Case Title: State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr.

Citation: 2011-Ohio-1914

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr., Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1914.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-1914 
THE STATE EX REL. BARB, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY JURY 
COMMISSIONER, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1914.] 
Mandamus — Petition seeking order compelling access to verdict forms and list 
of prospective jurors — Writ denied — Res judicata bars claim as relator 
was in privity with previous relator seeking same records — R.C. 
149.43(B)(8) requires finding by sentencing judge that records were 
necessary to support justiciable claim. 
(No. 2011-0051 — Submitted April 19, 2011 — Decided April 26, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 95005, 2010-Ohio-6190. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of 
mandamus sought by appellant, Herbert E. Barb Jr., for verdict forms and lists of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
prospective jurors in criminal cases involving his brother, inmate Danny Barb.  
Res judicata barred Herbert from instituting his own mandamus action seeking 
some of the same records that his brother requested because–as Danny’s 
designee–he was in privity with him.  State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury 
Commr., 124 Ohio St.3d 238, 2010-Ohio-120, 921 N.E.2d 236; State ex rel. 
Roberson v. Mason, Cuyahoga App. No. 91783, 2009-Ohio-1884, ¶ 8-9.  And 
Danny cannot circumvent the requirement of R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which requires a 
finding by his sentencing judge or the judge’s successor that the requested 
information is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim, by 
designating his brother to request the records for him.  As the court of appeals 
concluded, “Herbert may not do indirectly what Danny is prohibited from doing 
directly.” 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Herbert Barb Jr., pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles 
E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________