Case Title: In re Disqualification of Saffold

Citation: 2006-Ohio-7225

Docket Number: 06AP035

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-04-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Saffold, 117 Ohio St.3d 1239, 2006-Ohio-7225.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SAFFOLD. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. AHMED. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Saffold,  
117 Ohio St.3d 1239, 2006-Ohio-7225.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied. 
(No. 06-AP-035—Decided April 25, 2006.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County  
Court of Common Pleas, No. CR 03-437437. 
__________________ 
Reporter's Note:  The previously published version of this opinion omitted a 
complete citation that has been added to this version of the opinion.  This version 
of the opinion supersedes the version that appears at 113 Ohio St.3d 1214, 863 
N.E.2d 620. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Attorney Jay Milano – counsel for the defendant – has filed an 
affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the 
disqualification of Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold from acting on any further 
proceedings in case No. CR 03-437437 in the Court of Common Pleas of 
Cuyahoga County. 
{¶ 2} Milano alleges that Judge Saffold cannot preside fairly and 
impartially in this criminal case because she is running for reelection and has 
named the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney as her honorary campaign 
chairman.  The judge intends, according to the affidavit, to show that she is tough 
on criminals by engaging the support of the prosecuting attorney and by 
scheduling the sentencing in this case just a few days before the 2006 primary 
election.  Milano also states that the initial lengthy prison term imposed on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
defendant by Judge Saffold was reversed by the court of appeals.  The case is now 
back before the judge for a new sentencing hearing, and Milano questions his 
client’s ability to receive a fair hearing before a judge who earlier imposed such a 
lengthy sentence. 
{¶ 3} Judge Saffold has responded in writing to the affidavit.  She 
contends that counsel for both parties agreed to the date of the upcoming 
sentencing hearing, and she notes that the hearing has twice been rescheduled at 
the defendant’s request.  The judge acknowledges that the prosecuting attorney 
served as her honorary cochairman for one reelection fundraiser, but she denies 
attorney Milano’s claim that she cannot serve fairly and impartially at the 
sentencing hearing. 
{¶ 4} I find no basis for ordering the disqualification of Judge Saffold.  
Ordinarily, “the mere fact that an attorney served as chairman or a member of a 
judge’s campaign committee does not, without more, mandate the judge’s 
disqualification from cases in which that attorney appears as counsel of record.”  
In re Disqualification of Maloney (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 1204, 741 N.E.2d 133; 
Flamm, Judicial Disqualification (1996) 191-192, Section 6.4.3.  I conclude that 
no compelling evidence points toward a different outcome in this case. 
{¶ 5} To be sure, when a judge’s campaign is still active, any political 
relationship between the judge and a lawyer who is appearing before the judge 
certainly deserves close scrutiny.  The judge’s disqualification is warranted only if 
that political relationship is a substantial one, however, for attorneys are generally 
encouraged to support candidates for judicial office, and they often do so. 
{¶ 6} In this case, Judge Saffold states that Prosecuting Attorney 
William Mason served as an honorary cochairman for one of the judge’s 
fundraisers.  Absent any evidence that the prosecuting attorney is playing a more 
active role in running the judge’s campaign, I conclude that the facts as alleged 
would not cause a “reasonable and objective observer” to “harbor serious doubts 
January Term, 2006 
3 
about the judge’s impartiality.”  In re Disqualification of Lewis, 105 Ohio St.3d 
1239, 2004-Ohio-7359, 826 N.E.2d , ¶299, ¶ 8.  I reach that conclusion in light of 
all of the circumstances presented in the record before me, including the fact that 
an assistant prosecuting attorney rather than the prosecuting attorney himself is 
evidently appearing before Judge Saffold in this case, and the prosecuting 
attorney’s designation as an “honorary” cochairman for the one fundraiser 
suggests that he is not running the campaign or playing an active role in its day-
to-day operation.  Absent evidence that the prosecuting attorney is actively 
conducting ongoing fundraising activities for the judge or that he has established a 
continuing political affiliation with her through joint projects lasting a 
considerable period of time, I cannot conclude that the honorary role he has 
played in connection with one fundraiser compels the judge’s disqualification 
now. 
{¶ 7} Certainly, judges should strive to avoid affiliations that might give 
litigants or the public reason to question whether the judge is partial to a party or 
attorney who has politically supported the judge’s campaign.  Generally, 
however, the mere fact that a party or attorney has issued a statement of support 
for a judge or has allowed the judge to list the attorney on a statement of support 
is insufficient to warrant judicial disqualification. 
{¶ 8} The remaining allegations in the affidavit – concerning the date of 
the upcoming sentencing hearing and the fact that the case is before Judge Saffold 
on remand – are not sufficient grounds to compel the judge’s disqualification.  On 
the first point, the judge has explained that she acceded to the defendant’s request 
that the sentencing hearing be delayed until this court decided State v. Foster, 109 
Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470.  That case was decided on 
February 27, 2006, and Judge Saffold then issued an order in mid-April 
scheduling the sentencing hearing for April 27, 2006.  That latter date was chosen 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
with the parties’ consent, according to the judge, and I cannot infer from its 
selection that the judge is biased for or against either party. 
{¶ 9} Finally, I have explained that “a judge may preside over the retrial 
of a case even if that judge’s rulings of law were reversed on appeal.”  In re 
Disqualification of Kimmel (1987), 36 Ohio St.3d 602, 522 N.E.2d 456.  In 
addition, state and federal courts have been virtually unanimous in holding that – 
absent a showing of actual bias – a judge who presided over prior proceedings 
involving one or more parties presently before the court is not thereby disqualified 
from presiding over later proceedings involving the same parties.  See, e.g., State 
v. D’Ambrosio (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 188, 616 N.E.2d 909 (“A judge need 
not recuse himself simply because he acquired knowledge of the facts during a 
prior proceeding”); United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers, 
Union No. 33 v. Meese (C.A.1, 1987), 823 F.2d 652, 659 (“It is well established * 
* * that participation in prior proceedings involving the same or similar facts or 
parties does not in itself constitute grounds for disqualification”). 
{¶ 10} In this case, the judge must simply resentence the defendant in 
light of this court’s decision in State v. Foster.  Defendants in hundreds of other 
cases face a similar prospect, and there is no evidence before me suggesting that 
Judge Saffold in particular is unable to perform her duties at the new sentencing 
hearing in a fair and unbiased way. 
{¶ 11} As I have said, “A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to 
be biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to 
overcome these presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 
1241, 2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Those presumptions have not been 
overcome in this case. 
{¶ 12} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Saffold. 
______________________