Case Title: In re Disqualification of Burge

Citation: 2013-Ohio-2726

Docket Number: 13-AP-027

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Burge, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-2726.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF BURGE. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. JALOWIEC. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. WEBER. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. FINE. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Burge, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-2726.] 
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Affidavit granted in part—
Judge’s comments to press and failure to respond to certain allegations in 
affidavit necessitate removal to avoid appearance of impropriety—Blanket 
order of disqualification denied. 
(No. 13-AP-027—Decided May 13, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Lorain County Court of Common Pleas 
Case Nos. 95CR046840, 11CR082129, and 12CR086127. 
____________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Anthony Cillo, counsel for the state in the above-captioned cases, 
has filed two affidavits under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge James M. 
Burge from presiding over these cases and all future cases in which Cillo appears 
as counsel of record. 
{¶ 2} Cillo claims that his “complex and often contentious history” with 
Judge Burge, combined with the judge’s recent public comments regarding 
Cillo’s involvement in an alleged disciplinary investigation of the judge, have 
created an appearance of impropriety requiring the judge’s disqualification.  Cillo 
also alleges that Judge Burge has expressed a fixed anticipatory judgment in the 
State v. Jalowiec proceedings. 
{¶ 3} Judge Burge has responded in writing to the allegations in Cillo’s 
affidavits.  He denies any bias against Cillo, disagrees that an appearance of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
impropriety exists, and states that he has not formed or expressed any opinion in 
the Jalowiec case. 
{¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, Judge Burge is disqualified from 
presiding over the Jalowiec proceeding, but Cillo’s request for a blanket order of 
disqualification in all other current and future cases is denied. 
State v. Jalowiec 
{¶ 5} The Jalowiec case is pending on defendant’s motion for a new 
trial.  Cillo alleges that Judge Burge expressed an opinion on that motion and 
therefore should be removed.  In support of the allegation, Cillo submits the 
affidavit of Nick J. Hanek, an assistant prosecuting attorney assigned to Judge 
Burge’s courtroom.  Hanek avers that after Cillo moved for Judge Burge to 
voluntarily recuse himself from the Jalowiec case, the judge commented to 
Hanek:  “He [Anthony Cillo] thinks that I would make a ruling based on him 
when there’s a man who certainly deserves a new trial.”  Judge Burge denies 
making the statement, declaring that he “never expressed to any assistant 
prosecutor, including the assistant prosecutor assigned to [his] court, or to anyone 
else, that Jalowiec is entitled to be granted a new trial.”  “If a judge’s words or 
actions convey the impression that the judge has * * reached a ‘fixed anticipatory 
judgment’ that will prevent the judge from presiding over the case with ‘an open 
state of mind * * * governed by the law and the facts,’ State ex rel. Pratt v. 
Weygandt (1956), 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 58 O.O. 315, 132 N.E.2d 191, then the 
judge should not remain on the case.”  In re Disqualification of Synenberg, 127 
Ohio St.3d 1220, 2009-Ohio-7206, 937 N.E.2d 1011, ¶ 24.  Here, the record 
contains conflicting affidavits regarding whether Judge Burge made this statement 
to Hanek.  Typically, such conflicting evidence is insufficient to overcome the 
presumption of a judge’s impartiality.  See, e.g., id. at ¶ 25 (“in the wake of the 
conflicting stories presented here, I cannot conclude that the judge should be 
removed * * *”). 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 6} But Judge Burge did not rest with simply submitting his formal 
response to Cillo’s affidavit of disqualification.  Judge Burge also commented to 
the media about Cillo’s allegation, which then triggered the filing of Cillo’s 
supplemental affidavit with more allegations of bias and prejudice against the 
judge.  Specifically, despite the requirements of Jud.Cond.R. 2.10, Judge Burge is 
quoted in two newspapers as stating, “I don’t believe an assistant [county 
prosecutor] told him [Cillo] that and if he did, it would be false,” and “[w]hen a 
person ascribes dishonest motives to another, it’s usually because the accuser has 
dishonest motives himself and believes that everyone behaves the same way he 
does.”  The unfortunate result has been a public dispute between the 
administrative judge of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court and the chief of 
the prosecutor’s criminal division played out in the press. 
{¶ 7} “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, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8.  The 
language used by Judge Burge in his media statements could cause the reasonable 
and objective observer to conclude that the judge has become Cillo’s adversary, 
thereby creating a possibly intolerable atmosphere between the judge and the 
prosecutor in the courtroom.  See Flamm, Judicial Disqualification, Section 15.7, 
435 (2d Ed.2007).  This public dispute cannot be allowed to overshadow the 
pending Jalowiec case, which has already endured a stay of the scheduled hearing 
for this affidavit-of-disqualification proceeding.  “When the case becomes about 
the judge rather than the facts of the case and the law, it is time for the judge to 
step aside,” In re Disqualification of Saffold, 134 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2010-Ohio-
6723, 981 N.E.2d 869, ¶ 2, or, as in this case, it is time for the judge to be 
removed when he refuses to step aside. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} In addition to the media statements, other factors are present that 
support disqualification.  For example, Judge Burge did not respond to some of 
the allegations in Cillo’s supplemental affidavit, including the claim that Judge 
Burge “discarded the traditional route of reassignment in Jalowiec’s case in order 
to preside over the case himself.”  “[A] judge’s failure to respond to allegations of 
bias and prejudice may result in the judge’s disqualification to avoid the 
appearance of impropriety.”  In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 94 Ohio St.3d 
1234, 1235, 763 N.E.2d 602 (2001).  Further, Judge Burge has only been assigned 
to this case for a relatively short amount of time, which lessens the disruptive 
impact of disqualification.  Compare In re Disqualification of Nicely, 135 Ohio 
St.3d 1237, 2012-Ohio-6290, 986 N.E.2d 1, ¶ 8 (disqualification of judge who 
presided over eight-year litigation with a 15-day trial warranted only under 
extraordinary circumstances clearly showing a fixed anticipatory judgment).  
Given the unique combination of facts here, prudent grounds exist to remove 
Judge Burge. 
{¶ 9} Reassignment of the case to a new judge, however, should not be 
interpreted as implying that Judge Burge actually expressed an opinion in the 
proceeding, holds a personal bias against Cillo, or engaged in any unethical 
conduct.  Judge Burge steadfastly denies making the alleged comment to Hanek, 
and it is quite possible that there was a misunderstanding of what was said and 
meant.  Nevertheless, even in cases where no evidence of actual bias or prejudice 
is apparent, disqualification is often necessary to avoid the appearance of 
impropriety and to ensure the parties’ and the public’s “absolute confidence in the 
fairness of [the] proceedings.”  In re Disqualification of Sheward, 77 Ohio St.3d 
1258, 1260, 674 N.E.2d 365 (1996); see also Saffold, 134 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2010-
Ohio-6723, 981 N.E.2d 869, at ¶ 6 (disqualification appropriate when the 
“public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is at stake”). 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, Judge Burge is disqualified from the Jalowiec case to 
avoid even the appearance of impropriety. 
Cillo’s requested blanket order of disqualification 
{¶ 11} In support of his request for a blanket order of disqualification, 
Cillo claims that, prior to Judge Burge taking the bench, he and the judge opposed 
each other in high-profile, tension-filled cases, some of which resulted in Cillo 
moving for sanctions against then-attorney Burge.  Cillo alleges that after Judge 
Burge was elected to judicial office, the relationship “became even more fraught 
with tension.”  For example, Cillo asserts that in 2007, the judge entered an order 
finding him in contempt, a decision later criticized by an appellate court judge, 
and in 2011, Judge Burge made questionable evidentiary rulings in a three-judge 
death-penalty proceeding.  Cillo’s supplemental affidavit lists more recent judicial 
conduct that Cillo labels “less than professional.” 
{¶ 12} In addition, Cillo contends that Judge Burge recently impugned his 
integrity in a public comment to the parole board about an alleged disciplinary 
investigation.1  Cillo points to a newspaper article attributing the following 
comment to Judge Burge regarding a statement that the judge claimed Cillo had 
made to him:  “I have been told by the Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel that 
Mr. Cillo denies having said that to me.”  Cillo argues that through this comment, 
Judge Burge “published his belief” that Cillo is “an untruthful person.”  
(Emphasis sic.)  Cillo similarly interprets the comment as suggesting that Cillo 
“lied” to disciplinary counsel and will be “a witness against [the judge] in 
disciplinary proceedings.” 
                                                 
1 Under Gov.Bar R. V(11)(E)(1), all proceedings and documents relating to investigation of 
disciplinary grievances are “private.”  The record here contains newspaper articles stating that 
Judge Burge is the subject of a disciplinary inquiry, and Judge Burge’s response to Cillo’s 
supplemental affidavit seems to indicate that he has received a letter of inquiry from disciplinary 
authorities.  The Chief Justice has no knowledge of whether any such disciplinary inquiry existed 
or is ongoing, and this entry should not be interpreted as confirming the existence of any such 
inquiry.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 13} Cillo’s arguments are unconvincing.  Judges are presumed to be 
capable of putting aside old disagreements with former opposing counsel and 
attorneys appearing before them, and nothing in Cillo’s affidavits would lead a 
reasonable person to conclude that Judge Burge has developed such a strong 
personal bias against Cillo—based on their history—that the judge would be 
unable to preside fairly over cases involving him.  And as for Judge Burge’s 
recent comment to the parole board, it is a stretch to interpret the comment as 
suggesting Cillo “lied” to investigators.  Similarly, the comment does not 
demonstrate that Cillo will be a witness against the judge in a disciplinary 
proceeding—mostly because there is no evidence that a formal disciplinary 
complaint has been filed.  At this point, Cillo’s claims are based on speculation 
and are therefore insufficient to establish bias or an appearance of bias.  In re 
Disqualification of Flanagan, 127 Ohio St.3d 1236, 2009-Ohio-7199, 937 N.E.2d 
1023, ¶ 4 (“Allegations that are based solely on hearsay, innuendo, and 
speculation * * * are insufficient to establish bias or prejudice”). 
{¶ 14} In addition, the cases cited in Cillo’s affidavit do not support a 
blanket order of disqualification.  For example, Cillo relies on In re 
Disqualification of Hoover, 113 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2006-Ohio-7234, 863 N.E.2d 
634, but that judge was ultimately removed because his response to an affidavit of 
disqualification was “laced with invectives against [the affiant]” and “bristle[d] 
with caustic phrases about [the affiant],” suggesting that the judge was not able to 
view the affidavit objectively and calling into question his ability to preside fairly 
over the affiant’s cases.  Id. at ¶ 4.  Judge Burge’s formal responses to Cillo’s 
affidavits do not show any similar resentment towards Cillo.  In fact, the judge 
describes Cillo as “a capable trial attorney that is always prepared, organized, 
technically sound, credible and dedicated to his cause.” 
{¶ 15} Similarly, In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1226, 
2002-Ohio-7476, 798 N.E.2d 12, does not support the conclusion that an 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
appearance of impropriety exists here.  In O’Neill, the affiant was a witness to 
alleged judicial misconduct “contained in the pending disciplinary complaint” 
against the judge, and there was a strong indication that the affiant would be the 
“subject of vigorous cross-examination by [the judge’s] counsel regarding 
[affiant’s] perception of the events alleged in the disciplinary complaint.”  Id. at 
¶ 5.  In addition, Judge O’Neill characterized the disciplinary charges against her 
as “politically motivated,” and she had been publicly critical of the individuals 
involved in the disciplinary matters.  Id.  Except for Judge Burge’s publicly 
critical comments of Cillo, the record here is devoid of any of these same facts.  
Most important, there is no evidence of a pending disciplinary complaint against 
Judge Burge, and therefore it remains speculative whether Cillo would ever be 
involved in a disciplinary matter against the judge or subjected to his cross-
examination. 
{¶ 16} At bottom, there is no doubt that Cillo—rightly or wrongly—
sincerely believes that an appearance of impropriety exists, and “[i]t is of vital 
importance that the litigant should believe that he will have a fair trial.” State ex 
rel. Turner v. Marshall, 123 Ohio St. 586, 587, 176 N.E. 454 (1931).  That 
principle, however, must be balanced against the rule that “[t]he statutory right to 
seek disqualification of a judge is an extraordinary remedy * * *.”  In re 
Disqualification of Hunter, 36 Ohio St.3d 607, 608, 522 N.E.2d 461 (1988).  The 
significance of that remedy is heightened here because Cillo acts as counsel of 
record in all capital cases in Lorain County and “handles the cases where the most 
serious crimes have been perpetrated.”  Accordingly, Cillo’s requested remedy 
will effectively remove Judge Burge from presiding over all capital cases and 
other serious criminal matters.  At this point, Cillo’s speculative allegations are 
insufficient to issue such an extraordinary remedy. 
{¶ 17} “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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-
Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Cillo has failed to submit compelling evidence to 
overcome those presumptions, and therefore he has failed to establish an 
appearance of impropriety warranting a blanket order of disqualification. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 18} Two of Cillo’s cases remain pending before Judge Burge:  State v. 
Weber and State v. Fine.  Unlike the Jalowiec case, Cillo did not set forth any 
specific allegations of bias or prejudice relating to these cases.  Judge Burge states 
that the parties in Weber are attempting to resolve the case without trial, and the 
docket in Fine indicates that a trial is scheduled for August 2013.  It is expected 
that, by that time, Judge Burge and Cillo will have worked to improve their 
professional relationship to reassure the citizens of Lorain County of the fairness 
of their justice system.  The public deserves that from its public officials. 
{¶ 19} For 
the 
reasons 
explained 
above, 
Cillo’s 
affidavit 
of 
disqualification is granted with respect to the State v. Jalowiec case, and it is 
ordered that Judge Burge participate no further in those proceedings.  The 
assignment of another judge will be addressed in a separate entry. 
{¶ 20} Cillo’s affidavit with respect to the Weber and Fine cases is 
denied, and those cases may proceed before Judge Burge.  Cillo’s request for a 
blanket order of disqualification is denied. 
________________________