Lawyer tells judge Chicago cop accused of pinning teen in Park Ridge was justified; prosecutors say he overreacted in anger

Accusations of lying, arrogance, greed and irrationality were flying Wednesday during closing arguments in the trial of an off-duty Chicago Police sergeant charged with aggravated battery and official misconduct for his actions toward a young teen in Park Ridge last summer.

Cook County prosecutors argued that Michael Vitellaro angrily overreacted by grabbing a then-14-year-old, using a maneuver to force him down to the pavement and pinning him there after he saw the boy handling his son’s recently-stolen bike. Defense attorney James McKay forcefully countered prosecutors’ statements, arguing Vitellaro had had probable cause both as an off-duty police officer and as a citizen to detain the teen.

McKay also accused the victim, now 15, of lying and changing his story throughout the investigation and trial process, while prosecutors lobbed similar accusations at Vitellaro. .

The trial’s third and last day included testimony from a remorseful 15-year-old friend of the victim who admitted it was he, not the victim, who took Vitellaro’s son’s bicycle. Vitellaro initially accused the boy he held to the ground of stealing his son’s bike.

McKay said the alleged crime that occurred on July 1, 2022 had not been Vitellaro’s doing but that of “young men that think they can do anything that they want.”

Vitellaro initially approached the teen who he believed stole the bike when the teen went to move the bike from a pillar near the intersection of Northwest Highway and Euclid Avenue. McKay argued that the boy’s action demonstrated arrogance.

“He told you under oath he doesn’t own that pillar, he doesn’t own that bike, yet he believes he can move someone else’s bike and put his own bike there — that’s arrogance,” he said.

The boy who said he took Vitellaro’s son’s bike apologized for doing so, testifying that he picked up a black bike near the Park Ridge Public Library and rode it to the Starbucks a block or two away.

“I took it for a joyride and I put it on a pillar,” he said. “It was a stupid mistake. I’m sorry for it. I didn’t want anything like this to happen. I’m completely sorry. I just feel terrible.”

McKay also implied throughout the trial that the family of the boy who was pinned intended to make money off of the case, noting they have said they plan to pursue civil action against Vitellaro.

The teen’s mother spent a short time testifying, confirming that she and her husband had retained legal representation from the firm Romanucci & Blandin, that she had posted a short video of the incident to her social media and that she had set up a GoFundMe page in the wake of the altercation.

In his closing statement, McKay characterized the boy’s mother, who works in digital marketing, as having “dollar signs in her eyes.”

“I don’t get it. Her son’s not injured in any way, shape or form — where are the money damages?” he said.

Romanucci & Blandin attorney Javier Rodriguez later termed McKay’s statement an ad hominem attack and a red herring.

“I’m not surprised to hear the invocation of that sort of language, but it doesn’t get to the heart of the issue, which is the criminality of Vitellaro’s conduct,” he said.

Lawyers for each side accused the other of using inconsistent stories.

Assistant State’s Attorney Alyssa Janicki cited a point in the video taken by Park Ridge police officers’ body cams when they interviewed Vitellaro after the event. In the footage, Vitellaro said he performed a takedown on the then-14-year-old. Janicki then demonstrated that when Vitellaro filled out police reports the following day, he had not marked a box indicating use of a takedown.

She also highlighted an inconsistency in the report Vitellaro had filled out, which stated that the boy had begun to flee and in doing so fell to the ground.

“Those statements are lies,” she said. “The defendant knew he did a takedown; that’s why he told officers on scene; that’s why he did a (tactical response report).”

McKay told Circuit Court Judge Paul Pavlus to remember “every time (a minor witness) sat there squirming in his chair with his father burying his head in his hands” and accused the teen who had been pinned of lying under oath.

Each side continually referred back to core arguments: that Vitellaro had been acting within the bounds of the law and with probable cause when he restrained the teen or that he had jumped to conclusions and escalated a situation when there were several less confrontational options available, respectively.

McKay, armed with poster board printouts of Illinois statute, read sections of the law outlining conditions for a lawful arrest and emphasizing that citizens’ arrests are also permitted under Illinois law.

Had Vitellaro not been within the bounds of the law as an off-duty police officer performing an arrest in public, he said, he would have been entitled to protect his son’s private property as a citizen.

Janicki countered that Vitellaro needed but did not have probable cause to restrain the teen, making his treatment of the boy that day a battery.

Vitellaro was relieved of his police powers last August and is on a leave of absence, according to the Chicago Police Department.

Before adjourning the hearing, Pavlus said he will deliver a ruling June 16 at 1 p.m.