Ohio

Overview

Ohio operates a decentralized criminal justice system in which the constitutional obligations under Brady and Giglio are well acknowledged—but structurally unsupported. Despite being home to over 900 law enforcement agencies and 88 elected county prosecutors, the state does not maintain a centralized database of law enforcement officers with credibility impairments, nor does it require local agencies to notify prosecutors of sustained misconduct. Prosecutorial discretion drives disclosure practices, which vary dramatically from one county to the next. Public access to internal disciplinary records remains limited due to restrictive personnel laws and union protections. While some large counties—such as Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus), and Hamilton (Cincinnati)—have begun to develop Giglio lists or internal protocols, there is no statewide policy, mandate, or oversight mechanism to ensure uniform compliance. In Ohio, whether candor reaches the courtroom depends heavily on geography and will.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

Criminal prosecutions in Ohio are handled by the 88 County Prosecuting Attorneys, who enjoy broad autonomy. The Ohio Attorney General’s Office plays a supporting role in state-level investigations, criminal appeals, and multi-county matters but does not supervise local prosecutors.

Disclosure is governed by a combination of state law, ethical rules, and case law:

• Ohio Criminal Rule 16: Provides for discovery in criminal cases, including any evidence favorable to the accused.

• Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d): Requires prosecutors to disclose known evidence that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment.

• Ohio Public Records Act (R.C. § 149.43): Allows access to public records but exempts most police disciplinary files under the “personnel file” exception unless specifically required by law or court order.

Law enforcement certification is handled by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission (OPOTC), which establishes training and certification standards but does not publish or maintain a public registry of decertified or credibility-impaired officers.

There is no statutory requirement for prosecutors to maintain Giglio lists, and no obligation for law enforcement agencies to notify prosecutors of sustained findings related to dishonesty, bias, or misconduct.

Historical Context

Ohio’s lack of systemic disclosure has come under fire in several wrongful conviction cases and civil rights lawsuits over the past two decades. High-profile scandals involving evidence suppression, false confessions, and the testimony of discredited officers have prompted calls for reform—especially in urban centers.

The Ricky Jackson case is one of the most notorious. Jackson was exonerated in 2014 after spending 39 years in prison, due in part to the prosecution’s failure to disclose evidence that impeached its star witness. Although the case prompted internal reviews in Cuyahoga County, it did not lead to statewide changes in how Brady material is tracked or shared.

More recently, the Columbus Division of Police has faced multiple lawsuits for failing to disclose sustained misconduct findings involving officers who continued to testify. Despite mounting public pressure, neither Columbus nor the state legislature has moved to formalize a Giglio tracking or disclosure system.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

Ohio’s Constitution guarantees due process under Article I, Section 16 and confrontation rights under Section 10, both of which parallel federal protections.

Relevant statutes and rules include:

• Criminal Rule 16(B)(5): Requires the disclosure of “evidence favorable to the defendant and material to guilt or punishment.”

• Rule 3.8(d) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct: Codifies a prosecutor’s duty to disclose impeachment and exculpatory evidence, even absent a defense request.

• R.C. § 149.43(A)(1): Defines public records but excludes most personnel records and internal investigations unless a compelling public interest is found.

Ohio law lacks any statutory framework for Giglio compliance, and neither prosecutors nor police departments are legally obligated to maintain or share credibility-related information.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

• State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (1988): Reaffirmed that suppression of material exculpatory or impeachment evidence violates due process.

• State v. Wickline, 50 Ohio St.3d 114 (1990): The Court declined to find a Brady violation because the defense had not specifically requested the withheld evidence, reflecting a narrow view of prosecutorial obligation.

• State v. Adams, 144 Ohio App.3d 97 (2001): Found a due process violation where the prosecution failed to disclose prior inconsistent statements of a key witness.

Ohio courts have generally followed federal precedent but have not imposed proactive obligations or required prosecutors to create internal tracking systems for officer misconduct.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

Most police departments in Ohio handle internal discipline confidentially. Findings of dishonesty, fabrication, or constitutional violations are not routinely shared with prosecutors unless criminal charges are filed. Even when an officer is terminated for misconduct, that information often remains siloed within the department.

OPOTC may decertify officers for criminal convictions, but the process is slow and opaque. The Commission does not flag officers for Giglio concerns or coordinate with prosecutors. Officers fired in one jurisdiction may be hired in another without disclosing prior disciplinary records—an issue that has surfaced repeatedly in media investigations.

There is no requirement for law enforcement agencies to provide Brady or Giglio training to officers, and many prosecutors’ offices lack standardized training protocols for disclosure obligations. The result is inconsistent awareness of what material qualifies as impeaching—and even less clarity on how or when to disclose it.

Some large county prosecutors (e.g., Franklin and Cuyahoga) have created internal “Do Not Call” or “Disclosure Review” lists, but these are not public and not subject to oversight. Smaller counties often rely on ad hoc relationships with local departments or choose not to track officer credibility concerns at all.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

There is no centralized prosecutorial oversight body in Ohio. Ethical complaints are handled by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, but disciplinary action for Brady violations is exceedingly rare and not tied to routine audits or Giglio compliance.

The Inspector General of Ohio investigates wrongdoing in state agencies, but does not review local police or prosecutor behavior unless tied to a state investigation.

There is no mechanism for the public—or defense attorneys—to access officer misconduct records unless obtained through litigation, subpoenas, or whistleblowers.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Ricky Jackson, Wiley and Kwame Bridgeman (1975–2014)
   Three men spent decades in prison after prosecutors failed to disclose that their star witness had recanted. The officers involved had prior credibility concerns, but no tracking or disclosure system existed to flag them.

2. Officer Zachary Rosen, Columbus PD (2017)
   Rosen was caught on video stomping a suspect’s head, was previously involved in a controversial fatal shooting, and faced multiple excessive force complaints. None of these were disclosed in court when he testified in unrelated cases. Internal affairs records remained sealed under the public records law.

3. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Police Dept. (2019)
   The Enquirer sued for access to internal affairs records of officers with credibility issues. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that such records were not public, reinforcing the difficulty of external oversight and defense discovery.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases reflect a pattern: officers with serious misconduct histories continued to testify in criminal trials without disclosure to defense counsel, often because there was no legal obligation to track or share such information. The burden thus falls entirely on defense attorneys to uncover material that prosecutors and police already possess—undermining the core principle of due process.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• No Statewide Giglio Infrastructure: Prosecutors are not required to track or share officer credibility concerns.

• No Law Enforcement Reporting Mandate: Departments are not required to notify prosecutors about internal discipline.

• Personnel Files Shielded: Most internal affairs and disciplinary records are exempt from disclosure under Ohio’s broad personnel file exemptions.

• Lack of Oversight and Training: There is no body responsible for auditing Giglio compliance or standardizing training across jurisdictions.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Proposals to expand disclosure laws or create a centralized officer misconduct registry have faced pushback from police unions and local prosecutors. The lack of a state-level prosecutorial oversight body leaves each DA to set their own policy—often informally. Efforts to reform public records access have been weakened by court rulings that favor departmental discretion and privacy over transparency.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Create a Statewide Giglio Database
   Mandate that all county prosecutors maintain a list of officers with sustained findings of dishonesty, bias, or misconduct affecting courtroom credibility.

2. Enact a Law Enforcement Reporting Requirement
   Require all police and sheriff’s departments to notify prosecutors within 30 days of any sustained disciplinary finding that implicates Brady or Giglio.

3. Integrate OPOTC with Prosecutorial Functions
   Establish data-sharing agreements between OPOTC and all county prosecutor offices to flag decertified officers or those under disciplinary review.

4. Amend Criminal Rule 16 for Proactive Disclosure
   Expand the rule to explicitly include internal disciplinary records and impeachment evidence under mandatory early disclosure.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Reform Ohio’s Public Records Law
   Amend R.C. § 149.43 to remove exemptions for sustained police misconduct findings related to testimony or use of force.

2. Establish a Prosecutorial Integrity Office
   Create an independent body to oversee Brady and Giglio compliance statewide and audit prosecutor offices for disclosure practices.

3. Mandate Giglio Training for Officers and Prosecutors
   Require recurring training on Brady obligations for all law enforcement officers and prosecutors as part of certification or continuing education.

4. Develop a Public-Facing Police Misconduct Portal
   Publish redacted summaries of sustained findings relevant to credibility or civil rights violations, modeled after transparency portals in other states.

Conclusion

Ohio's criminal justice system has recognized the duty of candor in theory but left it unbuilt in practice. The lack of tracking systems, interagency communication, and public access means truth in the courtroom is still often obscured—if not outright concealed. Without reform, the state risks wrongful convictions, public distrust, and persistent constitutional violations. Full candor requires structure, enforcement, and sunlight. In Ohio, that work is just beginning.