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.