Case Title: In re Disqualification of Calabrese

Citation: 2002-Ohio-7475

Docket Number: 02AP062

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Calabrese, 100 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2002-Ohio-7475.] 
 
 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CALABRESE. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. NAWASH. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Calabrese, 100 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2002-Ohio-
7475.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Allegation of improper ex parte 
communication not shown — Allegation of ethnic bias not shown, when. 
(No. 02-AP-062 — Decided June 21, 2002.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 
case No. 422741. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Jerome Emoff and 
Albert Giuliani, counsel for defendant Saleh Nawash, seeking the disqualification 
of Judge Anthony O. Calabrese Jr. from further proceedings regarding the above-
captioned case. 
{¶2} 
Affiant makes two arguments in support of his claim that Judge 
Calabrese should be disqualified from further proceedings in this matter.  First, he 
asserts that Judge Calabrese engaged in an ex parte communication with the 
prosecutors prior to a scheduled pretrial conference in this case.  I have 
established a two-pronged test regarding whether an alleged ex parte 
communication constitutes grounds for disqualification.  This test first requires 
proof that the communication either was initiated by the judge or addressed 
substantive matters in the pending case.  In re Disqualification of Aurelius (1996), 
January Term, 2003 
2 
77 Ohio St.3d 1254, 674 N.E.2d 362. Second, the allegations must consist of 
something more than hearsay.  In re Disqualification of Cacioppo (1996), 77 Ohio 
St.3d 1245, 674 N.E.2d 356. Here, affiant simply speculates, without providing 
any evidence to support this speculation, that Judge Calabrese’s encounter with 
the prosecutors involved an ex parte communication about the underlying case.  
Judge Calabrese indicates that the encounter lasted for a number of seconds, was 
inadvertent, and did not involve any conversation.  Under the facts before me, 
disqualification on this basis is not warranted. 
{¶3} 
Affiant’s second contention relates to the following comments 
made by Judge Calabrese at a bail hearing: 
{¶4} 
“I might add that Mr. Giuliani was alluding to a person who owns 
property or has family here, who has family ties here.  I might indicate to you that 
I had the exact individual in my courtroom many years ago who was a medical 
doctor.  I gave him a few weeks to get his affairs in order.  I confiscated his 
passport.  I had many people write to the court on behalf of him.  And they are 
still looking for him.  So the court has knowledge that the travel modes of people 
traveling in and out of this country are very loose, to say the least.  So as far as the 
defendant was traveling in and out of the country, I’m not so sure that anybody 
would be able to say with certainty as to someone’s whereabouts, especially in 
view of the events in the last year in this country.” (Sic.) 
{¶5} 
Affiant contends that these comments reflect bias against the 
defendant, who is of Arab-American descent, and relate to a defendant 
represented some years ago by affiant’s father.  However, affiant fails to provide a 
transcript of the bail hearing or other evidence to demonstrate the context in 
which this statement was made.  In view of Judge Calabrese’s denial of bias and 
his contention that these remarks were made in response to affiant’s claim that 
retention of the defendant’s passport would ensure his appearance at trial, I cannot 
conclude that disqualification is warranted as a result of these statements.   
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶6} 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well 
taken and denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Calabrese. 
__________________