Beyond the Verdict: The Story at the Heart of Rachel Rodriguez’s Trial
A phone call near midnight left a couple scrambling out of bed and racing to stand between police and a group of children. MCT presents the exclusive story behind the charges and headlines.
PAINESVILLE, Ohio — I arrived at the courthouse in the morning, about 7:40 AM. A persistent breeze blew chilly air through my layers, but I found warmth in the company of the others who had turned out at court that day.
A friend of Rachel Rodriguez had brought coffee and donuts for everyone to warm up with as we made our way outside to await jury selection. In speaking to this friend, I’d come to realize we’d met before, and that she was a volunteer representative for a local branch of a group called Food Not Bombs. Their mission: To distribute food for everyone who needs it, without any requirement to prove income or status. Rachel herself was once a volunteer there.
The conversation was as storied and lively as the backgrounds of those assembled; some had driven from as far away as Akron to show their support. All of them expressed concern in some fashion or another for the community, whether exploring the implications of the ongoing SNAP situation or expressing sympathy and fear for local families plagued by federal agents.
A certain verse made its way through my mind when I contemplated the scene: “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is known by its fruit.” Romans 7:4.
“If Rachel were a tree,” I thought, “she’d be a Crusader Hawthorn.”
The company she kept was the first sign that Rachel must’ve had a storied history of her own, often putting others before herself. This was confirmed to be profoundly true during the course of the trial that day.
At last, the jury was selected, and the crowd began to file back into the court building. Determined to investigate the matter to the fullest, I made my way inside.
Opening Statements
Special Prosecutor Matt Lallo opened by describing a chaotic night: hundreds of children on the Fairport Harbor beach, an unconfirmed rumor of a gun, vandalism at a Sheetz, and police movement across several jurisdictions. According to him, the same teens ended up at Kiwanis Recreation Park after dark. When Mario and Rachel drove into the closed park, Mr. Lallo claimed Rachel lied about being a parent and interfered with officers.
Defense Attorney William Livingston countered, explaining that Rachel works in Harvey High School’s restorative program and often intervenes on behalf of troubled students. The children trusted her — and she responded to their late-night call for help. He emphasized that Rachel and Mario never interfered with police work and waited where officers told them.
First Witness: Officer Parkomaki
Officer Parkomaki described police dispersing teens earlier in Fairport Harbor, then responding to the vandalism call at Sheetz. He testified that children fled “at a high rate of speed,” and officers tracked the group to Kiwanis Recreation Park.
Officer Parkomaki stated that he stopped a vehicle at the park around 11 PM and that Mario and Rachel arrived soon after. He claimed he told them they were trespassing and interfering, and alleged Rachel said one of the children was hers, but refused to identify which.
Yet he also testified that officers allowed the couple to remain at the park.
Mr. Livingston noted the possession of video evidence showing Mario and Rachel never claimed to have parental status over any of the detainees, contradicting Officer Parkomaki’s memory. This video was never introduced in court, but Math City Times has obtained it.
Cell phone video taken by the couple showing their immediate moments upon arrival, including their first interaction with Officer Parkomaki. The video shows that the couple never identified themselves as parents to any of the children on the scene.
Mr. Livingston also pointed out that officers never asked for the couple’s IDs, never cited them, and did not treat them as criminal actors at any point during the encounter.
In exactly what universe is it a reasonable expectation of an Officer or legislative body that a parent would comply with an order to leave scared children alone and unaccompanied in the hands of police? Especially when that parent was called to the scene by those very children, as a legal guardian or otherwise. This expectation is at odds with the reality of human behavior.
Thus far, questions lingered for me. Why were Mario and Rachel Rodriguez allowed to remain on the scene, despite allegations that they were being continuously disruptive? Did the couple really say one of the children was theirs? While it’s plausible to believe that people lie, it doesn’t make sense for a sitting member of the Painesville City Council to do so in an instance involving parentage…
Second Witness: Officer Fedrico
Officer Fedrico confirmed earlier incidents and said he was issuing trespass letters at the park when Rachel approached. He testified she was present to ensure the children’s rights were respected, and that she stayed nearby until the parents arrived.
He said police typically call parents when juveniles are involved, and sometimes give rides home. Yet evidence and testimony indicated officers had not notified any parents — the Rodriguez couple insist that they arrived before any parent had been contacted.
Police Dash cam footage showed Rachel behaving calmly and not interfering. At one point, Officer Fedrico’s supervisor, Sgt. Matthew Collins could be heard instructing officers to “Give her a f***ing ticket,” because “Sometimes you catch dolphins.”
The “dolphins” line is a reference to tuna trawling, as the fishermen sometimes end up with dolphins in their nets. Sgt. Collins knowingly instructed his officers to cite and trespass Mario and Rachel from the park, no matter their right to be there or not. This recklessness would then put the burden on the courts to sort the mess out later.
During Mr. Livingston’s cross-examination, Officer Fedrico confirmed that Rachel:
did not yell
did not threaten or approach aggressively
did not disrupt the officers’ work
was allowed to talk to the teens
was not cited or arrested
Mr. Livingston also noted that the detained teens — including one with a known seizure condition — were not read Miranda rights.
According to Ohio Revised Code section 2151.31, Police in Ohio are not required to notify a parent immediately during a stop, but if the juvenile is taken into custody or questioned, the child has the right to request a parent, guardian, or lawyer.
Under Ohio law, juveniles are required to provide their name, address, and date of birth if asked to do so by police. If they are driving, they must show their driver’s license. Beyond that, they are not required to answer any further questions.
The Rodriguez’ posit that Painesville police had not notified the parents of those children whom they held in detention, and did not do so until the couple arrived.
Lunch Break
While on recess, I spoke to a few people who were gathered to show support to the Rodriguez family, including colleagues from Painesville Defensa, a local news outlet. We spoke among ourselves about what we had seen so far. Many felt that the first witness had misrepresented events on the stand, and that this was made clear in Mr. Livingston’s brief cross-examination. The couple did not, according to testimony, misrepresent themselves as parents to the children, despite the strong allegation from the Prosecution that they had.
“This is retaliation,” alleged one present in attendance, “plain and simple. They want us to be afraid to speak out against overreach.”
This was a common sentiment, especially in light of recent events in Painesville, including the deals Lake County Sheriff Frank Leonbruno had made with DHS-ICE back in May.
The fiction writer inside me had started to wonder how many stories like this one could be expressed and enhanced through courthouse hallway conversations such as these.
For Lunch, I’d made plans with one of Rachel’s friends to accompany the family of Mrs. Rodriguez to get some food down the road. After witnessing the stress that Rachel seemed to be under, I decided to allow Rachel and her friends some privacy.
I instead spent the lunch recess away from the courtroom at SubWay, dining on a “veggie delight” alongside Rachel’s aunt. She had told me about her medical-related need to eat that usually comes-a-calling in the day, but noted the increased strength of her symptoms.
She was dizzy, stressed, and needed protein. I gave her my shoulder to lean on, urged her to take a seat, and offered to bring her order to her. She refused the shoulder, but accepted the seat.
“I appreciate that local news is picking this story up,” she began wistfully, “but I wish they would take a real look at the humanity here.”
She continued with a passionate urgency, “Rachel is an activist, and she’s loud, and she does all this work for the community, and at the high school. But she’s also a mother. A human being. And we feel she’s being targeted unfairly.”
I nodded.
“People need to realize what’s happening to those who speak out,” urged Rachel’s aunt, “and journalists need to get the public asking questions of their leaders about it.”
Smiling my agreement, I nodded between veggie-filled bites of cheesy, herb-encrusted bread. “That’s why I woke up at 4:00 a.m. and hauled myself East.”
Rachel’s Mother, as well as her aunt, expressed frustration that Rachel had not yet been called to the stand to give testimony.
“I’m certain that, for some reason or other, Mr. Livingston thought he should wait until after lunch for her to testify.” Upon our return to court, I was proven to be correct.
Third Witness: Rachel Rodriguez
Mr. Livingston called Rachel to the stand. She was asked to confirm her husband’s job and status on the city council. She was also asked to name her four children. The Defense asked her about her time working in healthcare. Rachel said that she worked in behavioral health as an STNA, a state tested nursing assistant (equivalent to a Certified Nursing Assistant), who worked on the floor in patient care, assisting doctors and other nurses in the hospital.
Rachel testified that she works as a paraprofessional at Harvey High School in the student management program, explaining to the court the program’s explicit goal is restorative in nature: it provides the children with the behavioral skills they need to be successful in the classroom. In describing her role in this program, she told the court that she assists the children in many different areas, such as teaching crucial coping and self-regulation skills in cases where students are removed from the classroom, and getting them the resources they need. Effectively, Rachel is the first line of response for students who, for one reason or another, have difficulty in a classroom setting.
Continuing her testimony, Rachel stated that she frequently gets calls outside of school hours to attend to the needs of the children. Oftentimes, students will come and knock on her door, or call her on-scene, to mediate arguments and resolve conflicts. She also offers tutoring and homework help to the children who ask for it. Rachel and Mario also run a food and book share outside of their home, and some of the children from food-insecure families often stop by for a meal. Rachel said that she also keeps their confidence, as many trust her with information that they would otherwise not tell their parents.
Rachel recounted the night she received the call, recalling that she had just finished putting her children to bed and turned in for the night herself. She and her husband were in bed when the call came through via her Instagram account. After receiving the late-night call, Rachel asked if the children were okay, as a call that late over Instagram was completely out of character. It was through this phone call that Rachel had heard what was happening at the park. She had no idea about the events the prosecution had laid out earlier in Fairport and around the city.
Rachel was asked about the allegations that she had lied to officers on-scene and claimed one of the detained children was hers. She denied ever having said as much and stated that Officer Parkomaki may have misunderstood, but she insisted she never made the claim.
Rachel was worried about the children at the park, especially with regard to their rights and the Officers’ treatment of them. She was also worried about the student with a history of seizures. She wanted to calm her students and help them regulate themselves, as she does in a professional capacity at the school, to help them understand what was going on. One of the children was crying, worried sick about whether or not this incident would prevent him from being able to go into the U.S. Navy three days later.
Rachel confirmed on the stand that she did not yell at the police. She was scared, nervous, tired, and concerned for the well-being of the children, who had no access to their parents nor any representation of any kind. Rachel stated that she never would’ve headed to the park that night if she had not received the call. When she left, she was not charged with any offense and was allowed to take four of the children home. One is homeless and stays with a friend. The other three were taken back to their parents.
Mr. Lallo, the prosecutor, began his cross-examination next.
“So,” began Mr. Lallo, “You heard the defense attorney questioning Officer Parkomaki about his police report, right? And you heard your attorney talking about writing the police report; When you write up the incident, that’s memory, right?”
“Yes.” answered Rachel.
Mr. Lallo recounted testimony from the officer that stated she had yelled at him, insisting for the record that this testimony was from memory.
“Officer Parkomaki testified that you were yelling at him a bit, right? And that you were there to get your child, right?”
“That’s what he testified, yes.” said Rachel.
Rachel stated for the record that the officer had instructed her to leave, but she did not. Mr. Lallo did not ask any questions about whether or not the Officer on scene had later instructed the couple that they could remain at the park, even though such permission was given and recorded in testimony.
“So when you approached the car, and you were on video, at what point in the video did you warn the Officer: Hey, listen, this child has a history of seizures. You’ve got to be careful. Let’s take care of this situation and make sure she doesn’t have a seizure.”
“I did not say that.” replied Rodriguez.
Given the events at the time, with an officer issuing instructions and asking for compliance, it is reasonable to assume that Rachel would not be able to ask further questions to the officer, who had already asked her to move away from his vehicle.
Closing Arguments
Mr. Lallo took the floor first, arguing that Rachel was trespassing and should’ve removed herself from the scene. He reiterated the claim, already disproven by Witness testimony and video evidence, that Rachel Rodriguez had lied and stated the children were hers.
“It’s our position,” argued Mr. Lallo, “that she doesn’t have that right to go on to closed property, to interfere and start interjecting herself in the middle of these interactions with multiple cars, multiple juveniles and adults, who have been wreaking havoc across multiple cities.”
Mr. Livingston followed, laying out the events that drew Mrs. Rodriguez to the scene in the first place.
“The phone rings in the middle of the night,” he began. “Some scared, confused kids are on the line, and they are being detained at a park. They’re asking for help. What should Rachel have done? That’s what you’re really here to decide.”
Mr. Livingston asked the jury to consider whether or not she should’ve reasonably been expected not to answer that call. He offered that he sincerely hoped that he would do the same in her situation.
“Rachel went to the park for no other reason than to help those kids. She announced her intention the moment she got there: that she wanted to ensure their rights weren’t trampled on.”
“Nowhere does it say,” Mr. Livingston offered in closing, “that you have to be a parent. The law leaves plenty of room for people to act the way Rachel did that night.”
Judge Malchesky read the Jury’s instructions aloud before the jurors recused themselves to deliberate their verdict.
As the jury deliberated, I spent that time with the many friends and family of Rachel Rodriguez who had turned out in support. We discussed the case.
Many of Rachel’s supporters felt confident that the jury would offer a “not guilty” verdict to both charges, but Rachel herself was less sure. I shared her sentiment, noting unease in her attorney’s body language during some of the testimony and evidence.
I was certain the obstruction charge would not stick, but I noticed little attention had been paid to the criminal trespassing charge by the defense. Rachel Rodriguez possesses a badge that acts as a key to Kiwanis Recreation Park, giving her the right to be on park property as a keyholder. Her position at the high school gives her the privilege to act as a go-between for the students, a mediator between them and the officers. Interestingly, this did not seem to be a point of focus for the defense.
Verdict & Sentencing
The jury returned to court to deliver their verdict after about an hour and a half of deliberation. The jury foreperson read the verdict: Rachel Rodriguez was found not guilty of the obstruction charge, but guilty of criminal trespassing. The judge welcomed the attorneys to his chamber to deliberate on sentencing, which would be carried out on the same day.
After offering a tailored message regarding his faith in the Painesville City police, regarding their ability to perform their duties with respect to the law and toward citizens, Judge Paul Malchesky sentenced Rachel Rodriguez to a fine of $25 for the fourth-degree misdemeanor of criminal trespassing.
Mrs. Rodriguez vowed to appeal the sentence.
When Math City Times asked Mr. Livingston what he thought about the precedent this case sets for mediators, the Defense attorney offered:
“I think each case is different. I think this case is particularly troubling because Mario and Rachel knew these kids, and did their best under the circumstances to try and provide safety and comfort. I understand the jury saw it differently in the case of the trespass, but the fight continues.”
When asked, Mr. Livingston refused to comment on questions about the origin of the charges or on potential racial profiling.
Special Prosecutor Lallo declined to comment, stating that he never offers comments on any of his cases.
I spoke to Rachel and Mario as they made their way out of the courtroom.
You mentioned there was much that had happened that you had to leave out of testimony today. What would you like to set the record straight about, concerning what you saw and experienced when you arrived that night?
Rachel: I think the biggest thing would be the fact that the park is shared with the school system. I work for the school system. I have permission to be there. My badge opens the gates. There is only one way in and out of that park. We sometimes host events in the park that last way beyond dusk and into night. That’s where the issue of privilege came along. I feel that people need to understand that part of the story. Also, I worked in healthcare my entire life, and now in education. In both scenarios, we are taught that we literally have to take a bullet for the children. There is no way I would ever take a call from our students like that and not show up.
“It is a fact,” added Mario Rodriguez, “that their rights were violated.”
Rachel continued: They denied a supervisor when one was requested. They denied us the right to request supervision in their favor. They were not Mirandized. These are facts, so there were, in fact, civil rights violations.
How would you describe your interaction with the police officers — do you believe there was a misunderstanding about your intentions?
Rachel: No. I think it was outright lies. There was no misunderstanding my intention. I was very clear. With regards to Officer Parkomaki, who lied on the stand, he was yelling at me. He was the one who was aggressive, which prompted me to the belief that this was not a safe situation. He gave us permission to remain on-scene, and he gave us permission to back our vehicle up to the entrance. Everything that he said on the stand was untrue.
Do you feel that your being a woman, specifically the wife of a city councilperson, influenced how officers or prosecutors treated you that night or afterward?
Rachel: Very much so. I think that was very evident in how they treated me that night and today in court. They painted me as an aggressor in untrue ways. I don’t think that would’ve happened had they not decided to use those factors.
What has this experience taught you about the relationship between residents, community leaders, and police in Painesville?
Rachel: It has validated the concerns that we have as residents here, regarding police officers’ transparency and honesty. We need a lot of work on the policing, on how they address children and community members. This case validated those concerns.
How has this case affected you personally — as a teacher, a mother, and a community member — and what message do you think it sends to others who try to help young people?
Rachel: I think the message they would like to send is that you don’t help. But my message is to do it, no matter what. It’s not about whether you’re found guilty of a charge that should’ve never been placed on you to begin with. It’s about, at the end of the day, making sure those children are okay, and that you answer the call. There’s no such thing as too far when showing kindness to the children who need you. I want activists and organizers to be empowered and continue to show up.
The Painesville City Prosecutor Joseph Hada responded to Math City Times’ request to offer comment and was sent a list of questions, but the prosecutor did not reply in time for the publication of this article.
Edited in part by Sean Abbott & Chris Baud.