Case Title: In re Disqualification of Jamison

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4952

Docket Number: 20-AP-080

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-10-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Jamison, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-4952.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF JAMISON. 
SCOTT v. KENDRICKS. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Jamison, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2020-Ohio-4952.] 
Judges—Affidavits 
of 
disqualification—R.C. 
2701.03—Affiant 
failed 
to 
demonstrate 
bias, 
prejudice, 
or 
appearance 
of 
impropriety—
Disqualification denied. 
(No. 20-AP-080—Decided October 6, 2020.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, 
Domestic Relations and Juvenile Division, Case No. 14JU16146. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Plaintiff Antwan M. Scott has filed an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 
2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Terri Jamison from the above-referenced 
child-custody and child-support matter. 
{¶ 2} Mr. Scott alleges that Judge Jamison is biased against him, is biased 
against men in general, and has been discourteous toward him.  To support his 
allegations, he avers that the judge has shown “extreme compassion” toward his 
child’s mother, repeatedly continued hearings at the mother’s request, made 
comments indicating that she does not care whether he sees his child, interrupts him 
at hearings, and once threatened to arrest him if he did not promptly return the child 
to her mother. 
{¶ 3} Judge Jamison filed a response to the affidavit and denies any bias 
against Mr. Scott.  She also denies making many of the comments that he attributes 
to her, details her handling of the underlying case, and asserts that she has issued 
rulings based on the evidence presented. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 4} In disqualification requests, “[t]he term ‘bias or prejudice’ ‘implies a 
hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will or undue friendship or favoritism toward one of 
the litigants or his attorney, with the formation of a fixed anticipatory judgment on 
the part of the judge, as contradistinguished from an open state of mind which will 
be governed by the law and the facts.’ ”  In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 1232, 2002-Ohio-7479, 798 N.E.2d 17, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Pratt v. 
Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956).  “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.  In addition, a “presumption of impartiality” is 
“accorded all judges” in affidavit-of-disqualification proceedings.  In re 
Disqualification of Celebrezze, 101 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2003-Ohio-7352, 803 N.E.2d 
823, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 5} Mr. Scott has not established that Judge Jamison has hostile feelings 
toward him or that she has formed a fixed anticipatory judgment on any issue in the 
underlying case.  Nor has Mr. Scott set forth a compelling argument for 
disqualifying Judge Jamison to avoid an appearance of partiality.  The burden in 
disqualification matters falls on the affiant to submit sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that disqualification is warranted.  When necessary, an affiant should 
submit evidence beyond the affidavit to support the allegations contained therein.  
See In re Disqualification of Harwood, 137 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2013-Ohio-5256, 999 
N.E.2d 681, ¶ 5.  Here, Mr. Scott and Judge Jamison recall the events in the 
underlying case differently.  Mr. Scott offered only his affidavit to support his 
allegations, even though many of his claims, if true, could have been substantiated 
by a transcript or other documentary evidence.  Given the conflicting accounts in 
the record—and Mr. Scott’s failure to substantiate his allegations—he has failed to 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
set forth sufficiently compelling evidence to overcome the presumption that Judge 
Jamison is fair and impartial.  See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, 135 Ohio 
St.3d 1212, 2012-Ohio-6341, 985 N.E.2d 494, ¶ 8 (affiant’s “vague and 
unsubstantiated allegations—especially in the face of clear denials by Judge 
Baronzzi—are insufficient to overcome the presumption that Judge Baronzzi is fair 
and impartial”). 
{¶ 6} The affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case may proceed 
before Judge Jamison. 
________________________