To amend section 2921.04 and to enact section 2921.06 of the Revised Code to create the offense of jury tampering and to include a public servant in the offense of intimidation of an attorney, victim, witness, or public servant in a criminal case.
HB 478 would revise Ohio’s criminal intimidation laws in two main ways. First, it amends existing section 2921.04 to expand the offense of intimidation in criminal or delinquent child cases so that it expressly covers not only victims and witnesses, but also attorneys and public servants involved in those proceedings. The bill also keeps the current misdemeanor and felony structure, with lesser conduct treated as a first-degree misdemeanor and more coercive conduct involving force or threats treated as a third-degree felony.
Second, the bill creates a new section 2921.06 establishing the separate offense of jury tampering. Under that section, a person could not knowingly attempt to influence, intimidate, or hinder a juror in the performance of jury duties, including deliberation on the facts and evidence. More serious conduct involving force or unlawful threats would be a third-degree felony, while lesser attempts would be a first-degree misdemeanor. The bill defines “juror” to include both prospective and impaneled jurors and includes an exception for presenting facts and evidence in court during trial.
If enacted, HB 478 would amend Ohio’s Revised Code by broadening section 2921.04 and adding a new criminal statute, section 2921.06. It would expand protections for participants in criminal and delinquent child proceedings, including attorneys and public servants, and create a distinct offense for jury tampering. The bill would affect criminal defendants, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, prosecutors, court personnel, and other public servants involved in criminal cases, and it would give law enforcement and prosecutors additional tools to charge intimidation-related conduct.
The bill appears to be framed as a public-safety and court-integrity measure, with no recorded committee testimony or votes indicating organized opposition or support in the available materials. Its introduction and referral to the House Judiciary Committee suggest it was treated as a criminal justice policy proposal focused on protecting the judicial process. Based on the bill’s content, the general sentiment is likely favorable toward strengthening protections for jurors and other court participants, though the record provided does not show formal debate.
The main policy issue is the scope of criminal liability. Supporters would likely view the bill as necessary to deter intimidation of jurors, attorneys, witnesses, victims, and public servants and to preserve the fairness of criminal proceedings. Potential concerns could center on whether the language is broad enough to capture protected speech or legitimate advocacy, especially the terms “influence,” “intimidate,” and “hinder,” and on how prosecutors would distinguish unlawful coercion from lawful courtroom conduct or dispute resolution. The bill’s exceptions for mediation, settlement, and presenting evidence in court are designed to limit those concerns, but no specific objections are recorded in the available history.