Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Court Procedure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sponsors propose exempting grand juror names from public records after 2024 court ruling

House Judiciary Committee · February 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Supporters said HB 565 would amend Ohio public-records law to protect grand juror identities after the state Supreme Court held in 2024 that those names could be subject to disclosure; sponsors said the change is narrow and preserves court authority while protecting juror safety.

Representatives Charles and Odioso presented House Bill 565 as a narrow statutory fix to restore a long-standing presumption of grand jury secrecy after a 2024 Ohio Supreme Court decision (Colgan v. Jefferson County Clerk of Courts) held grand juror names may be subject to public-records disclosure.

"If we ask everyday Ohioans to step into one of the most serious responsibilities in our justice system, should we also ask them to risk their personal safety and privacy to do it?" Representative Charles asked the committee. He said grand jurors are not public officials and that the bill amends R.C. 149.43 to exempt grand juror names and similar identifying information from mandatory public disclosure, while preserving court processes and oversight.

Representative Odioso, the joint sponsor, said the change is rooted in longstanding common-law principles and is intended to restore protections without infringing constitutional or procedural rules. Members asked whether the bill includes specific provisions to address social-media harassment and outreach; sponsors said HB 565 focuses on removing a public-records route to identifying jurors and that social-media harassment protections would require separate legislation.

The committee concluded the sponsor testimony with members expressing support and curiosity about related measures for online harassment, and no committee vote was recorded during the hearing.