Case Title: In re Disqualification of Nadel

Citation: 1997-Ohio-20

Docket Number: 1997AP132

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-09-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF NADEL. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. CLEMONS. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Nadel (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification from post-conviction 
relief proceedings not warranted by judge’s comments at sentencing phase 
of capital murder trial that he could not forgive the petitioner for his 
conduct and that he recognized the right of victim’s families to be heard 
during criminal proceedings — Section 10a, Article I, Ohio Constitution 
and R.C. Chapter 2930 — Sentences imposed by judges are reflections of 
their personal beliefs as to the propriety of the punishments imposed. 
(No. 97-AP-132 — Decided September 30, 1997.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County  
Court of Common Pleas case No. B9511119. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  Affiant, Luz V. Lopez-Ortiz, is counsel for the petitioner 
Gerald L. Clemons in a post-conviction relief action pending before Judge Norbert 
A. Nadel.  Affiant contends that Judge Nadel should be disqualified from the post-
conviction relief action because of comments made by the judge during the 
sentencing phase of the petitioner’s capital murder trial. 
 
Prior to sentencing the petitioner, Judge Nadel stated that he could not 
forgive the petitioner for his conduct and made a general statement indicating that 
he had heard the comments made by members of the victim’s family.  Affiant 
claims that these comments reflect a bias and prejudice on the part of Judge Nadel 
that mandates his disqualification from the post-conviction proceedings. 
 
Having reviewed Judge Nadel’s comments and considering them in the 
context in which they were made, I cannot conclude they demonstrate a bias or 
prejudice against the petitioner that mandates the judge’s disqualification.  The 
 
2
latter statement by Judge Nadel was a general statement in recognition of the right 
of victims to be heard during criminal proceedings.  See, generally, Section 10a, 
Article I of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. Chapter 2930.  This statement does not 
appear to be specific to victims of the defendant’s crime or to the facts of this case.  
As to the former statement, affiant maintains that the comment represents Judge 
Nadel’s “personal belief in the propriety of the punishment.”  Any sentence 
imposed by a judge is a reflection of that judge’s personal belief as to the propriety 
of the punishment imposed in relation to the defendant’s conduct and other 
relevant factors.  The additional comment upon which affiant relies does not, in 
my view, demonstrate a bias or prejudice that would preclude Judge Nadel from 
fairly and impartially considering the issues presented in the post-conviction relief 
proceeding. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.