Case Title: In re Disqualification of Osowik

Citation: 2006-Ohio-7224

Docket Number: 06AP019

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Osowik, 117 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2006-Ohio-7224.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF OSOWIK ET AL. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. NOE. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Osowik,  
117 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2006-Ohio-7224.] 
Judges – Affidavit of disqualification – Disqualification denied. 
(No. 06-AP-019—Decided March 8, 2006.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Lucas County  
Court of Common Pleas, No. CR06-1348. 
__________________ 
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 1209, 863 
N.E.2d 616. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant Thomas W. Noe has filed an affidavit with the clerk of 
this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the disqualification of Judge Thomas J. 
Osowik and all other judges in Lucas County from acting on any further 
proceedings in case No. CR06-1348 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas 
County. 
{¶ 2} Noe recounts in his affidavit his many efforts to unseat judges in 
Lucas County who have run as Democrats in primary elections, and he describes 
Judge Osowik and nearly all of the judges in the county as his “political 
enem[ies].”  Noe explains that he served as a Republican member of the board of 
elections in Lucas County from 1993 until 2003 and served as chairman of the 
county Republican Party from 1992 until 1995.  He contends that he has 
contributed the maximum amount of money allowed by law to nearly every 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Republican judicial candidate in the county, and he believes that no one else has 
given more money to Republican judicial candidates in Lucas County since the 
early 1990s than he has.  Noe also notes that he and his wife strongly supported 
Judge Osowik’s election opponent in 2004 and assisted in the filing of a grievance 
against the judge in the 1990s for an alleged ethical violation. 
{¶ 3} Judge Osowik has responded in writing to the affidavit.  He denies 
holding any bias or prejudice against the defendant, denies any knowledge of the 
grievance mentioned in the affidavit, and contends that his most recent judicial 
campaign in 2004 was not acrimonious and will not affect his ability to serve 
fairly and impartially in this case.  He explains that he set the amount of the 
defendant’s bond last month in accordance with Crim.R. 46 and was not 
influenced by any personal political concerns or the high-profile nature of the 
case. 
{¶ 4} Administrative Judge Bates has responded to the affidavit as well.  
He states that other judges in Lucas County can hear the case if Judge Osowik 
cannot. 
{¶ 5} After reviewing the affidavit and the responses to it, I find no basis 
for ordering the disqualification of Judge Osowik.  I have in the past “decline[d] 
to establish a far-reaching rule that mandates the recusal or disqualification of a 
judge merely because a party to or a lawyer in the underlying case campaigned for 
or against the judge.”  In re Disqualification of Celebrezze (1991), 74 Ohio St.3d 
1231, 1232, 657 N.E.2d 1341.  See, also, Flamm, Judicial Disqualification (1996) 
194, Section 6.5; In Disqualification of Cleary (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1246, 1247, 
674 N.E.2d 357 (“the fact that a party or lawyer in a pending case campaigned for 
or against the judge is not grounds for disqualification”).  I have likewise 
explained that “a judge is not disqualified solely because a party or counsel in a 
pending case has filed a grievance against the judge.”  In re Disqualification of 
Krueger (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1267, 1268, 657 N.E.2d 1365. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 6} In this case, there is no suggestion that Judge Osowik has done or 
said anything that might convey personal bias or prejudice against the defendant, 
and the judge has offered his assurances that he can preside fairly and impartially.  
The fact that the defendant may have opposed the judge’s bid for elected office is 
insufficient to warrant disqualification, absent some evidence of actual bias.  The 
same is true of the defendant’s role in the filing of a grievance against the judge in 
the 1990s.  We elect judges in Ohio, and we must ordinarily assume that an 
attorney’s or a party’s vocal opposition to the election of a judge will not cause 
that judge to harbor bias when the attorney or the party later appears before the 
judge.  Flamm, supra. No evidence in the record before me calls that ordinary 
assumption into doubt. 
{¶ 7} The defendant’s use of the term “political enemy” to describe 
Judge Osowik and other judges in Lucas County perhaps reflects the defendant’s 
own views about the judges, but it tells us nothing about Judge Osowik’s views of 
the defendant.  The judge’s response to the affidavit does provide information 
about the judge’s views, and that response conveys no “hostile feeling or spirit of 
ill will,” State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt (1956), 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 58 O.O. 
315, 132 N.E.2d 191, and does not suggest that the judge has reached a “fixed 
anticipatory judgment” that will prevent him from hearing the case with “an open 
state of mind * * * governed by the law and the facts.”  Id.  The information in the 
judge’s response in fact suggests that he is dedicated to providing equal justice 
under law to all persons and that he takes seriously his responsibility to be fair 
and to give the appearance of being fair. 
{¶ 8} “The proper test for determining whether a judge’s participation in 
a case presents an appearance of impropriety is * * * an objective one.  A judge 
should step aside or be removed if a reasonable and objective observer would 
harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality.”  In re Disqualification of 
Lewis, 105 Ohio St.3d 1239, 2004-Ohio-7359, 826 N.E.2d 299 (citing Canon 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
3(E)(1) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct).  In the absence of any transcripts 
reflecting any hostility or any fixed views on the judge’s part about the defendant 
or the facts of this case, and in light of the judge’s assurances about his 
willingness and ability to serve fairly, I find no grounds to disqualify him.  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. 
{¶ 9} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Osowik. 
______________________