Trial War Stories - Death of a Witness with Amanda Martinsek

What happens when your first trial turns into absolute chaos—and a key witness dies on the stand?

In this unforgettable episode of Trial War Stories, host Andy Goldwasser sits down with accomplished trial lawyer Amanda Martinsek to break down one of the most shocking courtroom moments imaginable.

A high-stakes, five-to-six-week business litigation trial. Massive media attention. A young lawyer thrown into the fire. And then—during a critical moment—everything changes.

This episode dives deep into:

• How to handle unexpected trial disasters 
• The pressure of being a young lawyer in a high-profile case 
• Real-world strategy when procedure collides with human tragedy 
• Managing juries in complex business litigation 
• Ethical decision-making when the stakes go beyond the case 

Amanda shares not just what happened—but how she navigated the emotional, procedural, and strategic fallout in real time.

This is more than a story. It’s a masterclass in trial preparation, adaptability, and professionalism under pressure.

Whether you’re a young lawyer preparing for your first trial or a seasoned litigator, this episode delivers powerful lessons you won’t find in textbooks.

Learn more about trial strategy and advocacy: https://www.c-g-law.com/
________________________________________

00:00:00 – The Trial That Changed Everything
00:02:00 – Inside a High-Stakes Business Dispute
00:04:00 – First Trial Pressure & Preparation
00:06:00 – The Witness Takes the Stand
00:08:30 – Cross Examination & Warning Signs
00:10:30 – Medical Emergency in the Courtroom
00:13:00 – Immediate Legal & Ethical Fallout
00:15:00 – Saving the Trial Without a Mistrial
00:18:00 – The Human Side of Litigation
00:22:00 – Lessons for Young Trial Lawyers

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Huge trial, massive coverage, five to six week case, and a key witness literally dies on the witness stand. Oh, and by the way, it's your first trial. 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. Amanda, thank you for being here. Welcome to the show.

SPEAKER_00 0:55

Well, Andy, thank you for thinking of this forum. I do think we teach our craft in large part by passing on stories.

SPEAKER_01 1:05

It's so true, and I'm so appreciative that we're having this conversation because this is a story that I want to talk about. And the reason I want to talk about it is because it really is a great lesson for younger lawyers who don't have the experience, don't have the confidence, are put into their first trial, and things go sideways, which is exactly what happened to you. Yes. So can you tell us about this case and then we'll talk about the trial itself?

SPEAKER_00 1:36

I was a fourth-year associate at a law firm. We handled large, complex litigation, and as is commonly the case, and as almost everybody knows, those cases never go to trial. Everything either settles or you win on motion. This case was headed to trial like a juggernaut. It had been won on motion and then reversed in the Court of Appeals. So even though we had a new and improved theory of summary judgment, we weren't going to get it because the judge had already been reversed once. Okay. So it involved three medical corporations. There were two surgeons who had been 50-50 partners in these three medical corporations. We represented a doctor who had actually pioneered and initiated the open heart program at Altman Hospital in Canton. And he had been the moving force and was recognized as the far superior doctor. His partner and co-50% shareholder had made a very good living off his coattails for years. Unfortunately, my client became an alcoholic. Well, I don't, I guess you don't become an alcoholic, but his alcoholism manifested itself and it affected his ability to contribute. It I, in a startling turn of events, it really didn't lead to malpractice cases until after the corporate suit happened because he was a very, very good doctor. But it it led to drops in revenue, and his co-50% shareholder sued him individually and derivatively with regard to all three corporations. It was tried in Stark County Court of Common Pleas before Judge John Boggins. Okay. We had a nice big courtroom on the first floor of the courthouse, and it was ours. This trial went on five to six weeks. And this was your first trial, wasn't it? It was my first trial. I had done some hearings. I'd done support in hearings. I actually had never done the direct or cross of a witness until this trial.

SPEAKER_01 4:15

This is amazing. Did you did you take any depositions? Had you taken depositions?

SPEAKER_00 4:19

Oh, yes. I I was lucky because I was part of big law, but I got the opportunity to take a number of depositions prior to this.

SPEAKER_01 4:29

Which is really remarkable as a b as you know better than any when you're in big law. You have to be pretty darn talented to get in there and start taking depositions as a second or third year lawyer. You're now in your fourth year. You're going to your first trial. Were you lead counsel?

SPEAKER_00 4:43

I was second chair. The partner that I was blessed to work with divided the labor. He was going to do the opening and the close. And he was going to do the direct of our client and the cross of the plaintiff. And he was going to do the cross of an economic expert you may have heard of, John Burke.

SPEAKER_01 5:07

Of course. Yes. Anybody who practices in our area in Cleveland or Kyoga County or really anywhere in Ohio knows Burke and Rose, and they're the go-to economist, and they're fantastic people and great, great witnesses. So so you but you had a pretty big role, considering your experience level, going into the trial.

SPEAKER_00 5:28

Oh, it was a huge leap of faith on the part of the partner I was working with. I think he also needed more sleep than I did. But we we had, I mean, this was a five to six-week trial. We had the Canton repository in the courthouse every day, watching every bit of it. And part of our morning drill was ordering room service and getting the newspaper to read how the coverage was.

SPEAKER_01 5:54

So you actually stayed down in Canton?

SPEAKER_00 5:56

Oh, yeah. We started too early, we stayed too late, we worked at night, you know, the witness order kept changing, and it was a it wasn't hardly a vacation.

SPEAKER_01 6:11

So tell us what happened in trial, because when you told me this, it was just an amazing event that only you could describe, and then we want to I want to talk to you about how you deal with that as a younger lawyer.

SPEAKER_00 6:25

Well, there were a number of incredibly notable things about this trial. I always describe it as have going from soup to nuts and including the kitchen sink. But I think you're referring to the fact that actually one of our witnesses died on a break for lunch.

SPEAKER_01 6:47

That is unbelievable. Had the witness already gone on and part of the examination was conducted?

SPEAKER_00 6:55

Yes. This this was a procedural mess. I mean, it was a human tragedy. I don't want to minimize that. But the and I had been working with this witness for months. Was this one of your witnesses? This was my witness. Uh she was the corporate accountant for all three corporate entities. She was soundly behind our client. And for some reason, opposing counsel had failed to depose her, even though she'd been disclosed. And we wouldn't even have to disclose her. I mean, she's the corporate accountant. Right. And so uh initially she had to go on the night before. Suddenly, the judge wanted a long trial day for the first time ever. And so all I did the night before was authenticate reams of exhibits with her.

SPEAKER_01 7:50

I was gonna ask you who called her as the wit. You see, you called her in your case. In the defense case. In the defense case. She was not called in the plaintiff's case. You put her on the stand, you do what what I consider to be procedural stuff. You're authenticating documents, really laying the foundation for the substantive testimony. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 8:10

Absolutely. And I chose strategically to do that because we only had about 45 minutes. I did not want to get into the meat of testimony and have it be broken up with the break overnight. And I didn't want to give my opposing counsel any education on where I was going, given that they had chosen not to depose her. So we authenticated reams of documents, the jury slept a little, and then we broke for the night. I'm sure. And opposing counsel asked to meet with the accountant that night, and she politely declined. And so the next day, put her on the stand. I went through her direct. She did beautifully. Actually, completed her direct examination. Completed it. And then opposing counsel started his cross. He probably got 30 or 40 minutes into the cross, but he wasn't laying a glove on her. She was doing extremely, extremely well. And I knew going into this that she had health issues. In fact, my client was her cardiologist, her cardiac surgeon, her thoracic surgeon. So she had told me all about her issues. She was diabetic. She was going to need a heart replacement. But she knew at that point in time, because this was a long time ago, heart replacements only lasted for so long. So she was pushing it as long as she could because she didn't think she'd be able to get a second replacement when she was older. Okay. So the moment the truncated beginning of cross ended, and we went to a lunch break, my client made a beeline over to the witness, his accountant. And she was pale. And I brought it. And he was talking to her, and she she drank the Coke, her color was better. My client said, you know, come on, let's get you out of this chair. Let's get you something to eat. She's shod up and she had a seizure. Right there in the courtroom? She did not make it off the stand, Andy. She stood up.

SPEAKER_01 10:56

My gosh.

SPEAKER_00 10:58

And had a seizure, fell to the floor. I ran to the phone in the courtroom, but couldn't figure out how to get an outside line. And so I will always remember running through the courtroom, hitting the double doors and screaming, call 911, call 911.

SPEAKER_01 11:20

Well, well, th I mean, at least your client was a physician who could at least help in that emergency situation. Yes. So what happened?

SPEAKER_00 11:32

Somebody called 911. An ambulance came. The lunch break ended. So actually my client and the plaintiff both worked on getting a sinus rhythm back because she had she had no sinus rhythm. And you know, you I I think you know that as an advocate, there are a number of clients for whom you become lifetime advocates and you really and it this was a very much a black and white case in my mind, and it was so symptomatic that after they got a sinus rhythm back, um, the plaintiff walked around telling everybody how he had g started her heart. While my client looked at me and said, That's what we're talking about now?

SPEAKER_01 12:27

Right.

SPEAKER_00 12:27

This woman's life is hanging in the balance. And he looked at me and said, You know, in my line of work, there's a certain percentage of my patients that I know are not my patients, they're God's patients. And he said, I'm afraid Joanne's God's patient now. Oh my gosh.

SPEAKER_01 12:46

How do you how do you, as a lawyer, because that's what this show is about, right? How do you handle something like that? And maybe you handled it perfectly, I don't know. You could tell us, but uh, how did you handle it first of all? And now, with the benefit of hindsight, how would you have handled it now that you're more seasoned and an experienced lawyer? And it may not be any, there might not be any difference.

SPEAKER_00 13:11

I I I think it's a tough one. This was a Friday lunch break. Um, the first thing that happened was opposing counsel turned to the partner I who was my first chair and started talking about how, because we were about three and a half weeks, four weeks into an incredibly expensive case for two individuals. And she was trying to, you know, figure out a procedural solution.

SPEAKER_01 13:40

And you don't want to call mistrial when you're three weeks into a trial because you have to do it again and it's so expensive. And I should have asked you this earlier, just for the benefit of our viewers. Did all of this occur outside the presence of the jury?

SPEAKER_00 13:53

Because it was a lunch break, I have no idea. There was a snack bar, and I suspect I'm pretty sure there are jurors who saw me come running out and screaming. Um, I was actually five months pregnant at the time. So I I had to be really careful in the ladies' room because the jurors all wanted to talk to me because and make sure I was doing okay. And I again, I'm pretty sure people saw me because I got some follow-up questions in the ladies' room. But um the jury was not sitting. The judge brought them in and released them. That was the only thing that we could immediately agree to. Um, the partner with whom I was working said, you know, right now there are a few things slightly more important than the problems of these two doctors. We have the weekend to figure it out. Let's have a moment of decency. That I always admired him for that. Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 14:57

He he he handled that perfectly. So I assume that ended the trial day so everybody could collect not only their thoughts but their emotions.

SPEAKER_00 15:08

Their thoughts, their emotions, and try to, as we discussed, figure out a through line that would save the trial but be fair. And it was a very unique situation because there was no deposition. If there had been a deposition, there was a simple answer. But unfortunately, the advantage we had had procedurally now became a huge disadvantage. And ultimately the solution was that the plaintiff's counsel got to call an expert accountant who looked through everything and then went on and testified. What as a rebuttal witness, in essence.

SPEAKER_01 15:52

So you were able to proceed with the trial, but what did the judge say, if anything, to the jury about what occurred and why this witness testimony wasn't going to be completed?

SPEAKER_00 16:04

He explained the facts. He explained the circumstances. Andy, this was huge news in Canton. This was a case that early on in its inception, before I was even on the case, there was a Wall Street Journal article about these two feuding doctors and their matching jaguars. And it was it was, as I said, covered by the newspaper daily. And when we were driving home from Canton that afternoon on the radio on NPR, the local station was discussing what had happened with the witness, who, by the way, um never regained consciousness and and died essentially on arrival.

SPEAKER_01 16:48

So that is it is it it's so sad and it's such a breakthrough situation. You know, when we talk about trials and we as trial lawyers and the feeling that takes place in a courtroom, what surprises me about this from a lawyer's perspective, I'm setting aside the human side to it. When you have a moment like that in a courtroom where all of a sudden something like that becomes so much more important than two doctors fighting about money, right? We're talking about a human life that literally passes away on the witness stand. I mean, you can't have you can't describe it. It's just unheard of that something like that happens. What surprises me is that doesn't lead the parties to talking about resolution. You would think that that level of emotional impact would say, you know what, let's resolve this case instead of figuring out a procedural way to get around it so we can continue our fight that wasn't even in the cards?

SPEAKER_00 17:54

Not a chance. This um this was a fatwa. Perfect description. It it there was not going to be any agreed resolution. The judge understood it. This is one of those cases the ex-wife of my client was subpoenaed for the case in chief. She was never going to be called as a witness. They just wanted to torture her by making her sit outside reading her book. This was ugly. It was personal. I saw a lot of things that I knew I would never echo and that I never wanted any part of.

SPEAKER_01 18:41

Yeah, well, you you you said it without saying it when you were telling me earlier that you had to authenticate all these documents. For those that don't know, a lot of our listeners, it's really rare that a lawyer has to authenticate documents and go through those evidentiary steps during the course of a trial because we lawyers usually can agree to stipulate that something is a true and accurate copy. Right. And what you're talking about with the witnesses, with the party's wife, what people may not know is that there's a separation of witnesses. So when you subpoena a witness like that, and you have to put her out in the hallway, and that witness is literally just sitting there waiting to be called.

SPEAKER_00 19:22

And the courteous thing, and what generally you do with a witness is let them know, keep them on notice. They don't have to sit in the courtroom. And what my client's ex-wife was told was we may call you at any point in the order, so you're just gonna have to sit.

SPEAKER_01 19:39

Even though there was never an intention to do so. No, she was never called. I I I hate hearing those kinds of stories. Tell us more about the trial.

SPEAKER_00 19:48

Well, it was really interesting. The essence of the plaintiff's claim was that he had been wronged because my client had developed alcoholism, and my client's alcoholism had affected the revenues of the business. Did it? I uh indubitably, absolutely. It it did affect the revenues of the business, and um the plaintiff was not an adequate doctor to pick up the slack. So what was the defense to that? Um you know, this is not an intentional volitional act, and uh it's not corporate waste. You know, how can it be a derivative derivative claim? How can it be a corporate tort to have an illness, to struggle with it, to go into treatment?

SPEAKER_01 20:44

I guess it only could if it's affecting the business in such a way where there's some corporate malfeasance, right? Where he's the doctor is taking money, the the doctor is committing malpractice all over the place. Here the doctor has a recognized illness, recognizes that there's a problem, and is trying to get help. It was that the defense case, or did your doctor want the business broken up as well, just wanted it to be a more of an equitable breakup?

SPEAKER_00 21:18

Uh we wanted the business broken up as well. Uh initially, both sides had derivative claims strategically during the course of the trial after they rested their case in chief. We decided to dismiss our derivative claim on the basis that I'm sorry, we didn't dismiss our derivative, I think. We dismissed our direct claim because we concluded that the Cross B V beam analysis wasn't applicable between these two 50 50 shareholders.

SPEAKER_01 21:49

And and some of the our listeners, Amanda, won't even understand what direct and derivative mean. Can you can you explain that in the context of a business case?

SPEAKER_00 21:57

Absolutely. If you have an equity owner in Interest in a business and somebody else who is committing a corporate tort, like corporate waste, stealing, usurping corporate opportunities. As a shareholder in the business, you can bring a case both on your own behalf as a shareholder and what is called derivatively on behalf of the corporate entity, because the actions of your co-shareholder or officers or whoever is committing the tortious act is harming the corporate entity. The one thing that people tend to forget about derivative claims is that the recovery doesn't just go to the one shareholder who brought the lawsuit. The recovery and a derivative litigation goes to the corporation so that if the plaintiff has a 7% stake in the corporate entity, he gets 7%. Right. Right.

SPEAKER_01 22:55

So this was a 50-50 partnership. Three 50-50 partnerships. Trevor Burrus Okay. And were it were there partnership agreements that everybody was fighting over?

SPEAKER_00 23:04

And I apologize. We ended up then and even much more now with the passing of years. They were never partners. They these were corporate entities. Okay. And that was but there were fiduciary duties that they owed each other. They were both officers. And the partnership analogy was a huge one, huge one. Ironically, however, I was always arguing against it. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 23:28

I'm sure I'm surprised a receiver wasn't appointed. A lot of times for people. Oh, there was a receiver that was appointed. And for again, for those that don't know, when when two 50-50 owners are fighting over a corporation, they can't agree on anything, so somebody has to step in to make decisions. And oftentimes that person will be someone appointed by the court, known as a receiver. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 23:50

And in fact, we did have a receiver, and he was not very active in the trial, but he sat at our table. Oh, that's good. Yes. Well, we had the sympathy of everybody but the jury, uh as it turned out. But very nice receiver and very good lawyer. Didn't play a major role in the case, and there wasn't that much to wind up by the time he was appointed.

SPEAKER_01 24:18

Amanda, how do you keep a jury engaged in a business case like that, where there's a lot of documents, you have to go through the process of authenticating everything. So from an evidentiary standpoint, it slows down the trial because you have to dot all your I's and cross all your T's, and you can't ask questions a certain way. And then you're dealing with a topic that not but most people just don't deal with on a regular basis and doesn't have the human emotion part of it.

SPEAKER_00 24:52

Well, there actually was a lot of human emotion in this case. And there were uh very dramatic. I don't do labor and employment work much. I've done some. I've never done a labor and employment trial. But people who do that work often tell me that they like doing it because it's more interesting and easier for a jury and uh outsiders to understand what's going on. We had we had our own fair amount of drama. We had uh a very talented doctor who um had worked with them and was a he came from Pennsylvania on his own dime to testify. And when on cross, they came in for the kill and said, You were paid to be here today. And he said, No, I paid my own hotel bill. Would you like to look at it? That's wonderful. You capitalize on the moments like that, but I think the other answer is you know you're gonna lose the jury at some point. And as I did on that Thursday afternoon with the accountant witness, you do the dull stuff at a point when you can afford to lose them for a little bit. Let them go to their happy place and make their grocery list.

SPEAKER_01 26:09

Yeah, that's always a tough strategic call for lawyers because we like to begin the day powerful and we like to end the day powerful. And here you are ending the day with frankly something that's pretty dry and boring, but I understand why you do it. So when you're trying these business cases like that, do you really try to come up with a human theme and story on in in order to explain the case, make it less about the business itself and more about this is what the individuals who built this business are about and how this will affect them when it when it's all over?

SPEAKER_00 26:50

You do do that, but I also think you look for the analogies. You know, I in every trial I've ever done, in my own mind, whether it came through or not, I had a guiding analogy that was driving my case and that was sort of a nutshell version of why we should win. Um and I think those analogies and thinking of how to explain the case and draw that analogy, usually an opening and close, because then it gives you a through line through the case. And you hope it's a compelling enough analogy that it stays in their mind.

SPEAKER_01 27:32

It's so true, but you didn't know that then. You that comes with experience as a third or fourth year lawyer. I mean, how did you how did you handle a complex case like this? A case that's difficult to explain to a jury, a case that's gonna go on for five or six weeks, that's getting massive press, and where you have these moments or events that no one could ever predict. How do you do that as a young lawyer? It's good to be stupid.

SPEAKER_00 28:05

It's really good to just I love that response. You know, uh You didn't know better. I didn't know better, I didn't think twice. This was what I did. Every Sunday night, I came to Canton, I prepped witnesses, we had a team meeting with dinner, and I'd get up early, we'd have breakfast, I'd go over my my duties for the day, and I'd just do it. I I really never thought about anything except the case and winning it. I I would say what happened with Joanne was a huge exception to that, and that's something else that I do think it's important. You know, it I'm sure it's no secret to you that lawyers can sometimes be a little callous about their witnesses. And you want them to do what you need them to do, and they're playing a role, you're playing a role. This was such a shocking thing because she had children, a husband, a family, and they now had to have you know visitations and burials. And that became the question of as a lawyer, is it horrible to go? What would be the you know, the right answer? What do you do?

SPEAKER_01 29:32

It's it's such a good point. I mean, when you were explaining what happened in the courtroom as a lawyer, I'm thinking to myself, how how is it that your doctor and the plaintiff is are even able to talk to a witness, right? Because you're not supposed to talk to a witness when there's a break, when they're already on the stand and you're taking a break break, there's supposed to be complete separation. Here, there was no choice. It it's it's really remarkable. And and what a less, I mean, it's it's a great lesson, I think, for younger lawyers. Forget the stupidity. We all have that as younger lawyers. But the lesson that I'm taking away, Amanda, and what made you so successful is your level of preparation. You were so prepared and you were so focused, you were so myopic. You didn't forget the human side, you didn't forget your emotions, you didn't, but when it came time to get back in the game, you were ready and you were prepared. And I think that's the lesson, right?

SPEAKER_00 30:38

Well, I may not ever be the smartest person in the room. I may not ever be the most eloquent, but I will prepare harder. And I think it is critical. And I I'm sometimes offended by lawyers on the other side who misstate critical facts of their case.

SPEAKER_01 31:00

Yeah, we we we talk about that sometimes. I mean, Amanda, we've we haven't talked about this, but I'm sure you agree with me. I'd rather deal with good lawyers like you than lawyers who are not prepared or just don't seem to care as much because it just creates fights, it creates nonsense. It you never get to where you need to go.

SPEAKER_00 31:17

Aaron Powell I couldn't agree with you more. I'm actually in one of those cases right now where I went from talented opposing counsel who is gone, and now I've got uh less talented opposing counsel.

SPEAKER_01 31:31

So so you've been now doing this a while, you've been through some real trials and tribulations. What kind of lessons do you have for our younger lawyers?

SPEAKER_00 31:41

Well, one of the things I always remember from this is, you know, I'd done a lot of depositions, but there at the very beginning of the case, the first witness who was called was an operating room nurse who had worked with both of these gentlemen. The name came out of the blue. She hadn't been deposed. The partner who I was second chairing looked at me and said, You know, Amanda, do you want to take this one? A total surprise witness. Total surprise witness. And I looked at him and I said, You know, honestly, I think I should watch a cross-exam before I try to do one. Right. And he agreed. And then as they brought the witness in, I grabbed his arm and I said, But that doesn't mean I don't want lots of other witnesses.

SPEAKER_01 32:28

Good for you.

SPEAKER_00 32:28

And he looked at me and said, Eh, you you give up one, you never know what you're gonna get. I ended up in that trial. I must have done more than 12 witnesses and three experts. Incredible. So I I certainly got my witnesses, but I I think for young lawyers, it's a balance between being eager to stretch and to learn your skill set, but protecting your client from your own ignorance. And I I never regretted saying, you know, I'll pass on the first one. Let's see the jump rope go around once before I get up and start doing this. It also was a case where jury selection was critical.

SPEAKER_01 33:17

Did you do the jury selection?

SPEAKER_00 33:19

Well, we did it collectively.

SPEAKER_01 33:21

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 33:21

I disagreed on one juror. And uh again, it's better to be lucky than good. The partner I was working with was a very, very devout Catholic. And when he saw a minister, he saw forgiveness. And he saw, you know, confession, absolution. I grew up in Southern Illinois. This was a Protestant minister, and I was like, you know, it could also be people who are very punitive, and it could be a religion that does not tolerate alcohol at all, much less concern, consider alcoholism an illness rather than a moral failing. So I was worried about that. And as we later found out, he became the foreman, he controlled the jury. He felt bad for the plaintiff because he cried on the stand and said, he cried on the stand, we should award punitive damages. Wow. It also was a learning experience because, as I think I told you when we discussed this, we tried the perfect case. We lost huge. We got into the verdict. We lost the case. And but we did. We tried a perfect case daily on a legal basis. But and everybody in the courtroom kept telling us we were killing it. The receivers telling us we're killing it, the bailiffs telling us we're killing it, the court reporters are like, you know, loving us and telling us what a great job we're doing. And then deliberations began and continued and continued. Not a great feeling.

SPEAKER_01 35:07

No, no, when that what happened when that verdict came back, did you just have especially in your first trial? I mean, when you take a verdict, it's stressful, but especially in your first case.

SPEAKER_00 35:18

Well, and you have to remember, I was absolutely committed to this case and to this client. You know, often in what we do, there's no clear right and clear wrong. In this case, I felt there were there were white hats and black hats, and you know, it was a passion. And when the jury finally, the jury was uh sent to deliberations on Monday afternoon, they came back with a verdict on Friday afternoon. We had been sitting shiva in the courtroom every day, just sitting there waiting because you know, the drive from Cleveland is not gonna work. Right. And how could the jury possibly take this long? Right. And as we sat down, I turned to the partner who was the first chair, and I said, Is hearing the verdict an out-of-body experience? And he looked at me and said, it can be.

SPEAKER_01 36:17

It was. I'm sure, you know, it's I it the more I talk to great lawyers like yourself and think about trials and study trials and read about trials, the having a juror who's a leader is a very dangerous thing for lawyers. I mean, it could work for you or against you, but man, they just one person could change an entire jury verdict.

SPEAKER_00 36:48

Well, and here there was no doubt that's what happened because one of the jurors was so profoundly offended, um he reached out to us after the verdict and drove in from Canton to our offices in Cleveland to talk to us about it, tell us what happened. He did an affidavit, which we attached to our motion to alter or amend. Did you get the trial reverse? I mean the verdict was reversed ultimately? In the Court of Appeals, yes. And because of our strategic decision to dismiss our direct claims, and I think we may have dismissed our derivative claims as well. But because of our strategic dismissal, not only was the case reversed, but judgment was entered in our clients' favor. We got a defense verdict from the Court of Appeals, which amazing. That r really doesn't happen.

SPEAKER_01 37:46

It does not happen. Amazing. Amanda, I enjoy, I could talk to you for another hour. I don't know how long we've been going, but I've really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you so much for doing this today.

SPEAKER_00 37:58

Well, my pleasure. Thank you for the opportunity, and I hope some of the pointers help.

SPEAKER_01 38:03

They they will for sure. Thanks again. Thank you.