CLEVELAND, Ohio - Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo jumped on top of a 1979 Chevy Malibu with Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams inside. The car was wedged between two police cars. Thirteen police officers had already shot the pair more than 100 times. And then Brelo fired 15 more shots straight down at them through the Malibu's windshield.

Given all that, many Clevelanders were hoping for, if not expecting, guilty verdicts on two counts of voluntary manslaughter for Brelo.

But Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge John P. O'Donnell ruled that Brelo is not guilty of either count of voluntary manslaughter, nor is he guilty of the lesser included offense of felonious assault.

While some protesters took to the streets of Cleveland, Brelo cried tears of relief in the courtroom.

So how, exactly, did O'Donnell arrive at his conclusion?

It took him nearly an hour to meticulously explain his reasoning before a courtroom packed with the supporters of Brelo on one side, and the friends and family of Russell and Williams on the other.

He also released his 34-page verdict, which you can read for yourself below.

Here are the main points O'Donnell made when announcing his decision.

Why Brelo was not guilty of the voluntary manslaughter of Timothy Russell

Russell was shot 23 times. O'Donnell found that based on the testimony at trial, four of those shots were lethal. Those shots came from three different directions. Two were to the top of Russell's head, but one was to the right side of his chest and another to the left side.

"It is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that during that less than 8 seconds Russell was positioned, then repositioned, then repositioned again so that all four wounds came from the same gun in the same place," O'Donnell said.

In other words, O'Donnell concluded that Brelo fired at least one of those shots, but could not have fired all four.

To prove voluntary manslaughter, prosecutors would have had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that "but for" Brelo's actions, Russell and Williams would have lived.

"I have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Brelo fired a shot that by itself would have caused Russell's death. But proof of voluntary manslaughter requires a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, either that his shot alone actually caused the death or it was the 'straw that broke the camel's back,'" O'Donnell said.

While Brelo fired at least one lethal shot at Russell, other police officers also fired lethal shots that contributed to his death. Because medical examiners were unable to determine the order of the shots and ballistics could not tie individual bullets to shooters, there is no way to know which lethal shot came from which shooter. It is also impossible to establish which shot actually killed Russell.

In a footnote in his opinion, O'Donnell brought up an analogy to a baseball game made by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Basically, if a baseball game's final score is 1-0, it's obvious which was the winning run - there was only one. But in a game that ends 5-2, none of those runs can be deemed the wining run.

In the Brelo case, his shot was one of many and it was impossible to determine which was the fatal shot.

Why Brelo was not guilty of the voluntary manslaughter of Malissa Williams

Malissa Williams was shot 24 times. Of those, O'Donnell concluded that based on the medical examiner's testimony, seven were lethal.

O'Donnell said that those seven shots came from three different directions, so there was no way Brelo could have fired all of them.

"The high improbability that Williams' body was contorted in such a way that she was exposed to those five downward shots and an upward shot to her lower abdomen and a straight-in shot to the left side of her head leads me to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Brelo caused at least one fatal wound to William's chest and maybe all five, but that one or two other officers inflicted two other fatal wounds," O'Donnell said.

Therefore, just like with Russell, O'Donnell said he could not conclude that Brelo's shots alone caused the death of Williams.

O'Donnell also forcefully challenged the testimony of Dr. Joseph Felo, a pathologist with the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office. Prosecutors tried to use Felo's testimony to prove the shot to Williams' head came after she was already dead and therefore should be excluded as a potential cause of death.

The defense used its own expert to try to refute that. It was important because the shot came from a different direction than another grouping of lethal shots to the chest.

O'Donnell determined Felo was wrong.

All this addresses "causation;" the idea that Brelo - and Brelo alone - caused the deaths of Russell and Williams. O'Donnell concluded that prosecutors failed to prove in both cases that Brelo's shots were the ones that ultimately killed the two people.

Why Brelo was not guilty of the lesser included offense of felonious assault

O'Donnell also addressed the issue of whether Brelo committed felonious assault, a lesser included offense in the case. He concluded that prosecutors proved Brelo "knowingly caused serious physical harm to both victims" by the mere fact of shooting them.

But Brelo was not found guilty of a single count of felonious assault. Because...

The affirmative defense

The question of whether or not Brelo was reasonable in his actions played a pivotal role throughout the month-long trial and in O'Donnell's verdict.

Police officers are held to a different standard than the public when it comes to the use of force. If an officer believes there to be a reasonable threat to himself, another officer, or the public, the officer is justified in using force.

Several police officers testified throughout the trial that they believed Russell and Williams were armed, pointed a gun at police, fired off shots, led police on a 22-minute chase, and evaded arrest. All of the police officers said they perceived Russell and Williams as a threat, were in fear for their lives, and retaliated in kind.

No gun was ever found in Russell's car, and the sound officers thought was gunshots coming from the car turned out to be the clunker backfiring.

But none of that matters, O'Donnell said, because 20/20 hindsight cannot be used in assessing an officer's use-of-force.

"His initial decision to use force was constitutionally reasonable," O'Donnell said. "He was reasonable despite knowing now that there was no gun in the car and he was mistaken about the origin of the gunshots. It is Brelo's perception of a threat that matters."

The affirmative defense part 2: the last 15 shots

Prosecutors acknowledged throughout the trial that officers were justified in their use-of-force. That's why the 12 other officers who fired shots at Russell and Williams were never charged.

W. Ken Katsaris, a use-of-force expert for the prosecution, testified that Brelo's first 37 shots fired from the ground were justified.

But the prosecution said Brelo crossed the line when he jumped on top of Russell's 1979 Malibu and fired the final 15 shots.

Katsaris said this was unreasonable because it was not proper police protocol, and because it put Brelo and his fellow officers into more danger.

O'Donnell rejected this argument. He said given the length of the chase, the collision between the Malibu and a police car as it tried to leave the shooting site, and the fact that Brelo was afraid a police car could be pushed on top of him justified his final 15 shots in those last 7.392 seconds from the car's hood.

O'Donnell pointed out that the Malibu was not wedged tight enough to be immobile, and could still have been used to push a police car on top of Brelo.

But what about unrest in the city?

Although not a legal argument, O'Donnell acknowledged early on while announcing the verdict the unrest in the courtroom, in the city, and around the country.

"In many American places people are angry with, mistrusting and fearful of the police. Citizens think the men and women sworn to protect and serve have violated that oath or never meant it in the first place," he said. "Cleveland, too, is one such place."

But O'Donnell said this tension between police and the communities they're supposed to serve will not be eased by the verdict in a single criminal case.

"The verdict should be no cause for a civilized society to celebrate or riot," he said. "Whatever the outcome, two people are still dead and the defendant's life is forever changed."