Speaker 1: You want to be an American idiot?
Speaker 2: Do you know how hard is to say? This is
Speaker 2: one of the most bizarre stories we've ever seen in Cincinnati.
Speaker 2: You know how hard that is in the city of ours.
Speaker 2: Welcome to its Scott Sloan back on seven hundred w W,
Speaker 2: the man beaten down twenty had beaten twenty eight times
Speaker 2: last summer, who is also facing criminal charges, is supposed
Speaker 2: to have his day in court today. That would be
Speaker 2: Alex Tchravinsky, his trial charged with this early conduct after
Speaker 2: what happened in July back on fourth and ALM. It's
Speaker 2: been delayed and delayed and delayed again and after a
Speaker 2: last minute continuance, but today allegedly is the day. Today
Speaker 2: is the day he will be in court. And on
Speaker 2: that his attorney, Steve Gooden on the show on seven
Speaker 2: hundred WLW Steve, welcome, How are you no?
Speaker 1: Good morning? Fantastic?
Speaker 2: This is gonna happen today. I just feel like something
Speaker 2: is They're gonna go. Well, we need more time, right
Speaker 2: because last time in this really odd case, the prosecution's
Speaker 2: key witness ail to appear. He said he or she said,
Speaker 2: there's fear for safety there after misinformation Len and believe
Speaker 2: he'd be identified as an FBI informant, and they got
Speaker 2: a continuance on that, and I judge said, okay, this
Speaker 2: is the last one. But how does misinformation the prosecution
Speaker 2: failed to manage become grounds to delay a defendant who
Speaker 2: was ready for trial.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, look, this is probably the most litigated
Speaker 3: misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge in American history, so nothing would
Speaker 3: surprise me. But I do know you know this judge
Speaker 3: a bit, and I think he's going to put his
Speaker 3: foot down today and make the trial go forward. Also,
Speaker 3: I would note it is a very rare instance in
Speaker 3: which is going to be a jury trial for misdemeanor
Speaker 3: disorderly conduct. It's kind of a rare instance where that's
Speaker 3: even allowed. So I presumably the jury commissioner has brought
Speaker 3: in perspective jurors, and I think that is typically a
Speaker 3: factor for a judge when he grants a continuance, if
Speaker 3: the jurors are really ready to go, doesn't want to
Speaker 3: inconvenience them. So I would bet that today is finally
Speaker 3: the day for the most litigated, disportless kind of strategy
Speaker 3: perhaps in the history of the Republic.
Speaker 2: We've had a lot of We've had a lot of
Speaker 2: bizarre cases come through Cincinnat there's always some if something
Speaker 2: bizarre is going on, there's always a tie to Cincinnati,
Speaker 2: and often we have crazy stuff happening here. But this
Speaker 2: is uh, this has got to be in the top
Speaker 2: of that list, all right, So final continuance. But do
Speaker 2: we even know where are they going to produce this,
Speaker 2: this mystery witness and what happens the case if they don't, well, if.
Speaker 3: They don't, I mean, they presumably have other witnesses. So
Speaker 3: I mean it's just really kind of a sad commentary
Speaker 3: on the state of the city. Then of course, if
Speaker 3: you have a street brawl in Cincinnati, there may be
Speaker 3: may or may not be an FBI. And for him
Speaker 3: at just standing around in the crowd, uh, you know,
Speaker 3: whether he was an abortment or not. I think I
Speaker 3: think they concluded he was not, but but some thought
Speaker 3: he was, So I mean, you know even that that
Speaker 3: adds another level of uh bizarreness and uh, you know,
Speaker 3: complexity to the whole thing. But presumably they have other witnesses.
Speaker 3: I mean, what they've got to show here is kind
Speaker 3: of weird. So disorderly conduct in this case is defined
Speaker 3: and I quote, by engaging in fighting or threatening harm,
Speaker 3: by making unreasonable noises or using offensively coarse language or gestures.
Speaker 3: And in order to get the more serious form of
Speaker 3: it that actually carries jail time, I mean, typically it's
Speaker 3: just a payout ticket.
Speaker 1: You have to show that there was persistent.
Speaker 3: Conduct, you know, that way. So that's what they've got
Speaker 3: a show. So they're going to need to put on
Speaker 3: quite a few witnesses, and I'm assuming they're going to
Speaker 3: try to authenticate and play this video. I guess there's
Speaker 3: video from multiple different angles, security cameras, self owned stuff,
Speaker 3: social media, things of that nature. So you know, certainly
Speaker 3: they're going to be able to at least put on
Speaker 3: a basic case with the video alone. Now that said,
Speaker 3: his lawyers said he's going to argue self defense, you know,
Speaker 3: because he says he has been he was struck at
Speaker 3: least twenty eight times and allegedly had some cognitive issues
Speaker 3: right afterwards. And I guess he did give some statements
Speaker 3: to the police, but he's going to argue I think
Speaker 3: that those statements were affected by being hit in the
Speaker 3: head repeatedly. And also I'm assuming his lawyer is going
Speaker 3: to go here if I were his lawyer, I'd be
Speaker 3: going very heavily into the decision to charge mister Travinsky
Speaker 3: because he is listed as a victim and witness in
Speaker 3: multiple felony cases from the other individuals who struck he
Speaker 3: and this lady known as Holly, who was knocked unconscious
Speaker 3: and beaten very badly. So he is both a victim
Speaker 3: and now a very and a witness and now a defendant.
Speaker 3: And he's only charged many, many many months later.
Speaker 1: After there have.
Speaker 3: Been press conferences and so forth, and froth plague game
Speaker 3: in lyunch and some leaders in the black community who
Speaker 3: thought that he needed to be charged based upon seeing
Speaker 3: the videos. So there is some stink on the case
Speaker 3: from that point of view as to whether or not
Speaker 3: he was escapegoated. So I think you've got a lot
Speaker 3: for this jury to consider. I feel sorry for this
Speaker 3: jury because they probably got him paneled. They're dead at
Speaker 3: the courthouse thinking, my god, we may have a homicide
Speaker 3: trial or some serious case involving a you know, a
Speaker 3: large lawsuit. This is going to be fascinating, and instead
Speaker 3: they're going to be dissecting a street brawl from different
Speaker 3: different angles for three or four days.
Speaker 1: So God bless them.
Speaker 2: Ye've been there. The two detectives who spent literally one
Speaker 2: hundreds of hours on game, they wouldn't sign the charges
Speaker 2: against Alex Stravinsky. They were threatened, I guess with the motion,
Speaker 2: and the captain, who, by the way, is now the
Speaker 2: interim police chief, Adam Henny, signed it to protect his office.
Speaker 2: What's that tell you about the strength of the case
Speaker 2: when the investigators won't put their names on.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's I mean, I think it's pretty
Speaker 3: obvious it's not the best case in the world. I
Speaker 3: mean that being said, you know, it is a jury trial,
Speaker 3: so you know, anything can happen in a jury trial.
Speaker 3: As we always say, it's not like you know, jurors
Speaker 3: can have a different view of what the community standard
Speaker 3: should be for a case like this, So you just
Speaker 3: you never know. And there is a question as to
Speaker 3: how much the judge is going to let the attorneys
Speaker 3: get into that kind of background about how it was charged,
Speaker 3: and how much the jurors are going to know. Folks
Speaker 3: like you and I are pretty plugged into this. The
Speaker 3: average citizen in Hamilton County may not recall that level
Speaker 3: of detail. And if the judge rules that are truly
Speaker 3: not relevant to whether or not the crime was committed.
Speaker 3: He may keep some of that information from the jurors,
Speaker 3: so we don't know what they will actually know. But
Speaker 3: if they hear that, it's going to really hurt the case.
Speaker 3: And surely they're going to be allowed to know that
Speaker 3: he was assaulted, that he got the worst of.
Speaker 1: This and it's bad. Now.
Speaker 3: Now, if I'm Alex Jrminsky's lawyer, the biggest thing I
Speaker 3: would worry about is this. It's what I would call
Speaker 3: the Victoria Parks factor. I mean, she did say she
Speaker 3: was a former city council member who famously said that the.
Speaker 1: Quote deserve to get be down.
Speaker 3: There are people who may look at this and think,
Speaker 3: you know, nobody here covered themselves and glory.
Speaker 1: They were all out.
Speaker 3: Drinking at two three in the morning in the middle
Speaker 3: of this thing, and there are there was a school
Speaker 3: thought that hey, you know, he was down there mixed
Speaker 3: up in this in one way or another, and you know,
Speaker 3: and a pox on all their houses and everyone's guilty
Speaker 3: of something. I mean, there are people who would look
Speaker 3: at it that way. So you know, again we're well
Speaker 3: afield of the law. It's really hard to apply the
Speaker 3: law and these kind of misdemeanor decisions because are kinds
Speaker 3: of cases because you know, engaging and fighting. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's you know, it's the language is both. It seems
Speaker 3: very specific, but actually when you think about it, it's
Speaker 3: very vague. It's the kind of thing that goes on
Speaker 3: in these brawls all the time. Jury is going to
Speaker 3: have a changefull well.
Speaker 2: I think also it shows you that the echo chamber
Speaker 2: is louder than the law in that this is exactly
Speaker 2: like the Nicholas Sandman thing from twenty nineteen where this
Speaker 2: young man from a cubcath is in DC on a
Speaker 2: high school trip, confronts Nathan Phillips, the Native American man
Speaker 2: who was protesting, and the initial reports were the he
Speaker 2: had and this would be Nick Sandman, the student had
Speaker 2: attacked and verbally attacked or looked down upon this Native
Speaker 2: American man, and it turns out the opposite was true.
Speaker 2: That he didn't walk up to him. The Native American
Speaker 2: elder man walked up to him and he just had
Speaker 2: like a staring contest, I guess, and was smiling at him.
Speaker 2: But all those people who attacked Nick Sandman then didn't
Speaker 2: retract what they said and said, hey, you know, at
Speaker 2: first Blush it looked like he was the aggressor, and
Speaker 2: it turns out the other man was the aggressor. No
Speaker 2: one ever apologizes for these things. Same thing here is
Speaker 2: that it looked like, initially from the citizen video from
Speaker 2: the street videos, that it was Alex Stravinsky as the
Speaker 2: guy who committed the assault, when it turns out he
Speaker 2: was assaulted twenty eight times prior, including Holly. And the
Speaker 2: end result is, well, you know, we had all these
Speaker 2: people step up and say, hey, listen, you charge everybody
Speaker 2: else weren't charging the white guy. And of course when
Speaker 2: the truth came out from the state a different story,
Speaker 2: no one apologized, and we've delayed this trial now forever.
Speaker 2: And I think that's part of it as well, because
Speaker 2: history makes your memory a little bit foggy, right, So
Speaker 2: all those things aside this charge here that ale Stravinsky
Speaker 2: was the aggressor, it turns out he was attacked. That's
Speaker 2: even backed up by the state. The state's on timeline
Speaker 2: shows that how does that charge survive the self defense argument?
Speaker 1: Well, you know it likely won't.
Speaker 3: I mean, I you know, my prediction is that the
Speaker 3: most I think most people are going to go look
Speaker 3: at this and think, look this, I didn't deserve to
Speaker 3: be just assaulted the way he was, didn't deserve to
Speaker 3: have his life turned upside down with these criminal charges.
Speaker 3: I do predict that they'll find them not guilty. I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, the the only issue that I think they're
Speaker 3: going they're gonna pound on here is as the videos
Speaker 3: I have seen.
Speaker 1: Can I caution people all the time that.
Speaker 3: These videos we see on Facebook and Twitter, you know,
Speaker 3: are often you know, selectively posted, edited and and and
Speaker 3: often don't have the full context of what happened. But
Speaker 3: there is this issue of what they call, in quote
Speaker 3: end quote, the slap. It does look as though that
Speaker 3: after he was assaulted and walked away from the situation,
Speaker 3: that he did re engage with one individual and.
Speaker 1: Slap that individual.
Speaker 3: Now, whether that admits to some sort of quote persistent fighting,
Speaker 3: I don't know. Prosecutors that I know very well, as
Speaker 3: well as some of the police officers who looked at it,
Speaker 3: said look, you know, it's not a serious it's nothing,
Speaker 3: you know, in the context of what happened. So I
Speaker 3: know a lot of very smart and experienced people looked
Speaker 3: at that particular part of the video and found it
Speaker 3: to be not something that would rise to the level
Speaker 3: of criminal conduct, particularly in the case of a guy
Speaker 3: who was the victim of a serious assault, and a
Speaker 3: felony level assault at that by a large crowd. So
Speaker 3: but that I think you're going to hear a lot
Speaker 3: of talk about this slap and where he looked as
Speaker 3: though there was a brief moment where he was at
Speaker 3: least in the clear and away from these individuals and
Speaker 3: then sort of re engaged. I think that's ultimately what
Speaker 3: they're going to have to hang their hat on for
Speaker 3: the prosecution. It's not much, and I do think most
Speaker 3: people are going to look at this fairly and say,
Speaker 3: you know, there's nothing here, and that said, you know,
Speaker 3: there may be other you know, the live witnesses are
Speaker 3: going to provide different contexts. We don't know what he
Speaker 3: was said between these individuals. There have been all kinds
Speaker 3: of allegations and hints that racial slurs were being thrown around.
Speaker 3: We don't know that for a fact. That may change
Speaker 3: kind of how some folks look at this. I mean,
Speaker 3: there are there's an argument that that is exceptionally disorderly.
Speaker 3: We do have this kind of concept of fighting words
Speaker 3: in Ohio, but also It's very interesting. I do think
Speaker 3: because of our new stand your ground laws. You know,
Speaker 3: a lot of folks talk about those in the gun contexts,
Speaker 3: but they also sort of apply here. He doesn't really
Speaker 3: have a duty to retreat anymore. There used to be
Speaker 3: this argument in Ohio law for self defense that if
Speaker 3: you were under attack, you know, you did have some
Speaker 3: sort of duty to retreat. You really don't have that anymore.
Speaker 3: So I do think on balance, you know, he will
Speaker 3: likely be found not guilty, but you know, again who knows,
Speaker 3: and there may be evidence that we're not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean if he sound that guilty, it
Speaker 2: just gives more credence. So that the people who got
Speaker 2: this wrong from the initial had a big press conference
Speaker 2: about it. We'll just say, well, it goes to show
Speaker 2: you how racially biased the court system is, despite of course,
Speaker 2: this case being heard by a jury of their peers
Speaker 2: who will probably see the evidence. Ago Travinsky was the
Speaker 2: victim here and not the assailant. He was struck twenty
Speaker 2: eight times in the head and face concussion syndrome PTSD.
Speaker 2: He owned a being in that fight and throwing the punch.
Speaker 2: He's a victim in this case as well as a defendant.
Speaker 2: How hard is that for the prosecutor to not violate
Speaker 2: his constitutional rights. That's a pretty it seems to me
Speaker 2: to be a pretty narrow window to negotiate this.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, frankly, if the city loses this case.
Speaker 3: And I think that's one of the things that's important
Speaker 3: to note here that there are two different prosecutor's offices
Speaker 3: inning able to count because they handle the county prosecutor's
Speaker 3: office that handles all felonies and some misdemeanors and surrounding areas.
Speaker 3: The city still has its own small prosecutor's office that
Speaker 3: only handles misdemeanors within the city limits, and they're the
Speaker 3: ones bringing this case. But the other prosecutor's office, Hamilicuty
Speaker 3: prosecutor's office, are prosecuting all the other folks involved in
Speaker 3: this fight because they're charged with felonies. So there is
Speaker 3: some some real tension there. It's like, you know, the
Speaker 3: city is prosecuting one of the key witnesses in the
Speaker 3: counties cases.
Speaker 1: So that's a that's a problem number one.
Speaker 3: Number two, I would predict that if he is acquitted
Speaker 3: by this jury, that he probably already has counsel lined
Speaker 3: up to look at a potential malicious malicious prosecution lawsuit
Speaker 3: into or a civil rights claim.
Speaker 1: Uh, you know, basically saying, look.
Speaker 3: I was prosecuted for political reasons. I really didn't have
Speaker 3: a good faith basis to bring this and the city
Speaker 3: may be in a position to pay out yet another
Speaker 3: multi let about settlement as will impact it's it's a
Speaker 3: budget even Fritter, So is that stated?
Speaker 2: Is that the next is that after this gets I
Speaker 2: don't know if I'll get dismissed, but after this thing
Speaker 2: wraps up, and I think the prediction is pretty good
Speaker 2: that Alex Stravinsky's going to walk, and let's say that
Speaker 2: he does. He then turns around to a malicious prosecution
Speaker 2: case as a civil case against the city and civil
Speaker 2: claim outside of settlement. Though that's pretty ugly. Does that
Speaker 2: implicate the mayor to some degree or at least the administration,
Speaker 2: because typically the mayor will isolate himself and insult himself
Speaker 2: rather with the people like sure along and other underlings
Speaker 2: that'll take the bullet for him, so to speak. But
Speaker 2: does that turn around to be problematic from a civil
Speaker 2: rights violation for the mayor of the City of Cincinnati, going, Hey,
Speaker 2: if it's proven that we were able to influence the
Speaker 2: arrest and prosecution of Alex Stravinsky, then of course that's
Speaker 2: a civil rights violation there. That's a pretty serious charge
Speaker 2: against officers of the City of Cincinnati, the mayor notwithstanding.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3: I'm going to try to walk a fine line here
Speaker 3: because I'm trying to be your legal analyst and not
Speaker 3: a standing critic of the mayor, which i am. This
Speaker 3: is the part where it gets really fun. If there's
Speaker 3: a malicious prosecution claim and it survives the early stages,
Speaker 3: they will have the ability to subpoene the documents and
Speaker 3: take demand documents, pull documents out of the city, and
Speaker 3: they'll have the ability to take depositions. And if, as
Speaker 3: one presumes, the city manager and or the mayor were
Speaker 3: involved in any way shape or forming the decision to
Speaker 3: charge Alex Tremensky, that's going to come out and that
Speaker 3: is inappropriate, I mean by any standard. I mean, they're
Speaker 3: not supposed to be under our charter form of government.
Speaker 3: You know, the police officers are supposed to be able
Speaker 3: to work independently and without political pressure. And if he
Speaker 3: can show that political pressure, that is a real problem.
Speaker 3: Not just in terms of civil liability and monetary damages.
Speaker 3: That's a real problem politically, and it's a real sign
Speaker 3: of just how things may have very well, really broken
Speaker 3: down by this. And you know, it sometimes can be
Speaker 3: a very minor thing like a misdemeanor, this misdemeanor charge.
Speaker 1: You know, there are over I think.
Speaker 3: Ten to fifteen thousand misdemeanors filed every year, you know,
Speaker 3: in Hamilton County. But one of these, this little thing,
Speaker 3: this little time charge, it typically doesn't carry jail time,
Speaker 3: could have huge ramifications down the road if it leads
Speaker 3: to a lawsuit that Chols there was political involvement in
Speaker 3: this decision to charge him, which common sense seems to
Speaker 3: indicate had to be the fact case, because it's very
Speaker 3: rare for a case like this to be charged many
Speaker 3: months after the fact.
Speaker 2: He is attorney Steve Gooden and a former consulman. Thanks
Speaker 2: for jumping on the show this morning. I think the
Speaker 2: short rate here is it probably should this should end
Speaker 2: rather quickly. But then it gets really interesting if Alex
Speaker 2: Schravinsky is axonerator will find out what happens. But the
Speaker 2: trial is set for today. Get some popcorn, baby, Steve,
Speaker 2: all the best.
Speaker 1: Thanks again, take care shot. Thanks all right.
Speaker 2: News update here seconds away on the Big One seven
Speaker 2: hundred WLW. I'll get the very latest then we'll return
Speaker 2: here on the show, we jump right in here. This
Speaker 2: is interesting. There's a case now that is coming out
Speaker 2: against Sephora and Benefit. They're cosmetic companies, and that they
Speaker 2: are deliberately to This is on the heels of the metaverdict,
Speaker 2: by the way, targeting children under the age of ten
Speaker 2: to get them to buy makeup. Kids under ten are
Speaker 2: now girls under ten are now using makeup makeup and
Speaker 2: the courts are trying to shut this down. We'll get
Speaker 2: into that next on the show seven hundred WLW.