Ohio Sup.R. 10.05

History

Effective Date: July 1, 1997 Amended: July 1, 2022 Commentary (July 1, 1997) Rule 13(E) Disposition of videotape filed with the court Rule 13(E)(1) Ownership The provision as to ownership is essential because the videotape has substantial value and may be reused. Rule 13(E)(2) Release of videotape recording The provisions are keyed to final disposition of the case except where the testimony is converted to stenographic recording during the presentation of the evidence in the trial, in which case the release may be made following the trial on the basis that the transcript of proceedings will be made up from the stenographic recording. The provision emerged in the early consideration of videotape applications when stenographic recording of the testimony as played at the trial was considered a safety factor. It is unlikely that the duplication would appear in current practice. When the trial is of a criminal matter rather than a civil matter, the finality of disposition of the case may be more difficult to establish. The testimony recorded on videotape may be converted to some other method of recording, audio or stenographic, upon the ostensible closing of the case. The videotape could then be released and reused. Should the testimony be essential to some post-judgment proceeding, it could be used in the conv erted form. Prudence would dictate the transcription of the stenographic recording into the written form at the time of the release. Release is to be by order, hence the provision for journalization. Commentary (July 1, 2026) Division (E) of Rule 13 was renumbered to Rule 10.05 as part of the 2026 restructuring of the Rules of Superintendence.