Case Title: In re Disqualification of O'Neill

Citation: 2002-Ohio-7477

Docket Number: 02AP081

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2002-Ohio-7477.] 
 
 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF O’NEILL. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. THOMPSON. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. TOLLIVER. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. ARMOR. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2002-Ohio-
7477.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge will not be disqualified based 
solely on fact that lawyer in a pending case may be a witness in 
disciplinary proceedings brought against the judge — Judge disqualified 
to avoid the appearance of impropriety, when. 
(No. 02-AP-081 — Decided September 19, 2002.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County Common Pleas Court 
case Nos. 02CR1942, 02CR3246, and 87CR860. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
Rebecca Pokorski, counsel for defendants Richard Thompson, 
Teresa Tolliver, and John Armor, has filed an affidavit seeking the 
disqualification of Judge Deborah O’Neill from further proceedings regarding the 
above-captioned cases.  Affiant, who is an assistant Franklin County Public 
Defender, also seeks Judge O’Neill’s disqualification from all future cases 
assigned to Judge O’Neill in which she is counsel of record. 
{¶2} 
Affiant states that Judge O’Neill is the respondent in a pending 
disciplinary complaint.  Affiant states that she was a witness to and has made 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
allegations concerning an instance of alleged misconduct that is part of the 
complaint against Judge O’Neill, and that she will testify in the disciplinary 
proceedings.  Affiant further avers that Judge O’Neill has publicly expressed her 
disgust with allegations contained in the complaint, has stated her view that the 
allegations are politically motivated, and takes offense at those who have made 
complaints against her.  Affiant contends that Judge O’Neill’s official response to 
the disciplinary complaint questioned affiant’s ability to conduct herself in an 
ethical manner, characterized affiant as an unprepared and uncooperative 
attorney, and alleged that affiant had deliberately attempted to mislead Judge 
O’Neill in a proceeding before her.  Affiant contends that her role as a witness 
adverse to Judge O’Neill in forthcoming disciplinary proceedings, together with 
Judge O’Neill’s public characterization of the allegations contained in the 
complaint and those who made the complaints, creates a hostile environment that 
mandates the judge’s disqualification to avoid the appearance of impropriety. 
{¶3} 
In her response to this affidavit of disqualification, Judge O’Neill 
stated that the affiant had filed motions for recusal on June 21, 2002, in the above-
referenced cases, based on the likelihood that affiant would be a witness in the 
disciplinary proceedings against Judge O’Neill.  Judge O’Neill denied the 
motions on June 26, and affiant subsequently appeared before Judge O’Neill in a 
pretrial conference in State v. Thompson.  The trial was scheduled for July 22, 
2002, but was continued at affiant’s request prior to the filing of this affidavit.  In 
State v. Tolliver, a hearing had been scheduled for August 5 but was stayed 
pending the decision on this affidavit.   In State v. Armor, a scheduled hearing was 
continued to December 16, 2005, at affiant’s request.  Judge O’Neill assures this 
court and counsel that she will continue to fairly and impartially adjudicate 
matters before her in which affiant is counsel. 
{¶4} 
I have held that a judge will not be disqualified from a pending 
matter based solely on the fact that a lawyer in the matter has filed a disciplinary 
January Term, 2003 
3 
complaint against the judge.  In re Disqualification of Kilpatrick (1989), 47 Ohio 
St.3d 605, 546 N.E.2d 929. Thus, it follows that a judge will not be disqualified 
based solely on the fact that a lawyer in a pending case may be a witness in 
disciplinary proceedings brought against the judge.  See In re Disqualification of 
Maschari (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1212, 723 N.E.2d 1101. 
{¶5} 
However, I have also held that a unique combination of factors 
arising from a pending disciplinary matter can be sufficient to create an 
appearance of impropriety that mandates a judge’s disqualification.  See Maschari 
at 1213, 723 N.E.2d 1101; In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1226, 
2002-Ohio-7476, 798 N.E.2d 12. As was the case in Maschari and O’Neill, supra, 
I find the existence of unique factors that merit Judge O’Neill’s disqualification to 
avoid an appearance of impropriety. 
{¶6} 
The affiant in Maschari was a potential adverse witness in a 
disciplinary proceeding pending against the judge.  The affiant in O’Neill is a 
potential witness and is alleged to have written a letter regarding the alleged 
instance of misconduct by Judge O’Neill that he witnessed. Id. at ¶ 5. 
{¶7} 
In the case now before me, this affiant’s involvement in the 
disciplinary matter pending against the judge is even more pervasive.  Not only 
was the affiant a witness to alleged misconduct, but the affiant suggests that her 
own allegations are part of the disciplinary complaint.  Further, Judge O’Neill’s 
formal response to the disciplinary complaint makes specific, derogatory 
accusations against affiant, including that affiant deliberately attempted to mislead 
Judge O’Neill in a proceeding that is part of the disciplinary complaint. Judge 
O’Neill was disqualified in O’Neill, supra, in part because the affiant in that 
matter would “likely be the subject of vigorous cross-examination by Judge 
O’Neill’s counsel” in the disciplinary proceedings. Id. at ¶ 5. In the case now 
before me, because of the affiant’s direct involvement in an instance of alleged 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
misconduct, it is even more likely that this affiant will be a witness adverse to 
Judge O’Neill and will be vigorously cross-examined by Judge O’Neill’s counsel. 
{¶8} 
Moreover, Judge O’Neill has characterized the complaints against 
her as politically motivated and been publicly critical of individuals involved in 
the disciplinary proceeding.  Based on the totality of these factors, I conclude that 
it is necessary to disqualify Judge O’Neill from cases in which affiant is counsel 
of record, at least for the duration of the pending disciplinary proceedings, to 
avoid the appearance of impropriety. 
{¶9} 
For these reasons, Judge Deborah P. O’Neill is disqualified from 
the above-cited matters and all future cases in which affiant is counsel of record.  
The disqualification order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the 
disciplinary proceedings against Judge O’Neill.   
{¶10} In O’Neill, supra, I cautioned that the applicability of that 
disqualification order was subject to review if necessary to prevent abuse. Id. at ¶ 
7. I requested that the assignment of cases by the Franklin County Public 
Defender be monitored to minimize disruption to the orderly operation of Judge 
O’Neill’s court.  Judge O’Neill’s communications with this court suggest that 
stronger measures need to be taken by the Franklin County Public Defender, 
assistant public defenders, and this affiant to prevent inconvenience to parties and 
others involved in proceedings before Judge O’Neill. 
__________________