when people began crossing. She described her position where she was a standing as a “bottleneck,” given its proximity to the bridge’s triangular support beams and the number of people in the crowd. Essentially, Bratt said, she had looked down to find a way to cross, but there wasn’t enough room for her to move onto the sidewalk.

“I’m trying to get to a rectangle, instead of a triangle,” Bratt said, “so I can get over it.”

Defense attorneys also pointed to a woman sticking her head out of a gap in the railing, arguing it blocked Bratt’s path, and the fact that another woman (dressed in a black shirt in the video below) standing next to Bratt had stated “I’m trying to; I can’t” when instructed to get onto the sidewalk as evidence of the area’s difficulties. That woman was not arrested.

Both the defense and the prosecutors employed Woodward’s body cam footage of the arrest during the trial.

Bratt said she sustained injuries due to being thrown on the bridge, the surface of which is a metal grating, due to Woodward’s handling.

Defense attorneys made motions twice for a verdict from the judge, but Easterling chose both times to defer to the jury. During closing statements, prosecutors characterized Bratt and her attorney’s reasons for not moving as “excuses” and “distractions.”

In the end, the jury sided with the prosecutors.

If Bratt wishes to appeal the jury’s verdict, she must due so within 30 days.