CINCINNATI (AP) - Defense attorneys are making a new push for Ohio to join a majority of states that require prosecutors to turn over police reports and witness statements in criminal cases - a policy the chief justice of Ohio’s Supreme Court supports.

Ohio Criminal Rule 16 now allows prosecutors to withhold those documents and other records from criminal defense attorneys. Efforts to amend that rule have surfaced before, most recently two years ago when an Ohio Supreme Court commission proposed a change that would require the sharing of such information - referred to as “open discovery.” But the court could not come up with the four-vote majority needed to approve filing the amendment with the General Assembly.

The Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is renewing efforts to get Rule 16 changed and hopes an upcoming vote by Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judges will help.

“We hope that once that goes through, it will prompt other holdouts to do the same and help lead to statewide reform,” said Ian Friedman, president of the defense lawyers group. “Open discovery will help minimize wrongful convictions due to undisclosed evidence and save unnecessary taxing of public resources.”

Cuyahoga County judges in Cleveland held a preliminary vote last month on changing their local rules to require open discovery. With 75 percent of the judges present, the preliminary vote to approve the change was unanimous, and the court has put it out for public comment before taking a final vote Nov. 11, said Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman.

“In civil practice, lawyers wouldn’t think of going to court without knowing what was in evidence, and in criminal court you have a person’s freedom and sometimes a life at stake,” said Judge Friedman, who supports open discovery. “The more you can get full discovery and get it early on, the more likely attorneys can get clients who may be in denial to plead guilty and avoid wasting time.”

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer supports changing Rule 16 and has met with prosecuting attorneys who are opposed to the change.

“He has urged them to reach out to the criminal defense attorneys and try to work out something that will work for everyone,” said court spokesman Chris Davey.

Prosecutors, police and crime victims are among those who have opposed the change statewide, arguing that releasing those records and statements could endanger witnesses and victims and lead defendants to lie about that evidence.

“We are not in favor of complete open discovery,” said John Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. “If we are required to release witness statements in advance and that becomes known to the defendant or his friends, the witness might be subject to intimidation or worse.”

Judge Friedman, who is no relation to Ian Friedman, said the Cuyahoga County proposal would allow prosecutors to ask judges to let them withhold some evidence if they thought it would jeopardize witnesses.

“But in more than 20 years on the bench, I can’t recall a case where that’s been an issue,” said Judge Friedman.

Nationally, advocates for open discovery say they are making progress as more states go to open discovery.

“At least two-thirds of the states do have open discovery, and it’s time for Ohio to join them,” said John Wesley Hall, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “You have to turn over all kinds of documents in a civil case, but in a criminal case where you could be talking about someone’s life, they can withhold all that.”

The state defense lawyers group says at least 39 of Ohio’s 88 counties have open discovery at some court level. The group is circulating a petition on its Web site supporting the Cuyahoga County change - a petition it hopes to use later toward statewide reform.

The prosecuting attorneys and criminal defense lawyers groups have met on the issue, but no new meetings are scheduled.

“We presented them with our proposal, but apparently they have been unable to agree on it,” said Ian Friedman. “It’s not like we aren’t willing to give too. We think both sides need to provide evidence.

Murphy said his group will try to determine a firm position on the issue at the group’s meeting next week.

“Many prosecutors practice open discovery already in lower-level cases,” said Murphy. “But when you get into serious cases where the stakes are higher, we don’t want the state mandating it.”