Clients, a local male dance revue, were accused of prostitution when vice detectives observed them doing heavy gyrating lap dances for female patrons after the patrons placed dollar bills in the dancers’ speedos.

During pre-trial negotiations, the prosecutors offered small fines to resolve charges, but insisted that the clients testify against the club owners regarding their knowledge and acceptance of the dance routines (it was the prosecutor’s intention to cause the club to be declared a nuisance and to be closed permanently).

Marein and Bradley rejected the prosecutor’s demands and proceeded to trial by jury in Akron Municipal Court. After a two-day jury trial, the clients were found NOT GUILTY.

Client prosecuted for the execution-style killing of his landlord over a money dispute. Police searched client’s home and seized a handgun which was tested by a police crime laboratory. Ballistics resulted in a report that the client’s gun fired the bullet that was removed by a pathologist during the autopsy.

Marein and Bradley employed the assistance of a nationally renowned criminalist/professor who had developed a body of research questioning the reliability of ballistics/tool mark identification.

Marein and Bradley filed pre-trial motions seeking to limit the opinions that could be offered from police ballistic experts. The trial court ruled in favor of the motion filed by Marein and Bradley. At trial Marein and Bradley aggressively attacked the testimony of a witness who claimed to see the killing and caused the ballistics evidence to be reduced to little or no value. After a two-week jury trial, the client was found NOT GUILTY of all charges, including aggravated murder.

Client, a middle-aged grandfather who resided in a rural community east of Cleveland, was accused of shooting and killing his son-in-law in cold blood in his driveway. Client claimed that his son-in-law became physically aggressive toward him when the client would not allow him to enter his home to see his wife (client’s adult daughter) and his small child. Pre-trial investigation by Marein and Bradley resulted in development of the background of the son-in-law as being physically abusive toward women during his entire life, including domestic violence against the client’s daughter and grandchild.

After one week of a jury trial, the client was found NOT GUILTY of murder.

Client, a local drug gang member, was accused of a drive-by shooting of a rival drug gang member.

Marein and Bradley used a videographer to re-create the shooting. At the charged aggravated murder jury trial, Marein and Bradley extensively cross-examined eyewitnesses using their video re-creation to demonstrate that witnesses could not be relied upon. The client was found NOT GUILTY after a two-week trial.

Retired police officer from a northeast Ohio suburb was accused of raping his 30-year-old stepdaughter starting when she was ten years old. The stepdaughter failed to report allegations for 20 years. The officer strongly denied the allegations, but due to the nature of the accusations and the potential penalty (life imprisonment), the client was held in County Jail pending the outcome of the case.

Marein and Bradley challenged the commencement of the prosecution on the basis of the statute of limitations as it existed in the early 1990’s. After a lengthy evidentiary hearing and submission of legal briefs, the trial judge ruled in favor of the motion to dismiss filed by Marein and Bradley. The state appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the decision. The case resulted in Ohio legislature changing the law on limitations of prosecutions.

Bailiff to a local Common Pleas Court judge was accused of conspiring with her son to engage in extensive drug dealing and money laundering. During the monitoring of a three-month wiretap, the bailiff’s telephone calls with her son were recorded. Law enforcement interpreted the nature of the calls to be evidence that the bailiff was assisting her son both with drug deals and the secreting of profits.

Marein and Bradley challenged the admissibility of the tapes at a jury trial on the basis that the prosecution was unable to prove the conspiracy without the use of the recordings themselves in violation of Ohio law. The trial judge agreed with the challenge made by Marein and Bradley. The state appealed the ruling during the fourth day of trial. The Court of Appeals agreed with Marein and Bradley and remanded the case to the trial court to finish the jury trial (nine months later). At the first day of the finish of the jury trial, the state dismissed all charges against the bailiff since the wiretap evidence could not be used.