COLUMBUS, Ohio—A better criminal justice system is coming to Ohio.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently approved new rules governing pretrial procedures that will help ensure those convicted of crimes are truly guilty, according to Thomas Moyer, chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.

The amendment to Rule 16 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure will require greater sharing of evidence between prosecutors and defense attorneys before trial.

The amendment must be sent to the state legislature by Jan. 15. Unless legislators reject it, the amendment will become law July 1. Its implementation will put an end to years of acrimonious debate—much of it waged in Cuyahoga County—between prosecutors and defense attorneys over evidence sharing.

“It’s like solving a major international conflict,” said Judge Sean C. Gallagher of the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals in Cleveland, who is chairman of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on the Rules of Practice & Procedure. “It’s like peace in the Middle East.”

One of the major rule changes relates to witness statements, which prosecutors are currently allowed to withhold until trial. Under the new law, witness statements would have to be shared with defense counsel ahead of time, along with other information from police reports.

At the same time, the proposed new law maintains some of the safeguards demanded by prosecutors to protect victims and witnesses from harm or intimidation before the trial begins.

Defense attorneys have complained for the past 35 years that county prosecutors in Ohio have had an unfair advantage because they could withhold certain evidence.

Perhaps the best known local case where the holding back of information hindered the judicial process involved former death row inmate Joe D’Ambrosio.

D’Ambrosio’s murder conviction from 1989 was overturned in 2006 after a federal judge determined Cuyahoga County prosecutors withheld evidence years ago that could have exonerated D’Ambrosio, including information that pointed to another person as the culprit.

Former Assistant County Prosecutor Carmen Marino handled the D’Ambrosio case, as well as others that have been called into question over withheld evidence.

In September 2008, a Cuyahoga County judge gave Robert Brown, a convicted killer, a new trial after finding out 20 years later that Marino made a deal with a key witness, only to allow the witness to lie under oath that no such deal had been made.

And a month before that, a federal appeals court overturned the death sentence of Reginald Jells, who was convicted of kidnapping and bludgeoning a Cleveland woman. The court determined the man was not adequately represented by his lawyers during the trial’s penalty phase and that prosecutors withheld 13 pieces of evidence that could have led instead to a sentence of life in prison.

While prosecutors hold forth legitimate reasons for withholding evidence, those close to the issue believe they have sometimes abused their discretion in order to gain an upper hand.

The new procedures would eliminate some of the “gamesmanship” on both sides, said local defense attorney Ian Friedman, who led the recent charge for open discovery as president of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Defense attorneys would be forced to give a little, too. The new law would require them to hand over witness statements they have obtained. Their expert witnesses would also be required to provide written reports before trial or else they would not be allowed to testify.

Chief Justice Moyer said he could not quantify the degree to which innocent people have been convicted of crimes in the past under the current rules for discovery, which date back to 1974, but that the new system would be better able to “determine the fate of people’s lives.”

Under the new rules, the prosecution would be allowed to place restrictions on some evidence given to defense attorneys. For instance, a witness statement stamped “For Counsel Only” could be shared verbally with a client, but not given to him in its actual written form, Friedman said.

This would prevent a defendant from, say, having a witness statement posted on a telephone pole in some neighborhood as a form of retaliation against the witness, said Champaign County Prosecutor Nick Selvaggio, former president of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

There’s also a provision where, under certain circumstances, a witness statement can be withheld up until seven days before trial, such as when the statement is made by a confidential informant.

Prosecutors would have even more discretion in sex cases where a victim is under the age of 13.

While the amendment would bring consistency to discovery procedures across the state, many counties already practice some form of open discovery, Selvaggio said.

In Cuyahoga County, judges adopted local rules for more open discovery that took effect early last year. But because the local rule was not set by the state legislature or the state Supreme Court, it may not be enforceable, Gallagher said.

In February, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason launched an online system that shares all evidence with defense attorneys. He issued a statement Thursday applauding the amendment reached between prosecutors and defense attorneys.

“When the legislature passes it, it will provide for each county to have minimal standards upon which to give defendants discovery,” according to the statement. “However, here in Cuyahoga County, we will continue to provide defendants a complete copy of all information available to prosecutors.”

The trend around the country is for states to mandate open discovery, Friedman said, but a handful still have officially closed systems, even though in practice they are often open.