Skip to main content
Ian Nathan Friedman

Ian Friedman’s Legal Cases

15 total


  • State v. _______

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    Fifty-five year old grandmother was charged with theft and destruction of government documents after shredding purported sensitive documents at her workplace addressing matters of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. The prosecution argued that this action was in retaliation against her hostile employer for forcing a resignation. The jury acquitted the client of all charges.
  • State v. _______

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    Veteran firefighter was indicted for Murder, Tampering With Evidence, and Felonious Assault after an allegation that he punched an 81 year old man causing him to fall and break his hip. The coroner's office ruled that the man's death 16 months later was a direct result of the fall and fracture. After almost 2 years of pre-trial proceedings and a 2 1/2 week trial, the jury took only 2 hours to find the defendant Not Guilty on all counts. As a result of the case, the county coroner was criticized by the jury causing intense public scrutiny of the office.
  • State v. _________

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    Husband and wife Defendants were indicted for several felony counts including Aggravated Arson for allegedly hiring individuals to burn their home for financial gain. The matter proceeded to jury trial in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. Evidence included the testimony of three co-defendants implicating the Defendants as well as evidence from investigating insurance companies. Both Defendants were represented by lawyers from the law firm. The wife was acquitted by the Court at the conclusion of the State’s case by the Court. The husband was found Not Guilty on all counts by the jury.
  • State v. _______

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    The Defendant was charged with two counts of rape of his wife’s friend. The State presented forensic evidence to support the fact that the Defendant forced sex upon the victim. The jury acquitted the Defendant on all charges.
  • United States of America v. ____________

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Probation Only
    Description:
    Stockbroker was indicted in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The indictment alleged that the Defendant engaged in a conspiracy to engage in fraudulent investment trading programs, also known as high-yield investment fraud. It was alleged that the Defendant yielded approximately Seventy-five million dollars as a result of the enterprise. The case resolved after a plea arrangement was orchestrated resulting in probation only.
  • State v. ____________

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Minimum Sentence of Three Years Imposed
    Description:
    Real estate developer had been accused by the Securities Exchange Commission, Ohio Attorney General, and law enforcement of operating a twenty (20) year Ponzi scheme in which approximately one thousand (1000) investors were defrauded of approximately ninety million dollars ($90,000,000.00). While the case spanned almost four (4) years, extensive civil litigation allowed for the crafting of a favorable plea agreement in the criminal matter. The client, who was the central figure in the prosecution, received a minimum sentence of three (3) years.
  • State v. ________

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    The Defendant was charged with several felony counts including Possession and Trafficking of Cocaine. The evidence included monitored telephone calls, police surveillance, and seizure of the narcotics found in the Defendant’s vehicle. The matter proceeded to jury trial. At the conclusion of the State’s case, counsel moved for acquittal alleging that the State had not met the minimal burden necessary. The Court granted the motion and ordered the Defendant released and discharged.
  • State v. ________

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    After a “sting operation” in a known high sex crime area, twenty nine of thirty men plead guilty to importuning as undercover police officers were allegedly solicited for sex. The client opted to exercise his right to trial. The Defendant was found Not Guilty.
  • State vs. _________

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    The Defendant was charged with Assault as a result of an altercation outside a popular nightclub. Despite witness testimony that the Defendant was the primary participant in the altercation, the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty of all charges. The co-defendant who was tried at the same time, was convicted.
  • State vs. _________

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    Defendant was charged with vehicular homicide after striking another vehicle. It was reported that the Defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed. The jury found the Defendant guilty of Unsafe Vehicle, a Minor Misdemeanor carrying a potential One Hundred Dollar Fine and acquitted him of the Homicide charge.