2018 Ohio 1087
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan 31, 2017 (amended Feb 9), three NAACP members petitioned the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court for release of selected grand jury transcripts and exhibits from the investigation of Tamir Rice’s Nov. 22, 2014 shooting death.
- Requested materials: exhibits (photos, diagrams), written statements, expert reports and testimony, law‑enforcement reports, and prosecutors’ special instructions/arguments to the grand jury.
- Petitioners argued strong public interest and a particularized need for transparency, alleging prior selective disclosures by the former prosecutor and community concern about grand jury handling.
- The state consented to limited release only of prosecutors’ legal and voting instructions, but opposed broader disclosure; the state stressed its offer was case‑specific, not precedent‑setting.
- Trial court denied the petition under Crim.R. 6(E), finding petitioners failed to show a particularized need that outweighed grand jury secrecy and noting ongoing disciplinary proceedings and the risk of eroding grand jury secrecy.
- The court of appeals affirmed, applying an abuse‑of‑discretion review and concluding the trial court reasonably balanced secrecy against petitioners’ asserted need.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervising court may release grand jury transcripts/exhibits despite Crim.R. 6(E) | Court has discretion to order disclosure in interest of public transparency and justice | Crim.R. 6(E) secrecy is mandatory except in narrow, statutory or judicially recognized exceptions | Denied: no authority showed wholesale public release to non‑parties; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether petitioners demonstrated a particularized need overcoming grand jury secrecy | Public interest, prior selective disclosures, and community concern establish particularized need | Petitioners lack a judicial or litigative purpose; curiosity/public interest alone insufficient; limited disclosure already offered | Denied: petitioners failed to show particularized need outweighing secrecy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1992) (grand jury is a constitutional fixture and secrecy is integral to its function)
- In re Petition for Disclosure of Evidence Presented to Franklin Cty. Grand Juries in 1970, 63 Ohio St.2d 212 (Ohio 1980) (court may order disclosure only after weighing secrecy against petitioner’s particularized need)
- State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139 (Ohio 1981) (petitioner must show a particularized need that outweighs grand jury secrecy)
- State v. Coley, 93 Ohio St.3d 253 (Ohio 2001) (review standard: release of grand jury materials is committed to trial court’s discretion)
- State v. Grewell, 45 Ohio St.3d 4 (Ohio 1989) (determination of particularized need rests within trial court discretion)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1966) (use of news media as a forum for resolving criminal case issues is disapproved)