The Ohio Supreme Court was far more likely to review appeals brought by prosecutors than those filed by defendants last year, according to an Ohio Court Watch analysis.
Over a nine-month period, the analysis found nearly 80% of the cases the state's highest court accepted were brought by prosecutors, while approximately 20% were filed on behalf of criminal defendants.
Ohio Court Watch, which was created by former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly and run by Cleveland State University law students, found a significant shift from the previous year, when cases accepted for review were split evenly between prosecutors and defendants.
Ohio Court Watch aims to increase transparency in the state's legal system, with an emphasis on the state's top court.
"Their decisions are consequential for all of us," Donnelly said. "The cases at the Ohio Supreme Court become the law of the state of Ohio."
"I think part of our intention was also to provide these statistics to the court themselves so they can be more aware of what they're analyzing and what they're accepting," said Editor in Chief Lila Robinson.
How cases are selected
According to its website, the Supreme Court of Ohio must accept certain cases, including appeals involving the death penalty, constitutional issues and cases from the court of appeals with conflicting opinions.
However, the Ohio Constitution says the Supreme Court should review other cases that are of "public or great general interest." A 4-3 majority is needed to decide whether to grant or deny review.
Ohio Court Watch obtained public records from the Office of the Ohio Public Defender to determine whether the court was more likely to accept appeals submitted by prosecutors or by the defense.
Ohio Court Watch also requested information from 2024 and found a significant shift from the court's previous term, despite a similar number of criminal appeals submitted for review.
"If you don't have that data and you're not aware of the decisions you're making, this is the result," Donnelly said. "There can be an imbalance of cases that come in."
He continued, "That could mean that cases involving individual rights that appellate courts are dismissing as harmless error don't get in for review."
From January to October 2025, 452 appeals were submitted for review. In 2024, there were 462, according to Ohio Court Watch.
Ohio Court Watch found the court accepted 18 criminal cases brought by prosecutors and 18 brought by the defense in 2024.
"Our intention is solely to promote transparency, restore public confidence in our systems and to provide assistance to practitioners, defense attorneys and prosecutors alike, in letting them know what the court considers to be important enough to review," Robinson said.
Which cases weren't selected
The students also analyzed cases the court declined to review.
"There are cases that the court has not accepted or has accepted that impact the rights that we have as public citizens," Robinson said. "For example, there was a case out of Ross County — a Fourth Amendment case, and the court did not accept review. We felt that it, perhaps, should have, because the Fourth Amendment is part of our everyday life."
"We may take it for granted. We may not think that we have that right through our day-to-day basis, but it does impact our lives. It protects us from unwanted intrusion, and we felt that the court had an opportunity to clarify what those boundaries are between police intrusion and public citizen protection," she said.
The court also declined to review a case involving John R. Hicks, who was convicted of robbery and theft when he stole his own car after it was repossessed.
Cleveland State University Law Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich said it "would have been a great case to clarify who has the burden in a situation where the prosecutor wants to amend an indictment partway or near the end of a trial."
Hicks alleged he was ambushed at his trial when prosecutors made three changes to the charges against him that were not heard by a grand jury.
For example, prosecutors initially alleged Hicks used a firearm when he committed the crime. Then, they amended the indictment, alleging the deadly weapon Hicks used was his car.
"In this case, it might have meant he should get a new trial," Witmer-Rich said.
He said the justices could have provided explicit guidance on when prosecutors may amend an indictment.
"It would have been a good case for the Ohio Supreme Court to take and be able to say, 'How does the burden work here?'" he said. "When is a change too much of a change to an indictment versus when is it just a small matter that might be okay?"
Ohio Supreme Court response
News 5 Investigators reached out to the Supreme Court of Ohio about Ohio Court Watch's findings.
The court declined to comment, but Director of Public Information Andy Ellinger provided the following statement:
"Initially, the Supreme Court of Ohio has no comment on the reported statistics of the Ohio Public Defender’s Office. The person to interpret the data of the Ohio Public Defender’s Office is its director, Elizabeth Miller. Her email address is Elizabeth.Miller@opd.ohio.gov.
That being said, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Ohio involves more than just “cases of public or great general interest.” Art. IV, § 2(B)(2)(e). It also includes cases raising constitutional questions and presenting conflicts between decisions of different courts of appeals. As to the subset of discretionary appeals, the question whether a party presents an issue of public or great general interest is answered by the individual justices. Some of the things a justice might consider in making that decision include whether the proposition of law has been preserved, whether the case is moot, whether the case presents a constitutional question, and whether the case involves applying settled law to the facts of a particular case.
Regarding your question as to whether the Supreme Court of Ohio has changed the way it selects cases to review based on the findings of Ohio Court Watch, the answer is no. The decision of whether to accept a case for review is based on the question of law presented, not the identity of the parties.
Lastly, the Supreme Court of Ohio does not speak on behalf of individual justices."
Donnelly hopes Ohio Court Watch's findings encourage the justices to take a closer look at how it selects cases for review.
"People have to remember that justices take in case in which they believe are matters of great public importance and that's going to be in the eye of the beholder," he said. "It's important for not only the public to know what cases they are deciding to come in, but also for the justices themselves to be aware of that."
