State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ghiz
101 N.E.3d 1005
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- July 2015: Univ. of Cincinnati officer Raymond Tensing shot and killed Samuel DuBose; first trial (Oct–Nov 2016) ended in mistrial after jury deadlock.
- Judge Leslie Ghiz presided over the second trial; before it began she denied public release of completed juror questionnaires and issued strict media-access restrictions (limited media seats, banned electronic devices in courtroom/floor, prohibited photographing jurors, required shared camera feed).
- Media organizations filed original actions seeking writs of prohibition (to block enforcement of the access restrictions) and mandamus (to compel release of juror questionnaires).
- This court previously enjoined enforcement of Ghiz’s initial order and ordered a hearing; Ghiz then held an in-court hearing (June 1, 2017), reviewed completed questionnaires, and took judicial notice of various security/social-media concerns.
- Court of Appeals concluded Ghiz failed to follow the Bond procedure for individual in‑camera inquiry of jurors; ordered release of questionnaires with redaction of identifying data (names, addresses, SSNs, phone numbers, driver’s licenses, and employers where disclosure would identify jurors).
- Petition for writ of prohibition was dismissed as moot because the trial ended and indictments were dismissed; a concurrence/dissent argued the issue meets the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether completed juror questionnaires must be disclosed | Media: First Amendment and state constitutional right of public access extends to juror questionnaires; mandamus should compel disclosure | Judge: Public-safety/privacy concerns justify withholding questionnaires and juror identities without further individualized inquiry | Court: Qualified right to access exists; questionnaires must be released but personal identifying info must be redacted; trial judge failed to conduct required individual Bond inquiries before nondisclosure |
| Whether court may impose broad media-access restrictions (courtroom seating, device bans, photographing jurors) | Media: Restrictions exceed permissible limits; should be prohibited | Judge: Restrictions necessary for juror safety, courtroom security, and to prevent intimidation/disruption | Court: Writ of prohibition dismissed as moot (trial concluded); declined to rule on merits. Dissent argued exception to mootness applied and merits should be reached |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Bond, 98 Ohio St.3d 146 (2002) (establishes procedure and presumption of public access for juror questionnaires and voir dire; in‑camera inquiry requirement)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (First Amendment presumption of openness for voir dire; closure only for overriding interest narrowly tailored)
- State ex rel. Scott v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 139 Ohio St.3d 171 (2014) (mandamus standards: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy; burden is clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. News-Herald v. Ottawa Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 77 Ohio St.3d 40 (1996) (mandamus is proper to compel disclosure of records under public‑access principles)