Title: In re Disqualification of Rastatter

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rastatter, 117 Ohio St.3d 1231, 2005-Ohio-7147.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF RASTATTER. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. DAVIS. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rastatter,  
117 Ohio St.3d 1231, 2005-Ohio-7147.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied. 
(No. 05-AP-021—Decided March 9, 2005.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Clark County Court of  
Common Pleas, No. 98-CR-0681. 
__________________ 
Reporter's Note:  The previously published version of this opinion omitted a 
complete citation that has been added to this version of the opinion.  This version 
of the opinion supersedes the version that appears at 110 Ohio St.3d 1201, 850 
N.E.2d 708. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Attorneys Matthew Ryan Arntz and George A. Katchmer – counsel 
for the defendant – have filed affidavits with the clerk of this court under R.C. 
2701.03, seeking the disqualification of Judge Douglas M. Rastatter from acting 
on any further proceedings in case No. 98-CR-0681 in the Court of Common 
Pleas of Clark County. 
{¶ 2} The attorneys ask that Judge Rastatter be disqualified because until 
he assumed his present judicial position in February 2005, he served as an 
assistant prosecuting attorney in the office that represents the plaintiff, the state of 
Ohio, in this case.  That past professional connection between the judge and one 
party to the case will prevent the defendant from receiving a fair trial, according 
to the defendant’s attorneys.  They allege as well that the judge has shown bias by 
ruling against the defendant on pretrial motions. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} I find no basis for ordering the disqualification of Judge Rastatter.  
A judge generally need not disqualify himself from presiding over a criminal 
matter that, although pending at the time he served as a prosecuting attorney, was 
one in which he had no direct involvement.  Flamm, Judicial Disqualification 
(1996) 328, Section 11.5.2., citing Gamez v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1987), 737 
S.W.2d 315, 319 (the prohibition against a judge’s hearing a case in which he has 
acted as counsel requires that he actually have participated in the very case before 
him); People v. Mitchell (1987), 137 Misc.2d 450, 452, 521 N.Y.S.2d 639 (a 
judge is not disqualified from presiding over a defendant’s criminal case when 
that defendant was prosecuted in another matter by the office of the district 
attorney when the judge was district attorney). 
{¶ 4} In cases such as this, the issue is whether the judge, while in 
government employment, himself served as counsel in the case.  “[A] judge is not 
subject to mandatory disqualification arising from prior government service based 
on the mere fact that another lawyer in his office served as a lawyer concerning 
the matter.”  Kendrick v. Carlson (C.A.8, 1993), 995 F.2d 1440, 1444. 
{¶ 5} The affidavit does not allege that Judge Rastatter himself 
participated in the prosecution of this defendant.  In similar cases involving 
former prosecutors who have moved to the bench, I have declined to order the 
judge’s disqualification.  See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Greer (1997), 81 
Ohio St.3d 1208, 688 N.E.2d 513; In re Disqualification of Knece (1997), 81 
Ohio St.3d 1212, 688 N.E.2d 515.  Absent some indication in the record that the 
judge’s former relationship with the prosecuting attorney’s office will clearly and 
adversely affect the defendant’s ability to obtain a fair trial, disqualification is not 
warranted. 
{¶ 6} The same is true of the affiants’ allegations about the judge’s 
pretrial rulings.  A party’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with a court’s rulings of 
law, without more, does not constitute bias or prejudice.  In re Disqualification of 
January Term, 2005 
3 
Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459.  An affidavit of 
disqualification “is not a vehicle to contest matters of substantive or procedural 
law.”  In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-5484, 
798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 7} “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. 
{¶ 8} For the reasons stated above, the affidavits of disqualification are 
denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Rastatter. 
______________________