A bill was introduced this week that would provide witnesses with protection before criminal investigations or court cases take place.

House Bill 243, introduced in a bipartisan effort by Rep. Tom Letson, D-Warren, and Rep. Dave Burke, R-Marysville, would specify that the intimidation offense in a criminal case of an attorney, witness or victim also would apply to delinquency cases and to any attempt to influence, intimidate or hinder a witness to a criminal or delinquent act in the discharge of a witness's duty.

The bill further would prohibit any attempt to influence, intimidate or hinder a victim, witness or attorney through unlawful conduct.

Currently, Burke said, the law only protects witnesses of crimes once an investigation begins or a court begins hearing on a case. However, HB 243 would give the same protection to witnesses during the lag-time between when a crime takes place and the time up when it is investigated.

"Official investigations might take minutes or hours, or longer," Letson said, and witnesses are not protected during this waiting period.

Threats or harassment charges against witnesses are currently observed in the law as misdemeanor offenses when they occur before court proceedings or investigations, the same way the most simple acts of threats or harassment are observed.

But HB 234 "would make what would have been a misdemeanor a felony offense," Burke said, "and it would tie the harassment back to the time the crime was committed."

Burke added that he believes intimidation should be looked at separately when it is linked to a crime.

"There are two types of intimidation," Burke said. "There is intimidation unrelated to a crime, when someone harasses someone else for something - maybe a 'don't park in my parking space,' or that kind of stuff - and then there are the incidents when someone saw someone else commit a crime, and then that criminal tells that person 'I am going to hurt you'" if you say anything.

Rep. Ann Baker, R-Westlake, a co-sponsor of the bill, said witness intimidation is a huge problem in crimes of rape, domestic/spousal abuse or drug deals because witnesses of the crime might be closely linked to the criminals.

"Some of these cases never go to court because the witness is intimidated," Burke said. "A major component of this problem is not what gets processed, but it's what doesn't get processed because the people who saw the crime never come forward."

Letson said that when looking at situations that are "socially sensitive," like domestic abuse or rape, "there is often a time period between the actual assault and the actual report of the crime because of the social stigma that is placed on the victim."

Because intimidation can sway a witness' testimony or willingness to testify, Burke said HB 234 is a "witness protection" bill.

"You have people who never show up to testify - sometimes people who are key witnesses - because they are afraid to say anything," Burke said.

The major factor in the introduction of HB 234, Burke said, was a request by the Ohio Supreme Court to the Ohio House of Representatives to update current intimidation legislation.

"There were a couple of Supreme Court cases that dealt with this, and the court came down and said the legislature should take a stance on what happens when a witness is intimidated," Letson said.

"The Supreme Court has said the legislature should be the one closing this gap."

Rep. Kathleen Chandler, D-Kent, a co-sponsor of HB 234, said currently there is a "loophole in the law regarding the intimidation of witnesses."

"There was a court case where a person was charged and found guilty of intimidating a witness, and subsequently, he (the person charged) appealed the conviction concerning all matters, and everything was upheld in the law except the charge of intimidation a witness," Chandler said.

"The reason for that, according to the appeals court, was because the intimidation took place before police investigation or prosecution of a criminal case, and the law covering that did not apply."

HB 234 is dealing with a "true constitutional issue" that is broken and needs fixed, Burke said.

"This is like Legislation 101: Take the advice of the Supreme Court," Burke said. "This is fairly dry and bland legislation - it would just improve peoples' lives, improve the system and the code, and give the courts the ability to do their jobs."

Burke said he does not believe HB 234 will receive any real opposition, and he expects the bill to receive testimony this fall.

Because the bill has bipartisan support, Baker said it is stronger, and is likely to be passed. With a nearly even amount of co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle, "it shows that there is a need out there, and it shows that this needs to be taken care of," Baker said.