The official reporter of the county, or any reporter designated by the court of common pleas, at the request of the prosecuting attorney, or any such reporter designated by the attorney general in investigations conducted by the attorney general, may take notes of or electronically record testimony before the grand jury, and furnish a transcript to the prosecuting attorney or the attorney general, and to no other person. The reporter shall withdraw from the jury room before the jurors begin to express their views or take their vote on the matter before them. Such reporter shall take an oath to be administered by the judge after the grand jury is sworn, imposing an obligation of secrecy to not disclose any testimony taken or heard except to the grand jury, prosecuting attorney, or attorney general, unless called upon in court to make disclosures.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: Desmond v. State, 2020-Ohio-181, 141 N.E.3d 1052.
Desmond v. State, 2020-Ohio-181, 141 N.E.3d 1052. · cites it 2ד” In addition, R.C. 2939.11 imposes upon the reporter who records testimony before the grand jury “an obligation of secrecy to not disclose any testimony taken or heard except to the grand jury, prosecuting attorney, or attorney general, unless called upon in court to make…”
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Waters, 617 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio 1993). “6, and Petition for Disclosure of Evidence discusses it as an aspect of *327 R.C. 2939.11. Thus, far from establishing inherent authority of the court of common pleas, these cases emphasize the derivative nature of that authority.”
State v. Brown, 651 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1994). “In any event, the shorthand reporter is required, under R.C. 2939.11, to withdraw from the jury room before the jurors begin to express their views or take their vote on the matter before them.”
King v. Jones, 319 F. Supp. 653 (N.D. Ohio 1970). · cites it 2דO.R.C. § 2939.11. However, the statutory provisions pertaining to witnesses before a grand jury in Ohio require only that an oath to truly testify be administered, O.”
State v. Amison, 208 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2דSection 2939.11, Revised Code, provides, as specifically here applicable, that: “The official shorthand reporter of the county * * * at the request of the prosecuting attorney * * * may take shorthand notes of testimony before the grand jury, and furnish a transcript to the…”
Stakich v. Russo, 2014-Ohio-2526. “The county prosecutor’s office filed a motion to quash subpoena and for a protective order arguing that grand jury information and testimony is confidential pursuant to R.C. 2939.11. Appellee filed a brief in opposition.”
State v. Debo, 222 N.E.2d 656 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 2דSection 2939.11, Revised Code. We do not condone this conduct, but we cannot find that same constituted error prejudicial to the defendant, particularly when the defendant did not persist in obtaining a ruling from the trial court as to the conduct, or move for a mistrial, or…”
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Waters, 1993 Ohio 77 (Ohio 1993). “6, and Petition for Disclosure of Evidence discusses it as an aspect of R.C. 2939.11. Thus, far from establishing inherent authority of the court of common pleas, these cases emphasize the derivative nature of that authority.”
State ex rel. Baxter v. Maschari, 6 Ohio App. Unrep. 180 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1990). · cites it 7דRelator asserted in his complaint that respondent is required by R.C.2939.11 and Crim. R. 6(E) to provide him with a transcriptof the grand jury proceedings and that the refusal to do so constitutes a violation of a duty specifically provided for by law.”
State v. Smith, 2025-Ohio-5512. “6(E); R.C. 2939.11. The disclosure of testimony and other evidence that has been presented before the grand jury is permitted only when “‘the ends of justice require it,’” and the petitioner has shown that a “‘particularized need for disclosure exists which outweighs the need…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.