8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Greergreen2 sentences2015Thus, the particularized need test applies both to petitions for grand jury materials made before or during the criminal trial and to petitions made in other criminal or civil proceedings: “In the case at bar * * * if a sufficient showing of need was made, some of their [grand jury] testimony could be disclosed without eroding the grand jury system.” Id. at 220 ; see also State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139, 148 , 420 N.E.2d 982 (“In [Petition for Disclosure], this court again referred to the particularized need test in the allowance of grand jury testimony to be used in a civil trial, upon a sa 2015Thus, the particularized need test applies both to petitions for grand jury materials made before or during the criminal trial and to petitions made in other criminal or civil proceedings: “In the case at bar * * * if a sufficient showing of need was made, some of their [grand jury] testimony could be disclosed without eroding the grand jury system.” Id. at 220 ; see also State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139, 148 , 420 N.E.2d 982 (“In [Petition for Disclosure], this court again referred to the particularized need test in the allowance of grand jury testimony to be used in a civil trial, upon a sa | 2 | 3 |
State v. Langgreen2 sentences2024Compare State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , ¶ 45 (“Lang’s assertion that he did not know who testified during the grand jury or what they said provides no excuse for failing to establish a particularized need”). {¶17} The first assignment of error is without merit. {¶18} In the second assignment of error, Newton raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2024Compare State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , ¶ 45 (“Lang’s assertion that he did not know who testified during the grand jury or what they said provides no excuse for failing to establish a particularized need”). {¶17} The first assignment of error is without merit. {¶18} In the second assignment of error, Newton raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2015See id. (noting that the Court in Petition for Disclosure of Evidence, a civil case, “referred to the particularized need test in the allowance of grand jury testimony to be used in a civil trial”). 2006Approved and followed.)" Id., Syllabus by the Court, paragraph 2. {¶ 19} Patterson, Greer and the earlier cases such as State v. Lasky (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 187 , in which the particularized need standard was applied, were criminal cases in which an accused sought discovery of grand jury minutes from the court in which the criminal changes were pending, to use for exculpatory purposes. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Dimoragreen2 sentences2024We further note that, even under federal law, “[a] party seeking disclosure of grand jury material under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure must demonstrate a particularized need.” United States v. Dimora, 836 F.Supp.2d 534, 552 (N.D.Ohio 2011); “To meet the particularized need standard, a party must establish that: (1) the material sought is necessary to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding; (2) the need for disclosure outweighs the need for continued secrecy; and (3) the request is 6 Case No. 2023-T-0050 structured narrowly to cover only the material ne 2024We further note that, even under federal law, “[a] party seeking disclosure of grand jury material under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure must demonstrate a particularized need.” United States v. Dimora, 836 F.Supp.2d 534, 552 (N.D.Ohio 2011); “To meet the particularized need standard, a party must establish that: (1) the material sought is necessary to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding; (2) the need for disclosure outweighs the need for continued secrecy; and (3) the request is 6 Case No. 2023-T-0050 structured narrowly to cover only the material ne | 1 | 1 |
Wurth v. Emro Marketing Companygreen2 sentences2015Thus, the particularized need test applies both to petitions for grand jury materials made before or during the criminal trial and to petitions made in other criminal or civil proceedings: “In the case at bar * * * if a sufficient showing of need was made, some of their [grand jury] testimony could be disclosed without eroding the grand jury system.” Id. at 220 ; see also State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139, 148 , 420 N.E.2d 982 (“In [Petition for Disclosure], this court again referred to the particularized need test in the allowance of grand jury testimony to be used in a civil trial, upon a sa 2015Thus, the particularized need test applies both to petitions for grand jury materials made before or during the criminal trial and to petitions made in other criminal or civil proceedings: “In the case at bar * * * if a sufficient showing of need was made, some of their [grand jury] testimony could be disclosed without eroding the grand jury system.” Id. at 220 ; see also State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139, 148 , 420 N.E.2d 982 (“In [Petition for Disclosure], this court again referred to the particularized need test in the allowance of grand jury testimony to be used in a civil trial, upon a sa | 1 | 1 |
In The Matter Of Grand Jury Proceedings, Special September, 1986. Appeals Of Chester L. Blairgreen1 sentence2014No. 2:00-CR-171, 2007 WL 1058231 (Apr. 4, 2007) (argument that “there is no way a Grand Jury should have indicted [the defendant] * * * without some kind of prosecutor misconduct * * *” is fishing for anything helpful to a defendant’s cause and does not demonstrate a particularized need to inspect grand jury transcripts), citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 942 F.2d 1195, 1199 (7th Cir. 1991) (“The secrecy of a grand jury proceeding is not to be pierced by such a slender reed: a mere possibility of benefit does not satisfy the required showing of a particularized need.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael John Canino, James Gilbert Marcum, John G. Flynn, and David Leonard Malkingreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 565 F.Supp 1416, 1437 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (a defendant cannot rely on speculation and surmise of prosecutorial abuse to obtain access to grand jury transcripts); United States v. Canino, 949 F.2d 928, 943 (7th Cir.1991) (the mere -13- Case No. 13-13-54, 13-13-55 unsupported speculation of possible prosecutorial abuse does not meet the particularized need standard); United States v. Best, N.D.Ind. 2014See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 565 F.Supp 1416, 1437 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (a defendant cannot rely on speculation and surmise of prosecutorial abuse to obtain access to grand jury transcripts); United States v. Canino, 949 F.2d 928, 943 (7th Cir.1991) (the mere -13- Case No. 13-13-54, 13-13-55 unsupported speculation of possible prosecutorial abuse does not meet the particularized need standard); United States v. Best, N.D.Ind. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Petition for Disclosure of Evidence Presented to Franklin County Grand Juries in 1970
green
2 sentences2015Thus, the particularized need test applies both to petitions for grand jury materials made before or during the criminal trial and to petitions made in other criminal or civil proceedings: “In the case at bar * * * if a sufficient showing of need was made, some of their [grand jury] testimony could be disclosed without eroding the grand jury system.” Id. at 220 ; see also State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139, 148 , 420 N.E.2d 982 (“In [Petition for Disclosure], this court again referred to the particularized need test in the allowance of grand jury testimony to be used in a civil trial, upon a sa 1981In the recent case of Petition for Disclosure of Evidence (1980), 63 Ohio St. 2d 212 , this court again referred to the particularized need test in the allowance of grand jury testimony to be used in a civil trial, upon the satisfactory showing to the trial court that the petitioner’s or movant’s need for the information outweighs the need to maintain the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. | 2 | 1981–2015 |
Craig v. Lima City Schools Board of Education
green
1 sentence2015Thus, the particularized need test applies both to petitions for grand jury materials made before or during the criminal trial and to petitions made in other criminal or civil proceedings: “In the case at bar * * * if a sufficient showing of need was made, some of their [grand jury] testimony could be disclosed without eroding the grand jury system.” Id. at 220 ; see also State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139, 148 , 420 N.E.2d 982 (“In [Petition for Disclosure], this court again referred to the particularized need test in the allowance of grand jury testimony to be used in a civil trial, upon a sa | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Marcus
green
1 sentence2014Moreover, federal courts have held that “[a] review of grand jury minutes is rarely permitted without specific factual allegations of government misconduct.” U.S. v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 , 233 (2d Cir.1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir.2010), citing Wilson at 1436-1437. {¶27} Therefore, we will apply the particularized need test to the issue raised by this case in the same manner it has been applied to allegations of inconsistent witness testimony. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Torres
green
1 sentence2014Moreover, federal courts have held that “[a] review of grand jury minutes is rarely permitted without specific factual allegations of government misconduct.” U.S. v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 , 233 (2d Cir.1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir.2010), citing Wilson at 1436-1437. {¶27} Therefore, we will apply the particularized need test to the issue raised by this case in the same manner it has been applied to allegations of inconsistent witness testimony. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Laskey
green
2 sentences2006Approved and followed.)" Id., Syllabus by the Court, paragraph 2. {¶ 19} Patterson, Greer and the earlier cases such as State v. Lasky (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 187 , in which the particularized need standard was applied, were criminal cases in which an accused sought discovery of grand jury minutes from the court in which the criminal changes were pending, to use for exculpatory purposes. 2006In Greer , the court held: {¶ 20} "Whether particularized need for disclosure of grand jury testimony is shown is a question of fact; but, generally, it is shown where from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances it is probable that the failure to disclose the testimony will deprive the defendant of a fair adjudication of the allegations placed in issue by the witness' trial testimony." Id., Syllabus by the Court, paragraph 3. {¶ 21} In criminal cases, an accused's request for disclosure of the grand jury testimony of a state's witnesses is essentially reactive, one weighed in rel | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1988State v. Roberts (1976), 50 Ohio App. 2d 237, 247 , 4 O.O. 3d 211, 217, 362 N.E. 2d 1003, 1010 . 1988State v. Roberts (1976), 50 Ohio App. 2d 237, 247 , 4 O.O. 3d 211, 217, 362 N.E. 2d 1003, 1010 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.