Judge John O'Donnell

Judge John O'Donnell listens during closing arguments in police officer Michael Brelo's voluntary manslaughter trial.

(Marvin Fong/The Plain Dealer)

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office asked an appellate court Friday to correct legal errors made by Common Pleas Judge John P. O'Donnell in his ruling on the voluntary manslaughter trial of Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo.

In a motion filed with the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals, prosecutors acknowledge that Brelo's acquittal still stands. But they argued that the errors are "egregioius" and need correcting so they do not "contaminate future rulings in the trial court and the entire Court of Common Pleas."

The voluntary manslaughter charges against Brelo stemmed from a Nov. 29, 2012 police chase that ended in the deaths of Malissa Williams and Timothy Russell. Brelo was one of 13 officers who shot at the pair, but prosecutors argued that his actions went beyond those of the other officers present that night.

Prosecutors contend O'Donnell erred by:

Misinterpreting a legal test for determining who causes a death, and concluding that it was impossible to determine that Brelo fired the fatal shots;

Wrongly applying the law that determines when an officer is justified in using deadly force; and

Considering the wrong lesser-included offense. O'Donnell considered felonious assault. Prosecutors argued the correct lesser offenses in this case are attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault.

In his verdict, O'Donnell concluded that prosecutors failed to prove that Brelo's actions caused the deaths of Williams and Russell because several other officers on the scene also fired lethal shots. O'Donnell further concluded that Brelo was justified in his use of force throughout the shooting because he feared for his life.

O'Donnell was not available to comment on the motion. Whether he concedes or disputes the prosecutors' argument will not alter his verdict.

The state has no right to appeal an acquittal, according to Case Western Reserve University Law Professor Lewis Katz.

"The judge can't change his mind," Katz said. "Once he enters his judgment, he loses jurisdiction in this case."

But prosecutors argue O'Donnell can amend his verdict to prevent flawed legal logic from being used in any future cases.