## Facts

- Following disturbances at Kent State University in May 1970, a Portage County Special Grand Jury returned 30 secret indictments against 25 individuals for offenses arising from the events.
- The Special Grand Jury also filed a written report that recounted the events and assigned blame, including pointed characterizations of certain students, faculty, and administrators.
- Some plaintiffs were among those indicted; others were not indicted but were criticized or stigmatized in the report.
- Plaintiffs sued state and county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking (1) an injunction barring the state prosecutions and (2) expungement of the grand jury report from court records.
- Plaintiffs also sought convening of a three-judge federal court to consider constitutional challenges to Ohio riot statutes under which some indictments were returned.
- The federal court held an evidentiary hearing and limited its inquiry to the propriety of equitable relief and the legality and constitutional effect of the report.

## Issues

1. Whether the special grand jury had authority under Ohio law to issue a public report that named and criticized identifiable individuals, and whether the report violated due process and First Amendment rights requiring expungement.
2. Whether a federal court may enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions based on claims of bad faith, harassment, or fair-trial prejudice.
3. Whether a three-judge court should be convened to decide challenges to the Ohio riot statutes in this posture.

## Decision

- The court ordered expungement of the grand jury report from the records of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, except for limited non-accusatory portions.
- The court denied injunctive relief against the pending state prosecutions.
- The court declined to convene a three-judge court to adjudicate the constitutionality of the Ohio riot statutes.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio law, a grand jury’s function is primarily to return indictments or no bills; any reporting power is narrowly confined and does not authorize broad accusatory narratives targeting specific individuals.
- A grand jury report that effectively declares guilt or moral culpability of indicted persons before trial threatens due process by undermining the presumption of innocence and the right to an impartial jury.
- Official criticism of non-indicted persons in a grand jury report may impose an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights by chilling protected speech and association.
- Federal equitable interference with state criminal prosecutions is disfavored; absent proof of bad faith, harassment, or immediate irreparable injury that cannot be remedied in state court, federal courts should not enjoin state proceedings.
- A good-faith legal error by prosecutors or officials, without deliberate misuse of process for an improper purpose, does not establish the kind of bad faith that justifies federal intervention.

## Conclusion

The court held that the special grand jury lacked authority to issue an accusatory report naming and condemning individuals and that the report inflicted current constitutional injury, warranting expungement; however, it refused to halt the state prosecutions because plaintiffs did not prove bad faith, harassment, or irreparable fair-trial harm requiring federal intervention.


Hammond v. Brown, 323 F. Supp. 326 (N.D. Ohio 1971)