Ohio

Delinquency and dependency proceedings: Juvenile court proceedings are neither presumptively open nor presumptively closed in Ohio. A juvenile court can restrict public access to the proceedings if, after a hearing, it finds there is a reasonable and substantial basis for believing that public access could harm the child or endanger the fairness of the adjudication, the potential harm to the child outweighs the benefits of public access and there are no reasonable alternatives to closure. In re T.R., 556 N.E.2d 439, 451 (Ohio 1990). Before excluding the media and public from a juvenile court proceeding, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine under the In re T.R. standard whether the proceeding should be closed. State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co. v. Floyd, 855 N.E.2d 35, 42 (Ohio 2006). In In re T.R., the Ohio Supreme Court stated that the public may have an interest in juvenile delinquency proceedings analogous to its interest in criminal proceedings, which are presumptively open. Applying this language, a trial court held that the public does have such an interest, and “the closer the alleged delinquent is to the age of 18, the greater is the public’s interest in access to the proceedings. Moreover, the public’s interest is accentuated when the alleged delinquent is the subject of a pending motion to transfer to General Division for prosecution as an adult, because, at such time, the gap between the juvenile court and the General Division is at its narrowest.” Thus, the court held that the public has a First Amendment-based right of access to transfer hearings — an interest that “must be weighed against the unique confidentiality concerns of the child, which exist in all juvenile court proceedings.” In re N.H., 626 N.E.2d 697, 703 (Ohio Ct. C.P. 1992); see also State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co. v. Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, 734 N.E.2d 1214, 1219 (Ohio 2000); Ohio v. Evans, 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1735, 1736 (Ohio Ct. C.P. 1997).

The issue of public access to Ohio juvenile courts garnered national attention in February 2012, when high school sophomore T.J. Lane allegedly gunned down three students at Chardon High School and wounded two others. The 17-year-old was charged with aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder and felonious assault in juvenile court. A juvenile judge issued a gag order preventing the accused shooter and lawyers from speaking with the media, though some interviews had been granted prior to the order. The order also prohibited the media from photographing Lane’s face or his family members in court. Although the judge rescinded that order shortly after its imposition, juvenile court judges may impose gag orders on participants in cases provided they are not overbroad and the interests underlying them are balanced against those of the media and public. Some juvenile court judges have reacted favorably to arguments that such gag orders restrict the media’s access to juvenile court proceedings and impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication.

Delinquency and dependency records: In general, juvenile court records are not open for public inspection in Ohio. However, there is an exception for certain juvenile records that are relevant to the state in prosecuting the juvenile as an adult. Moreover, some juvenile court judges allow access to juvenile court records, especially when the juvenile court proceedings are open to the public. Records in those cases where a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent for committing certain serious felonies, including aggravated murder, may not be sealed. However, some information in those court documents, including identifying information about the alleged juvenile offender’s victim and any written statement he or she submitted to the court for its consideration in imposing the sentence, may remain confidential. The transcript of a juvenile court proceeding may be released where there is no evidence of a reasonable and substantial basis for believing that public access to the transcript could harm the child involved or endanger the fairness of the adjudication, or that any potential harm outweighs the benefits of public access. State ex rel. Scripps Howard Broad. Co. v. Cuyahoga County, 652 N.E.2d 179, 182—83 (Ohio 1995). Records and reports compiled by state agencies in relation to an allegation of child sexual abuse are confidential and privileged, but permission to view the records may be granted for good cause, an analysis that incorporates the concept of the best interest of the child. In re Henderson, No. 96-L-068, 1997 WL 752633, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).

Restrictions on coverage: Ohio law allows victims who were 10 years old or younger when the defendant was charged to testify about sexual offenses outside the presence of the defendant via video-recorded testimony or closed-circuit television. The statute does not specify whether the media and public may remain in the courtroom during this testimony. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.41 (West 2011).

Cameras: Ohio is one of just a few states that allow cameras and recording devices in juvenile courts, provided a victim or witness does not object to their presence. Members of the news media who wish to photograph proceedings in a juvenile case must file a written request with the presiding judge, who, after consultation with the news organizations, will specify the place in the courtroom from which photographs and recordings may be made. If the media’s request is granted, there is no prohibition on photographing or recording the juvenile. Ohio Ct. R. 12.