Case Title: In re Disqualification of Koch

Citation: 2006-Ohio-7228

Docket Number: 06AP069

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Koch, 113  Ohio St.3d 1220, 2006-Ohio-7228.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF KOCH. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. MAIDEN ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Koch,  
113 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2006-Ohio-7228.] 
Judges – Affidavit of disqualification – Disqualification denied. 
(No. 06-AP-069—Decided August 2, 2006.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas Case Nos. CR-06-483027-A, CR-06-483027-B, and CR-06-483027-C. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Special Prosecutor Kevin Baxter, as well as one of his assistant 
prosecuting attorneys and an investigator employed by the Cuyahoga County 
Prosecuting Attorney’s office, have filed affidavits with the Clerk of this court 
under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the disqualification of Judge Judith Kilbane Koch and 
all other judges in Cuyahoga County to prevent them from acting on any further 
proceedings in case Nos. CR-06-483027-A, CR-06-483027-B, and CR-06-
483027-C in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. 
{¶ 2} According to Baxter and the other affiants, the defendants – who 
are or were employees of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections – face 
criminal charges for alleged election-law violations.  The affiants contend that 
Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney William Mason and several assistant 
prosecuting attorneys from his office may be called as witnesses at the 
defendants’ upcoming trials, and they allege that other witnesses who are active in 
Cuyahoga County politics may be called to testify as well.  “This is a case that has 
shaken * * * public confidence in the electoral process,” according to Baxter and 
one of his assistants. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Judge Koch has advised me that she has recused herself from 
further proceedings in the cases.  The affidavits are therefore moot with respect to 
her. 
{¶ 4} As for the affiants’ request that all other judges in Cuyahoga 
County be disqualified from hearing the cases, the affidavits do not provide 
convincing proof that disqualification is justified.  I have disqualified all of the 
judges in Cuyahoga County from serving on another case in which a county 
officeholder was a party.  See In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, 105 Ohio 
St.3d 1241, 2004-Ohio-7360, 826 N.E.2d 301, ¶ 4.  In the criminal cases now in 
question, however, the county prosecuting attorney and various political figures in 
the county may be called as witnesses, but they are not parties to the cases. 
{¶ 5} Disqualification of an entire county bench is appropriate in some 
cases in which all of the judges might reasonably be thought to enjoy a close 
relationship or hold particularly strong emotional ties to a witness.  See, e.g., In re 
Disqualification of Nadel (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 604, 546 N.E.2d 926 
(disqualification of all Hamilton County judges ordered in a criminal case in 
which a local judge’s wife and daughter were the victims of an alleged robbery 
and kidnapping).  The affidavits in this case, however, do not provide compelling 
evidence of such factors, and judges are accustomed to hearing in-court 
statements from the prosecuting attorney and his staff in criminal cases.  Although 
the statements in these cases may be in the form of testimony rather than 
advocacy, I cannot conclude based on the record before me that all of the judges 
in the county will necessarily be unable to preside fairly and impartially.  As I 
have said, “[j]udges are elected to preside fairly and impartially over a variety of 
legal disputes, including those involving public officials.”  In re Disqualification 
of Villanueva (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1277, 1278, 657 N.E.2d 1372 (denying an 
affidavit of disqualification in a case involving members of a county board of 
elections). 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 6} “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, ¶ 8 (citing Canon 
3(E)(1) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct).  The allegation that certain 
witnesses at the upcoming trials may be well-known public or political figures 
does not convince me that a reasonable observer would necessarily question the 
ability of all judges in the county to rule impartially. 
{¶ 7} For the reasons stated above, I acknowledge the recusal of Judge 
Koch but deny the affidavits of disqualification as to the other judges in the 
county.  The cases are returned to the administrative judge of the court of 
common pleas for reassignment. 
______________________