Background

• Terrell Vanzandt was indicted on drug trafficking charges and acquitted by a jury.
• After acquittal, the trial court sealed the acquittal records under R.C. 2953.52 with no objection from the state.
• Three months later the state sought to unseal the records to use them in a separate witness-retaliation case involving Vanzandt.
• The court granted a limited order unsealing the records for use in the retaliation case only, leaving other access sealed.
• Vanzandt argued that the court lacked statutory authority to unseal the records.
• The appellate court held that courts have inherent power to unseal sealed records in unusual and exceptional circumstances and did not abuse its discretion here.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Pepper Pike v. Doe, 66 Ohio St.2d 374 (1981) (judicial expungement authority in unusual circumstances)
• State v. Boykin, 2012-Ohio-1381 (9th Dist. 2012) (recognizes judicial expungement power in limited contexts)
• In re Application to Seal Record of No Bill, 131 Ohio App.3d 399 (1999) (no-bill records sealable outside statutory framework)
• Bound v. Biscotti, 76 Ohio Misc.2d 6 (M.C. 1995) (arrest records may be sealed where no charges filed)
• State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 149 Ohio App.3d 350 (2002-Ohio-4803) (preservation of public access rights and supervisory control over records)
• Akron v. Frazier, 142 Ohio App.3d 718 (9th Dist. 2001) (automatic access rights under sealing statute do not foreclose discretionary access)
• Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (courts have supervisory power over their records)
• In re Search Warrant No. 5077/91, 96 Ohio App.3d 737 (10th Dist.1994) (courts’ supervisory power over records)
• State v. Chiaverini, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1190 (6th Dist. 2001) (limits of judicial expungement authority)