noting that relator’s assertion of the First Amendment is not a shield to a subpoena but if the subpoena is overly broad upon issuance, the relator has an adequate remedy to challenge that through Crim.R. 17(C)
How later courts described this case
- noting that relator’s assertion of the First Amendment is not a shield to a subpoena but if the subpoena is overly broad upon issuance, the relator has an adequate remedy to challenge that through Crim.R. 17(C)
- recognizing that those cases adopting a three part balancing have essentially adopted the dissent in Branzburg
- granting writ of prohibition to prevent trial court judge from enforcing ban on photographing, filming, or taping of defendant while in courtroom
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St. 3d 153 (2008)
Court of Common Pleas (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 104, 108, 556 N.E.2d 1120, overruled on other grounds by State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153, 2008-Ohio-545, 882 N.E.2d 431.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
concurring. I am in agreement with the judgment in this case and the bulk of the commentary. However, I agree with Justice Douglas’ observations in Parts I, III, and IV of his concurrence.