Case Title: In re Disqualification of Russo

Citation: 2009-Ohio-7201

Docket Number: 09AP081

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Russo, 127 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2009-Ohio-7201.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF RUSSO. 
STATE OF OHIO v. ANTHONY. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Russo,  
127 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2009-Ohio-7201.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied. 
(No. 09-AP-081 — Decided September 8, 2009.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas Case No. CR-08-517379. 
__________________ 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Matthew K. Razavi, assistant prosecutor to Special Prosecutor 
Dean Holman, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 
2701.03 seeking the disqualification of Judge Joseph D. Russo from acting on any 
further proceedings in case No. CR-08-517379, a criminal action in the Court of 
Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. 
{¶ 2} The defendant is on trial for assaulting a peace officer, aggravated 
menacing, and resisting arrest. The defendant is also a longtime employee of the 
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court and is currently employed as the bailiff 
to Judge John D. Sutula.  Affiant alleges that Judge Russo’s disqualification is 
warranted because he has worked alongside the defendant in the Cuyahoga 
County Justice Center.  Four of the county’s judges have recused themselves from 
the case, and affiant argues that Judge Russo and the remaining judges should 
now be disqualified to avoid any appearance of impropriety. 
{¶ 3} Judge Russo has responded in writing to the concerns raised by the 
affidavit.  The judge states that he has no personal knowledge of the defendant 
except for his name, what he looks like, and where he works.  He avers that he has 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
never worked with defendant inside or outside of the courthouse and has had 
little, if any, contact with him since becoming a judge over eight years ago.  Judge 
Russo maintains that he has given this matter serious consideration and that 
defendant’s employment will have no bearing on the outcome of this case. 
{¶ 4} For the following reasons, I find no basis for ordering the 
disqualification of Judge Russo.  First, an affidavit of disqualification must be 
filed as soon as possible after an affiant becomes aware of circumstances that 
support disqualification, and the failure to do so may result in waiver of the 
objection.  In re Disqualification of Pepple (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 606, 607, 546 
N.E.2d 1298.  The Medina County prosecuting attorney was appointed special 
prosecutor to defendant’s case in November 2008.  At that point, the special 
prosecutor knew, or should have known, that defendant was employed by the 
common pleas court.  Judge Russo was assigned to defendant’s case in April 
2009, after four other common pleas judges had recused themselves.  The special 
prosecutor, however, waited until August 19, 2009, before filing the affidavit of 
disqualification.  The fact that the special prosecutor waited four months before 
filing the affidavit indicates that he believed that Judge Russo’s participation did 
not create an appearance of impropriety.  See In re Disqualification of Glickman, 
100 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2002-Ohio-7471, 798 N.E.2d 5. 
{¶ 5} Second, “[g]enerally, the more intimate the relationship between a 
judge and a person who is involved in a pending proceeding, the more acute is the 
concern that the judge may be tempted to depart from the expected judicial 
detachment or to reasonably appear to have done so.”  In re Disqualification of 
Shuff, 117 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2004-Ohio-7355, 884 N.E.2d 1084, ¶ 6.  And while 
disqualification is appropriate where a judge might reasonably be thought to enjoy 
a close relationship with or hold particularly strong emotional ties to a person 
involved in an action before the judge, In re Disqualification of Nadel (1989), 47 
Ohio St.3d 604, 546 N.E.2d 926, the affidavit in this case does not provide any 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
evidence that Judge Russo shares any significant personal, professional, or 
political connections to the defendant, and certainly the judge has expressly 
denied the existence of any such relationship. 
{¶ 6} Affiant relies on four cases in support of his disqualification claim:  
In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 110 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2005-Ohio-7153, 850 
N.E.2d 720, In re Disqualification of Nugent (1987), 47 Ohio St.3d 601, 546 
N.E.2d 927, In re Disqualification of Morrissey (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1252, 674 
N.E.2d 360, and In re Disqualification of O’Neill (1997), 81 Ohio St.3d 1213, 688 
N.E.2d 516.  Although these cases are relevant to consideration of the pending 
affidavit, there are circumstances that distinguish them from this matter.  Unlike 
this case, each of the above cases involved some type of significant relationship or 
close contact between the judge and the person involved in the pending 
proceeding.  Corrigan (plaintiff was a county commissioner who had significant 
personal and political connections to many local judges and wielded considerable 
influence over the funding of the court); Nugent (victim’s uncle was a judge on 
same court as presiding judge and victim’s parents also likely knew or had contact 
with the judges on that court); Morrissey (judge was asked to assess the abilities 
of a senior, nonjudicial court employee who worked closely with the entire bench 
on a daily basis); and O’Neill (a fellow judge on the same court was to be called 
as a witness). 
{¶ 7} In other cases, I have declined to establish a rule that mandates a 
judge’s disqualification based on the existence of a mere friendship, In re 
Disqualification of Bressler (1997), 81 Ohio St.3d 1215, 688 N.E.2d 517, on a 
remote social or familial relationship, In re Disqualification of Shuff, 117 Ohio 
St.3d 1230, 2004-Ohio-7355, 884 N.E.2d 1084, or solely on the fact that a party 
to the case is the court’s funding authority, In re Disqualification of Watson 
(1997), 81 Ohio St.3d 1207, 688 N.E.2d 512. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} Likewise, I decline to establish a rule in this case that mandates a 
judge’s disqualification based solely on the fact that the defendant is a nonjudicial 
employee of the same court as the judge.  Affiant has failed to demonstrate an 
interest in the case that would necessitate the judge’s disqualification to avoid an 
appearance of impropriety.  See In re Disqualification of Villanueva (1995), 74 
Ohio St.3d 1277, 657 N.E.2d 1372 (denying affidavit in a case involving 
members of a county board of elections). 
{¶ 9} As I have stated, “[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. 
{¶ 10} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Russo. 
______________________