Case Title: In re Disqualification of O'Neill

Citation: 2002-Ohio-7476

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2002-Ohio-7476.] 
 
 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF O’NEILL. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. LORING. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. CROWDER. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. PACK. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. DRAFTON. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2002-Ohio-7476.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge will not be disqualified based solely on 
fact that lawyer in a pending case may be a witness in disciplinary proceedings 
brought against the judge — Judge disqualified to avoid the appearance of 
impropriety, when. 
(Nos. 02-AP-068, 02-AP-070, 02-AP-071, and 02-AP-072 — Decided July 25, 2002.) 
ON AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Common Pleas Court case Nos. 
02CR2797, 02CR2320, 02CR3300, and 02CR2416. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
Dane Chavers, counsel for defendants Chad Loring, William Crowder, 
Brandon Pack, and Sylvester Drafton, has filed four affidavits seeking the disqualification 
of Judge Deborah O’Neill from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned cases.  
Affiant also seeks Judge O’Neill’s disqualification from all future cases assigned to Judge 
O’Neill in which he is counsel of record. 
{¶2} 
On July 22, 2002, Judge O’Neill forwarded an entry indicating that another 
public defender was assigned, in place of affiant, to represent the defendant in State v. 
Chad Loring.  The substitution of counsel was done at the request of the defendant in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
order to resolve the matter on the original trial date and after repeated attempts to reach 
affiant.  In view of the substitution of counsel, the affidavit in No. 02-AP-068 is moot and 
is hereby dismissed. 
{¶3} 
Relevant to the three remaining affidavits, affiant states that Judge O’Neill 
is the respondent in a pending disciplinary complaint and that he is identified as a witness 
to an instance of alleged misconduct that is cited in Count V of the complaint.  Affiant 
further avers that Judge O’Neill has publicly expressed her disgust with allegations 
contained in the complaint and has stated her view that the allegations are politically 
motivated.  Affiant contends that his role as a witness adverse to Judge O’Neill in 
forthcoming 
disciplinary 
proceedings, 
together 
with 
Judge 
O’Neill’s 
public 
characterization of the specific allegations contained in the complaint, create a hostile 
environment that mandates the judge’s disqualification to avoid the appearance of 
impropriety. 
{¶4} 
Judge O’Neill correctly notes that a judge will not be disqualified from a 
pending matter based solely on the fact that a lawyer in the matter has filed a disciplinary 
complaint against the judge. In re Disqualification of Kilpatrick (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 
605, 546 N.E.2d 929. Thus, it follows that a judge will not be disqualified from pending 
matters based solely on the fact that a lawyer in a pending case may be a witness in 
disciplinary proceedings brought against the judge. 
{¶5} 
However, I have held that a unique combination of factors arising from a 
pending disciplinary matter can be sufficient to create an appearance of impropriety that 
mandates a judge’s disqualification.  See In re Disqualification of Maschari (1999), 88 
Ohio St.3d 1212, 723 N.E.2d 1101. As was the case in Maschari, I find the existence of 
unique factors that merit Judge O’Neill’s disqualification to avoid an appearance of 
impropriety.  Affiant is not only a witness to alleged misconduct contained in the pending 
disciplinary complaint, but also is alleged to have written a letter regarding the incident he 
witnessed.  This degree of involvement is a strong indication that affiant will not only be 
called as a witness in future disciplinary proceedings to substantiate the allegations, but 
January Term, 2003 
3 
will likely be the subject of vigorous cross-examination by Judge O’Neill’s counsel 
regarding his perception of the events alleged in the disciplinary complaint.  Moreover, 
Judge O’Neill has characterized the claims as politically motivated and been publicly 
critical of individuals involved in the pending matter.  Based on these factors, I conclude 
that it is necessary to disqualify Judge O’Neill from cases in which affiant is counsel of 
record, at least for the duration of the pending disciplinary proceedings, to avoid the 
appearance of impropriety. 
{¶6} 
For these reasons, Judge Deborah P. O’Neill is disqualified from the 
above-cited matters, other than State v. Loring, which is moot as noted previously, and all 
future cases in which affiant is counsel of record.  The disqualification order shall remain 
in effect during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against Judge O’Neill.   
{¶7} 
Affiant, other counsel, and litigants engaged in pending and future cases 
assigned to Judge O’Neill are cautioned that the applicability of this order to specific 
circumstances is subject to review and modification where necessary to prevent its abuse.  
In particular, the Franklin County Public Defender should monitor the assignment of 
cases to affiant in an attempt to minimize instances in which this order applies. 
__________________