Trial War Stories - Falsely Accused with Ian Friedman. (S. 2: Episode 5)

The criminal justice system doesn’t always work the first time. But when exceptional lawyering meets relentless investigation, justice can still prevail.

In this episode of Trial War Stories, host Andy Goldwasser sits down with renowned criminal defense attorney Ian Friedman to unpack one of the most fascinating and emotionally complex cases of his career.

The case involved an allegation of sexual assault against a six-year-old child, a conviction that resulted in a life sentence, and a family that believed their son would never leave prison. But the story didn’t end there.

Through strategic investigation, creative trial presentation, and relentless attention to detail, Friedman and his team uncovered critical newly discovered evidence—including statements from the alleged victim that had never been investigated by law enforcement.

What followed was a remarkable legal battle that resulted in a new trial and one of the most memorable courtroom demonstrations you’ll ever hear about.

In a move rarely seen in criminal trials, the defense team recreated the interior flooring of the alleged crime scene inside the courtroom to demonstrate how the physical layout of the house made the prosecution’s theory nearly impossible.

This episode dives deep into:

• The emotional challenges of defending serious criminal accusations
• The psychology of jury selection and voir dire in sexual assault cases
• How overlooked evidence can overturn a conviction
• Why visiting the crime scene can change the entire direction of a trial
• The power of demonstrative evidence in front of a jury

Andy and Ian also explore the delicate art of cross-examining a child witness, one of the most difficult moments any trial lawyer can face, and how careful strategy can reveal truth without attacking the witness.
This conversation is a masterclass in trial preparation, storytelling, and courtroom creativity.

Whether you're a young lawyer learning trial strategy or a seasoned litigator looking for inspiration, this episode shows how great lawyering can turn the tide—even when the odds seem impossible.

If you’re a lawyer looking to sharpen your trial skills, this episode is packed with insights you won’t want to miss.

Learn more about Andy Goldwasser and trial advocacy at:
https://www.c-g-law.com/

And if you enjoy the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a review, and share with another lawyer who loves great trial stories.
________________________________________
Chapter Timestamps
00:00:00 – When the Criminal Justice System Gets It Wrong
00:02:30 – Introducing Criminal Defense Attorney Ian Friedman
00:04:00 – The Difficult Reality of Defending Child Assault Cases
00:07:00 – Jury Selection Strategy in High-Emotion Cases
00:09:00 – A Life Sentence and a Family’s Devastating Discovery
00:14:00 – The Appeal and the Newly Discovered Evidence
00:17:00 – Investigating the Crime Scene That Changed Everything
00:20:00 – Rebuilding the Crime Scene Inside the Courtroom
00:24:00 – Cross-Examining a Child Witness with Precision
00:26:00 – Lessons Every Trial Lawyer Should Learn from This Case

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

The criminal justice system sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't work. Today you're going to hear about a case that didn't work at first, but it worked later, and it worked later because of exceptional lawyering by someone who is willing to do the work, willing to take chances to investigate the claim and investigate the scene. Every trial lawyer has that one case, the one that pushed them to the edge, changed how they practice, or kept them up at night. This is Trial War Stories, and I'm your host, Andy Goldwasser. I sit down with great trial lawyers to unpack unforgettable cases, the strategy, the chaos, the pressure, and the moments that turn the tide beyond the transcripts and verdicts. And now to the show. My guest today is the one and only Ian Friedman, a dear friend, actually all the way back to law school. When I started this podcast, Ian, you were the first person that I thought of that I wanted on. So now we're in season two. It's been way too long to get you here. I know how busy you are, but I'm so appreciative of you coming on the show today. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 1:17

Well, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. I'm uh appreciate it and I'm honored to be here.

SPEAKER_00 1:20

Oh, thanks. Um, Ian is the go-to guy when it comes to criminal defense in Cleveland. And and truthfully, I don't even know how many cases you have in Cleveland anymore. It seems like your practice now is is all over the world. In fact, I think when I called you to beg you to come onto the show, you were in either Israel or Abu Dhabi or somewhere. What is your what are you doing with your practice now?

SPEAKER_01 1:45

Yeah. So we're obviously we're based in Cleveland, and I would say half the practice is here, uh half elsewhere, and that could be across the U.S. or internationally. And yes, I was in Italy uh when you uh called me and on my way to Israel for an international um uh uh cybercrime case uh that we were handling.

SPEAKER_00 2:05

So it's so amazing to me because I remember our law school days, and who would have thought? I mean, the two of us were sitting in the back of the class, right? It was crazy. It's true just crazy. So you know that this podcast is about trial war stories, and gosh knows you've had plenty of trial war stories. And so maybe the hardest thing about this particular episode was deciding which one to pick, because there are so many fascinating cases. Tell about tell us about the case you chose and why you chose it, and then tell us a little bit about the case itself.

SPEAKER_01 2:38

Yeah, so it was kind of difficult to figure out which case uh to talk about because there have been so many that have been meaningful uh for various reasons. Um, but I chose this case because it really gives a picture from start to finish. It talks about minute one all the way to even though the case was more than a decade ago, it still goes on, and you'll you'll understand why that is as we talk about it more. But it it still is going all these years later. And to me, it kind of shows the part of criminal defense that I love the most, which is the people and the relationships. Uh, and this uh this trial, as difficult as it was, um, is now about relationships. And uh so for me, it's very meaningful, it's very personal for me.

SPEAKER_00 3:36

And we're gonna get into the case for a moment. It's it's also about the criminal justice system working, and it doesn't always work. Well, at least it worked in part, and and you could maybe talk about it. In the end, in the end. In the end, it did. And and when you told me about the case that you selected, it was a difficult case for me personally because so much of my work is representing victims, and I'm a board member of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center. So this one was a tough one to talk about, but I think it's an important case. And it's an important case because of it really does show the importance of not only great representation, but the criminal justice system, how it's supposed to work, at least in the end. Tell us about the case.

SPEAKER_01 4:21

Yeah, so this is a case when when you and I were talking, and you said pick a case. I was hesitant on this case because of the type of case that it was. Uh it was a sexual assault rape case uh involving a minor. Uh, the the alleged um uh victim in the case uh was, I think, six years old at the time. Uh that's as difficult a case to handle as it is to talk about. Um the most commonly asked question of any criminal defense lawyer is how can you represent those people who you know are guilty? And I know they're thinking of murder cases and these cases. And even though people have their rights, and everyone acknowledges that, when you get into a case where there's a sexual assault and a minor, there's the cringe factor, and and you know, people rush to judgment a lot more quickly in those cases. And even though there's no um, you know, there's the presumption of innocence in all cases, in this type of case it's very different just because the child involved and the nature of the claim itself. Um It was important though to talk about um because, you know, I'll tell you what this case taught me. Let me just start maybe this way and it'll it'll help. So when people hear, when you heard what kind of case it was, and and as you're starting it off by saying you're part of the rape crisis center and so forth, we have to think about this from minute one. How is this going to resonate with the judge? How's a jury going to be impacted by this? And this was the case that started me with a question that I use in all of my um uh voidier, my jury selection. Uh, and it begins like this, because the the your listeners have to understand that when the jurors come out, the judge tells them what kind of case it is. And inevitably I stare at the jury when they're hearing uh what it is, and many of them uh, you know, all of a sudden you kind of see them reel back or they look over very quickly to the defendant because that they're shocked by the right. So the first question I always ask uh of them is can you think of anything worse uh than being accused of child rape? First question I ask them right out of the out of the gate. And some of them may say murder, but they're hesitant to even do that because many of them would rather be charged with murder. Most of them can't think of anything. And so then my response after we've gone through all of the potential jurors is well, could you imagine being wrongfully accused of child rape? And now all of a sudden they're kind of like, oh, wait a second. And it puts them where they need to be, which is not just are we here to prosecute, but we're also here to defend uh the innocent.

SPEAKER_00 7:08

You are, and it and it's almost reframing the victim. It's reframing. Correct. And that's a hard thing to do because when you ask that question of the jury, my response, if I was a potential juror, would well, I could think of something that's worse, being raped, right? That's that's worse than being accused of rape. That's right. That's right. But I I really like the way you frame it, and that's one of the things that makes you such a great criminal defense lawyer, is you'd spend so much time thinking about your case. Tell us, though, about this really interesting set of facts that led to your involvement and then the case itself.

SPEAKER_01 7:46

Yeah. So I'm not obviously going to name the person. Uh, we'll just say the defendant in this case. Uh, we got a visit from his parents uh in our office, uh, and they had said that their uh son uh had been convicted of uh child rape. So he was actually convicted uh in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Please. Uh they wanted us to handle the appeal in the case, my uh myself and my partner Eric Nemichak. Um we went over all the case facts with them. Uh the lawyer that they had tried the case to the bench, so meaning just to the judge, not to a jury. And the conviction was there. So we were talking about it. What does an appeal look like? How's it different from a trial? And there came a point in the conversation an hour or two later into it, uh, where his mother asked, Well, if the appeal is not successful, um, when will he get out, you know, after he does like early time and gets you know paroled and all of that? And I was actually really surprised that that was her question because the answer is if you're convicted of that charge, you don't get out. Life means life. And so I had to tell her that. And I'll never forget the mom went right off the chair and and uh virtually passed out.

SPEAKER_00 9:03

That that has got to be so hard for a parent. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 9:06

Well, I was shocked she didn't know that. You know, the case had been going on, you know, for a year. The conviction was there, and she had no idea. She really thought that at some point he'd be able to get out. And so we were looking at someone who was in for the rest of their life. So we were starting this case from really six feet under, is where it was. So what he was accused of, and and at that point convicted of, uh, was he and a friend went to uh a woman's house. Uh, she and one of her friends were there. It was late at night on a Saturday night. Uh they were uh, you know, having some drinks together, just socializing and so forth uh in the kitchen. Uh this was a home in Shaker Heights, uh, which becomes important actually at some point. Um and somewhere late in the night, uh, well after midnight, uh the woman's uh daughter came walking into the kitchen. And and as I recall, she was six years old. Um the child stayed in the kitchen for a while in the middle of the night. And uh at some point, mom said, Look, you've got to go to sleep. Can you help, uh, can you help put her in the uh back into her room? So the defendant, the client, in this case, now he'd become our client. Uh the client in this case uh helped kind of bring the girl back into the room and and kind of helped pick her up to put her into the bed. Shortly thereafter, he returned back into the kitchen right away. But shortly thereafter, the uh girl called out to her mom. Uh mom came and went into the bedroom, uh, and the girl said, Um, that man touch me. And if you can think about a snowflake turning into an avalanche, that's exactly what happened here. The woman called her friend in, told her what happened.

SPEAKER_00 10:56

And did the did the daughter accuse your client that same night? Or was it?

SPEAKER_01 11:03

Same night, same night. But it was he touched me, and then mom and friend took her into the bathroom, and the questions were very leading questions. And understandably, a mom being very concerned, where did he touch you? How did he touch you? Are you scared? Did he touch you here? And the girl in the middle of the night's like, yes, mommy, yes, mommy, yes, mommy. And so the the conduct was escalated in in an instant, uh, to the point where did he touch you here? Did his, you know, where did his fingers go? What did his fingers do? All of this, and it became uh conduct that constituted rape by way of charge.

SPEAKER_00 11:41

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 11:41

So mom came out, said you have to go. He didn't know what was going on at that point, but okay. So he and the friend left uh only to be contacted some days later by a detective uh in the Sheikh Rites Police Department. Um there was questioning as to what occurred. He said, you know, I didn't do anything. Yeah, I walked her back to the bedroom. Yeah, I helped her get into the bed, but I don't know what you're talking about. And he eventually was charged with uh rape. And as I said, it it then proceeded to a trial to the judge.

SPEAKER_00 12:11

Okay. And you did not handle the first trial to the judge, is that right? I did not. Ian, uh is it uh sort of common practice when you're dealing with childhood sexual rape cases to want to try them to a judge as opposed to a jury with the thought process that the jury is just going to be too emotional in a case like this, and maybe a judge will give us a better shake, or is it really judge-dependent, facts dependent? Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 12:40

I think it's judge-dependent. I will tell you that yes, I've tried a lot of these cases, a lot of cases in general, but a lot of cases of this nature. Uh and I can count on one hand the amount of times that I've tried a case to a judge. Most of the time it is to a jury. And I think that effective uh jury selection kind of helps to seat that jury in a place that you need them with an open mind as to what's going on.

SPEAKER_00 13:05

And I have to imagine it's the same. I do civil work and I have to imagine it's the same in the criminal field. When you try a case to a judge as opposed to a jury, it's more difficult to get that case reversed.

SPEAKER_01 13:18

A thousand percent. And here you are.

SPEAKER_00 13:21

Here you are brought into a case after the trial, after all the evidence, and I know how important you getting involved early in a case, how important that is to you as part of your practice. But here you are getting involved late after trial, after conviction, and with a judge rendering the decision, which makes the case really difficult to reverse.

SPEAKER_01 13:44

That's right. You're giving up a lot. There's a lot of potential error that's gone that you've that's not even to be considered or that you've waived. So it's really difficult. And that's oftentimes one of the reasons why you would bring a jury in uh so that you can have the uh the evidence and the decision-making process and so forth evaluated by a higher court, you know, should the need arise.

SPEAKER_00 14:05

Are you able to talk about how you were able to get that case actually reversed? Yeah, of course.

SPEAKER_01 14:10

So my partner, Eric, uh Namachek, uh, was handling the appeal. Uh and the other thing that we we didn't just get the transcript of the trial to the automatically take to the Court of Appeals and say this error existed, this error didn't. Because, like you said, Andy, it's to the judge. So there's not a lot there oftentimes. What we also did was we had our private investigator, Keith King, join us and as part of the team, and we really confronted it two ways. We confronted it on the appeal itself, and we also confronted it looking for a motion for new trial. Was there something about this case that was inherently so unfair that the trial shouldn't stand on its own and we should get a new trial? And luckily, uh, that's where it went in this case. We were able, in the process of getting all the information, we were able to find that after uh the girl uh made her claim, she went and spoke to uh a psychologist. And what we found out after we had subpoenaed all of those records from the psychologist was that she had told that psychologist, she had kind of recanted, and she said, Well, I don't remember it happening. And that bit of information, as critical as that is, can you imagine? I don't remember it happening. Right. It it didn't um the police officer, the detective from Shaker Heights, who was tasked with handling this case, the lead investigator, he never went and looked at those records. He never spoke to the psychologist.

SPEAKER_00 15:42

So those records weren't even introduced.

SPEAKER_01 15:45

So we had newly discovered evidence. Okay. And that's how this went. So we didn't even have to take the appeal over across the street to the Court of Appeals. We filed a motion for a new trial with the uh trial court saying based upon this newly discovered evidence, we should be entitled to a new trial.

SPEAKER_00 16:01

Amazing. And and you were able to get that new trial. Meanwhile, your client, who's a young man, it's my understanding. He was um comes from a good family, lives in the suburbs of of Cleveland, went to went to a good high school, went to a good college, was in has been in jail for the last year.

SPEAKER_01 16:19

That's right. That's right. Wow. He had never been in trouble before. Um, like you said, by all accounts, great guy, and just found himself in a nightmare.

SPEAKER_00 16:28

So now you're involved and you're you're you try the case again. But this time, do you try it to the same judge? Do you try it to a jury? What do you do?

SPEAKER_01 16:37

Yeah, so actually in this case, we decided not to try it to the judge. We wanted a jury, and we also felt that it had to go to a different judge. So we spoke to the judge in the case, he got off the case, and it was randomly assigned to another judge. All right. Uh, and and we proceeded to jury.

SPEAKER_00 16:55

Tell us about the trial.

SPEAKER_01 16:58

Uh well, I have to tell you, it was I have to back up and tell you about the investigation because that's what the really helped at trial in this case. So I believe that in any criminal case, you have to go to the scene. It doesn't matter what sort of case it is. You have to go to the scene, you have to smell it, you have to hear it, you gotta see it to understand it. And so oftentimes we'll go to a scene and just kind of do a 360 and look around and just kind of get senses for it. And so we went to the house that this occurred at in Shaker Heights. They we filed a motion to allow us to inspect the house. So there we were in this house. Uh, the accuser's mom no longer lived there, someone else did. And so the defense team went in. And do you have experts with you? So, no. At that time we had the lawyers with us and we had our investigator with us. Right. And there we were. So you walk in the front door and there's the living room, uh, and you walk straight through to the kitchen. It's one of those old Shaker Heights homes. Remember, I told you this is going to be important. Right. So they were all socializing in the kitchen. And when mom said, uh, take my daughter back to the room, which still to this day I don't know why she had him do this, complete stranger to the girl, but that was one of the oddities of the case. He took her back, and the room was only about 10 feet away from the kitchen. Okay. All right. So that becomes important because we spent a good deal of time in the house walking back and forth. And there was something about the case that bothered me. There was just something, and I couldn't put my finger on it at that moment until toward the end, we were sitting in the living room. And then it dawned on me. And it was the floors. It was the floors of this old Shaker Heights house, the creaking of the floors. You couldn't walk anywhere in the house without hearing creaking. And it was, and it was loud, like it was clear as day. And so I remember saying to our investigator, I said, Do me a favor. I said, Keith, go into the bedroom and just walk around in there. And he did, and you could hear creaking from that room. And so then what that really became the theme of the case, which was this couldn't have happened because had it happened, the people in the kitchen would have heard something going on into the bedroom. It was more consistent with what he was saying, which was he walked in, he walked out. There's no way that he could have spent any time or moved around in there without the people in the kitchen having heard something.

SPEAKER_00 19:29

Makes perfect sense. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 19:31

So the question is.

SPEAKER_00 19:32

I don't know how you present that to the trial, and I guess you'll tell us about that in a minute.

SPEAKER_01 19:36

Yeah. And so that was the big question, right? Like, how do you get everybody to understand that? And we have a mechanism in criminal defense where you can do a jury view, and you could do it in civil law also. Um, and so we said, okay, do we bring the jury out here? And the problem with that was the jury coming in is only going to be a couple of minutes, and they're not going to be walking around the house like crazy. They're just going to stand there, they're going to look around, and they're going to leave.

SPEAKER_00 20:00

And the other problem with jury views is that you can't use them with witnesses. Right. I mean, it's not like you could bring a witness and the jury to a jury view and then put a witness on the stand and at the scene. Although maybe I guess you can do that with the right judge, but it's very rare. That's right. That's right.

SPEAKER_01 20:16

Um, so in this case, we kind of did some thinking. We left and and I started thinking about it. Uh, and Keats, the investigator, his brother's a builder. And so I was thinking about that. And I called his brother and I said, Do you think it's possible to rebuild that house? And he said, Well, you can rebuild anything. And he said, Where? And I said, in the courtroom. Oh my gosh. And he thought I was joking at first. I wasn't. Uh, and so he went to the house. Uh, and in the end, what we ended up doing was rebuilding uh the entire interior of the house, first floor of the Shaker Heights home. The floor, same type of wood, same everything, same amount of, I should say, lack of cushioning underneath it, uh, the heat returns, the leaded windows, where the kitchen was, to the hallway to the bedroom. And we had filled up the hallway at the courthouse prior to trial with all the wood. It was a lot. People who saw it have to still remember it to this day.

SPEAKER_00 21:21

This is inc incredible. So, in this replica, when you when it was set up, when you would walk on it, would it creak like the original house?

SPEAKER_01 21:29

Yeah. So the idea of it was to actually build the house and show the jury that, you know, I wanted them to see the the space, the the distance of everything. And so it was ready to set up. But what we ended up doing in the case, we actually didn't need to ever set up the full house. What we did do though is we put down the flooring of the house, which was the flooring of the kitchen to the bedroom in the hallway. Incredible. And now you can actually use it with witnesses. That's right. So we actually stood once it once. Once uh the witness who was the owner of the home, the mom at the time, came in and uh gave the foundation authenticated said, Yeah, that's how the floor would have looked. And once she said that, we were able to keep the floor there. And the great part of it was we tried the case on the floor of the house all week long.

SPEAKER_00 22:18

Oh my gosh, that's incredible. Can I back up for a second? Because I'm just so interested from a lawyer's perspective. This may not be interested in interesting to non-lawyers, but from a lawyer's perspective, it's always difficult, as you mentioned, to make sure that the proper foundation is you is laid so that you can actually use that as evidence at trial. Here, unlike a civil case, you don't have the benefit of depositions. Was there any concern that you weren't going to be able to get this into evidence?

SPEAKER_01 22:46

Yeah, so of course there was concern. Um, but we had it kind of two ways. Mom said, Yeah, that's the floor. So we were good there. But if she said, I don't remember or that's not it, our investigator was ready to say, here were the measurements I took at the house. These are the same measurements here. So we felt we had it both ways, but we were able to get it in earlier through the mom, which worked to our benefit, because trying the case for the week on the floor really made its point. Um as we walked back and forth questioning witnesses, the jurors, they heard all week long.

SPEAKER_00 23:27

Amazing. And what a way to keep the jurors' attention, too, right? I mean, they could see it, they could feel it. That's incredible, Ian. Do you what was mom? I assume she was called pretty early by the prosecution. She was. And so you cross-examined her in order to lay the foundation to get the floor in. Correct. And once that was done, you could use it throughout. Correct. Did you actually keep so you just kept the floor down the entire time?

SPEAKER_01 23:51

The floor was in the courtroom all week long. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 23:54

That is amazing. Yeah. I mean, you talk about demonstrative. That's demonstrative.

SPEAKER_01 23:59

It was definitely demonstrative. And uh there were a couple things about that case that really uh I still remember it today. Uh, one, cross-examination of uh the young girl, um, and just how suggestive uh uh questioning could be to a child. Uh, because when questioning her about what was going on in the middle of the night, uh, there was there was testimony about uh mom and her friend doing a seance with our client and his friend uh and trying to recall spirits and so forth in the kitchen. And of course, we said to mom, nobody appeared as a result of the seance, right? And she said, No, no, but we were playing around with it. But when her daughter got up there, we're able to say, and it was pretty neat when your grandma came back into the room, right, as a result of the seance. And she said yes. Wow. So was she like eight or nine at the time of trial, I assume? Yeah, by that time she was. That's right. And she recalled things and testified honestly. She truly believed that these things happened that could not have happened, and that the parents uh her mom said didn't happen. So that was number one, just how easy it is for a child to believe something.

SPEAKER_00 25:13

Aaron Powell, that's why child rape cases are so difficult because the child doesn't lie. So the jury actually believes the child. And I don't know if I've ever had a case where I've had to cross-examine as someone that young. Was that a difficult thing for you?

SPEAKER_01 25:28

It's terrible. There's nothing harder in criminal defense than cross-examining a child uh in a sex case. The emotions are running so high. The way that you have to do it has to be so done so delicately. Um, it's it's extraordinarily difficult uh to do. Uh the jury wants to believe the child, right? And you just said it. You said a child doesn't lie.

SPEAKER_00 25:54

A child doesn't lie, and it it you can go after experts all you want. I mean, the jury almost expects you to go after these paid experts, but man, you better not go after a child. And to your point, you better not go after a child in a in a sexual assault case. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 26:08

It's it's extremely difficult. So that's why the way that uh it was approached in this case was I really leaned into the fact that she believed that these spirits came back and spoke to her. And so the jury got to see that maybe she doesn't believe she's lying, but she's just not accurate in her recollection as to what's going on. So it was kind of mission accomplished without attacking her.

SPEAKER_00 26:32

That's that's a fantastic way to cross. So did the government call her the child in its case? Yeah, so the government did. Okay. That's right.

SPEAKER_01 26:40

So we had cross-examination.

SPEAKER_00 26:42

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 26:42

Wow. That's that's amazing. So what else happened? So that was one, and then two, uh, well, there were actually a few parts, but uh, yeah, let me back up to number two. I said there were two. There's actually three. Uh two was the detective in the case. Um we really spent a lot of time with the detective on the importance of investigation and how, if an officer does not do a thorough investigation, um, wrongful convictions can happen. And I'll never forget when the detective left the stand. He walked down the stand, he kind of walked through the courtroom, past the podium. I was sitting in the chair at the table, and he just looked down at me and he had tears in his eyes. Literally had tears in his eyes. And it just kind of stared up. I remember looking at him like this, and then he left the courtroom and never spoke to him again.

SPEAKER_00 27:35

Um almost as if he wasn't even sure of his own case at that point.

SPEAKER_01 27:40

You couldn't be sure of the case at that point because he literally had to get up there and say, I did a great job. Okay, yeah, but I acknowledge I didn't get these records that showed that Shrikanted. And I do remember him trying to defend that, but that's how do you defend that?

SPEAKER_00 27:57

You you can't. You can't. And the other thing that's interesting about that case, I mean, it really is reliant on two people, the child, who was six at the time, and the mom. Right. And the mom was drinking that night, wasn't it? The mom was drinking that night, correct.

SPEAKER_01 28:13

Well, this is incredible. And a parent wants to believe their child. So this was like really like a uh you had all the bad ingredients in one blender. Like you just had it all. This really had everything going against you in this case. But the third and final point was the power of the demonstrative, like we were just talking about. At the end of the trial, uh, the jury had heard us walking up and down and throughout that house on the floor, I don't know, 400 times, 500 times every time we walked, the creaking of it. So that when I said to them at the end, ladies and gentlemen, you know it couldn't have happened because you've heard it here. Had it happened, they would have heard it. And they didn't. And I didn't have to sell it. It was sold. And so that was a case that really stands for the proposition that you gotta put out something that they can see and feel and hear, and that really makes the impact upon them. So they don't have to sit there and listen to me say, Well, you should believe this, and I look at this, and they got it. All I have to do is say, you saw it too.

SPEAKER_00 29:21

Yeah, you know, Ian, there are so many lessons that I've taken away from our conversation right now. And I know you actually teach a boot camp to young lawyers. So I'm hoping that they take some things away from this podcast. The first thing is you have to, as a lawyer, you have to not only do the preparation, but you have to be present in the case. And the fact that you actually go to the scene to be present, it's such an important part of what we do. We just don't get paper, look at that paper that we received maybe from the government in your case or from the other side in my type of cases, and just rely on it. You have to do your own investigation. So you have to go there, you have to be prepared. You can't be afraid to take risks, right? Which is what you did. And you have to do something that's gonna capture the jury. And man, you sure did it in that in this case. Yeah. Incredible. Yeah, thanks. What incredible lawyering. And so what happened? What was the verdict? Tell us about it.

SPEAKER_01 30:28

Yeah, so I'll tell you something that's scary. So, on the way, um, midway through the trial, the prosecutor said at the start, there was a better offer. You know, if your client accepts a felony conviction, we'll lower the penalty. And it kept getting uh uh more and more enticing, let's say. You would think it would be. It got to an offer of a low-grade criminal offense and credit for time served. He had already been sitting in the county jail for a year. So had he literally just said, fine, I'll take this. He was gonna go home that day. That's incredible. It was really incredible. Now I mean what a hard that he turned it down. Turned it down. So now the pressure was incredible because he could have gotten out that day, but instead, I will never forget what he said. He said, if they convict me, then that's what God wanted to happen. And that's what's supposed to have happened. And I'm sitting there and I'm like, I can't believe he's saying this. So the pressure on our shoulders, now it's just us, right? What's standing between a conviction and an acquittal? It's what we do. And the pressure was just absolutely uh immense, but I knew he was innocent at that point. So when people say, How can you represent someone who you know is guilty? I say it's far easier than representing someone who I know is innocent. Yeah. And so there we were representing him. We went through the uh closing arguments, uh, and we felt pretty good about it because we tried to, you know, did the clothes from the floor. And I kept walking back and forth. The jury did acquit him, thankfully. Uh it was a full acquittal. Uh, he was uh released that day. Uh what was that like?

SPEAKER_00 32:12

What was it? What's the feeling when you have a case that you're so emotionally involved in? Yeah. There's so much pressure. You you really believe your client is innocent. Right. And then in a case where he's already spent a year in jail and now he's vindicated. What does that feel like?

SPEAKER_01 32:34

It's a shoulder-dropping relief. You don't realize how tense you are. You don't realize how a case has overtaken you until you're released of it. And it's almost like putting a pin to a balloon. And that's really what it felt like. It's just this deflation. And uh yeah, it's it's a it's a great feeling. I just got chills thinking about it because I was trying to remember what it felt like sitting at the table with them. And I got chills all these years later thinking about it because it is it is something, there's really no words for it. I've done the best I can giving you the description until you're there and you walk out, and the I'll tell you what it is. The air is lighter.

SPEAKER_00 33:21

Oh, that's such a great description. I mean, in the civil cases, it's different, right? I mean, here you're dealing with someone's liberty who you know if the jury comes back with a guilty, that person is going to be either handcuffed or re-handcuffed and taken away, and that's it. So are you like holding your do you like hold your high-hand arm? Like, how do you take a verdict like that in a case like this?

SPEAKER_01 33:51

You remember? I don't remember in this case. I know that I was shoulder to shoulder with him, knowing myself, I'm sure I probably did have my arm around his back, just knowing how I am. Right. Um, and then I remember uh the hugs that went around, the hugs uh between uh him uh and and uh uh the investigator and then the family and friends who were behind us. There were a lot of hugs.

SPEAKER_00 34:20

Is it hard when you have the accuser and the accuser's family in the courtroom who, notwithstanding the jury's verdict, they probably believe that he this individual was guilty? Yeah. Yeah. And you feel bad for them, right? I don't, I mean, I don't know if what their motivation here was, but it you do you get it like a sick feeling with the other side just being there, or are you so focused on your team and your client that that's really what matters at that point in time?

SPEAKER_01 34:51

Yeah, that's a good question. So I think it it differs, right? I mean, we have some of those cases where I believe an accuser is just outright lying. And the answer is I don't feel bad at all uh when that comes back. And in fact, sometimes I believe it's deserved if if someone's crafted an out, you know, an accusation with some ulterior motive that we've been able to show. But there are those cases, like you just said, where the accuser may believe it. And in this case, they did believe it. You have to be a little sensitive. I mean, we're we're all human beings and so forth. You don't want to, you know, hurt this young girl who went through a lot just going through the court process herself, right? Um, she firmly believed it and may still to this day believe that something happened. So you have to be sensitive to that. Um, so I would say it's a balancing test since on a case-by-case basis.

SPEAKER_00 35:39

Yeah, it's amazing. So, what's your do you still have a relationship with the client?

SPEAKER_01 35:43

Yeah, so all right. So when we talked about my favorite part of the business, it's the relationships. And this case, the reason that I chose this case was uh because it's an A to Z case, the full spectrum, right? It is, I didn't know him, I didn't know the family to where we are today. And today he's one of my closest friends in the world. That's amazing. It's great. We've been, we've uh after the uh trial, his girlfriend at the time became his fiance very quickly and and uh shortly thereafter. Uh and this is funny, at the wedding, so I remember his mom, I was there with my wife, and uh his mom was coming down the aisle uh for the wedding. And I started, uh they started giving me a hard time. Uh, some of the people who were at the wedding who knew me uh because they they were laughing. They said two people in the wedding were crying. One was the groom's mom, and one was me. So we were so invested in this case, and it was just kind of like this is why I do what I do. And seeing him have that wedding was was fantastic. And uh we've been at our our births for our kids. Uh we've visited each other at times of need, and we know each other's families very well, and uh, so it's this case just has had it all. It really had every aspect of the legal system, the criminal justice system, it had everything about kind of humanity and and relationships, and and uh so it it's great.

SPEAKER_00 37:21

Yeah, I'm so glad you shared this with us, and and I hope our listeners now know why I was so agreeable to allowing this case to be discussed, notwithstanding my own practice. And and that's because I do think it's important to understand the other side. Yeah, and it's always important to think about the criminal justice system and those that are either falsely accused or just downright innocent, and um what you do is is remarkable. I am so glad you came on the show, but I'm not gonna let you leave yet because I I always like to ask these questions of my guests, and I think it's especially important to ask you. We have younger lawyers listening to this podcast. A few years ago, you started a boot camp actually through the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association that you were president of for a while, and the idea, of course, is to train these young lawyers. So, what advice can you give to the younger generation of lawyers, and then we could let you go after that? That's a great question.

SPEAKER_01 38:32

Do the right thing. Um I know it sounds pretty simple. Um do the right thing, practice in an area that you're passionate about. Do what your gut and your instincts tell you to do because your reputation means everything. I look at so I'm a lawyer who doesn't like lawyer jokes at all. I love our profession. I don't like the lawyer jokes at all. I think it's one of the most noble professions uh that there is. And I believe that you should do right by um the profession, make it better than it was when you came into it, recognize what's at stake. It's really easy sometimes for lawyers, new lawyers. We're all we're surrounded by other lawyers. We don't realize sometimes or forget uh how important it is what we do and the impact that what we do has on other people. And I think you should never let yourself forget what that person came to you for and how much meaning um what they're asking you to do has for them. You know, we've sat here, we've talked about one's liberty. But in all the areas of law that are out there, you know, whether it's it's family law and having access to your children, or you've, you know, a family member was hurt terribly in an accident and is trying to be compensated for it, they don't come to us for good things, right? They come to us when they're at their greatest time of need. And I think if you always keep that right out in front of you, um it's not me, it's what does this person need? Where are they? How do they feel? If you cater to that, just make sure that at the end of the day you can look back and you can say, I gave everything for this person 100%. And I think that's um it for me. I can look back over the course of my career and I can say I gave every person a hundred percent. And if you can do that, then you really took advantage of the great position of being a lawyer. And you you made sure that you gave each client the benefit of your best.

SPEAKER_00 40:52

Yeah, thanks for that advice. It it's great advice. I mean, we as lawyers, especially when we get busier and busier, sometimes the client isn't at the forefront of our thoughts all the time, but we have to do that. We have to just be thinking what is in our client's best interest and how do I get there? So thank you, Ian. I can't tell you, I enjoyed this conversation so much. It is wonderful to be with you and and see you again. And uh my pleasure.

SPEAKER_01 41:22

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right.