Sherrod v. Haller
2017 Ohio 5614
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John Crawford III was shot and killed by a Beavercreek police officer at a Wal‑Mart on August 5, 2014; investigations included a Greene County grand jury and a DOJ review.
- Petitioners (Crawford's estate and relatives) filed a Petition for Limited Release of Grand Jury Transcript seeking transcripts of two officers (Williams and Darkow) who testified before the grand jury without invoking the Fifth Amendment.
- Petitioners asserted a particularized need because a federal civil suit they filed has a stay on the officers’ depositions, allegedly prejudicing their ability to litigate.
- Respondents moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and alternatively for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C); the trial court granted dismissal under Civ.R. 12(C).
- The trial court concluded Petitioners failed to show the required "particularized need" that outweighs grand jury secrecy, noting the federal stay could be lifted and depositions obtained.
- The appellate majority reviewed the Civ.R. 12(C) dismissal de novo and affirmed; a dissent argued procedural error, that factual issues remained, and the petition should proceed to in‑camera review or further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transcripts of two officers' grand jury testimony must be released despite Crim.R. 6(E) secrecy | Need is particularized because the federal civil case has a stay on depositions, so transcripts are necessary to avoid prejudice | Secrecy presumption stands; Petitioners have not shown they will likely be unable to obtain testimony by other means | Court: Petitioners failed the threshold "particularized need" showing; dismissal under Civ.R. 12(C) affirmed |
| Whether a Civ.R. 12(C) dismissal was proper given pleadings and inferences | Pleadings allege concrete facts (no‑true‑bill, limited scope, transcripts already exist, stay on depositions) and should survive judgment on the pleadings | Under Civ.R. 12(C) accept pleadings as true but Petitioners still cannot prove necessary facts to overcome secrecy | Court: Even construing pleadings favorably, Petitioners only showed possibility, not probability, of deprivation; legal judgment proper |
| Whether the trial court permissibly relied on speculative future lifting of the federal stay | Petitioners say relying on the possibility of lifting is speculative and insufficient | Respondents and trial court note the stay is subject to review and likely temporary, reducing need for grand jury disclosure | Court: Speculative possibility of lifting does not relieve Petitioners of burden, and does not render dismissal erroneous |
| Whether further factual development or in‑camera review was required | Petitioners contend factual issues (particularized need) warrant evidentiary proceedings or in‑camera inspection | Respondents argue the pleadings are insufficient; judgment on pleadings is appropriate | Court: Because threshold particularized‑need not met, further factfinding unnecessary; dismissal affirmed (dissent disagrees) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Petition for Disclosure of Evidence Presented to Franklin County Grand Juries in 1970, 63 Ohio St.2d 212 (discusses five reasons for maintaining grand jury secrecy)
- United States v. Rose, 215 F.2d 617 (3d Cir.) (articulates traditional rationales for grand jury secrecy)
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (private need and convenience do not alone satisfy disclosure burden)
- Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (disclosure requires balancing need against secrecy; standard is flexible)
- United States v. Sells Eng., Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (Douglas Oil balancing applicable; protections vary with circumstance)
- State v. Coley, 93 Ohio St.3d 253 (denial of grand jury disclosure ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion)