Title: In re Disqualification of Solovan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2003-Ohio-5483.] 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SOLOVAN. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. REBECCA. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2003-Ohio-
5483.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Alleged victims of defendant’s criminal 
acts are deputy sheriffs who provide security at the courthouse — Judge’s 
professional relationship with members of sheriff’s department does not 
support allegations of bias or prejudice — Friendship or personal 
relationship with potential witness does not mandate disqualification — 
Chief Justice does not have authority to rule upon the disqualification of a 
prosecuting attorney. 
(No. 02-AP-115 — Decided February 5, 2003.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Belmont County Common Pleas Court 
case No. 02-CR-106. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Donald J. Tennant 
Jr., counsel for defendant Tyson E. Rebecca, seeking the disqualification of Judge 
John M. Solovan II from further proceedings in the above-captioned case. 
{¶2} 
The defendant is facing criminal charges in which two of his 
alleged victims are deputies in the county sheriff’s department.  Deputy sheriffs 
provide security for the Belmont County courthouse and the judges and 
employees therein, and serve as bailiffs to the judges.  Affiant alleges that this 
relationship creates “sufficient conflict of interest” or an appearance of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
impropriety requiring the disqualification of all judges of the Belmont County 
Common Pleas Court, including Judge Solovan. 
{¶3} 
There is no suggestion that the judge has any particular 
relationship with the deputies, or anything more than a professional relationship 
with any members of the sheriff’s department.  Nor does the affiant allege any 
actual bias or prejudice.  I do not find on the facts of this case that the professional 
relationship between Judge Solovan and members of the county sheriff’s 
department requires his disqualification. 
{¶4} 
Even in cases where there has been a personal relationship or 
friendship between a judge and potential witnesses, “Absent some affirmative 
indication that a judge’s friendship with a potential witness in a pending action 
will affect that judge’s consideration of the case, I decline to establish a rule that 
mandates the judge’s disqualification based on the existence of the friendship.”  
In re Disqualification of Bressler (1997), 81 Ohio St.3d 1215, 688 N.E.2d 517 
(judge had admitted close friendship with a police detective who would be called 
as a witness in the case). See, also, In re Disqualification of Cunningham (1999), 
88 Ohio St.3d 1219, 723 N.E.2d 1105 (admitted friendship between the judge and 
a party’s expert witness was not grounds for disqualification); and In re 
Disqualification of Economus (Sept. 8, 1987), No. 87-AP-059 (admitted 
friendship between the judge and an assistant prosecutor would not automatically 
result in the judge’s disqualification from cases handled by that prosecutor). 
{¶5} 
The affiant also alleges that Judge Solovan’s college-age daughter 
has, for the past two summers, worked at a county agency where she was 
supervised by the defendant’s father.  Affiant speculates that if the daughter 
works at the agency next summer, she may again be supervised by the defendant’s 
father. 
{¶6} 
In his response, Judge Solovan states that he has never discussed 
the facts of the underlying case with his daughter and that he was not aware that 
January Term, 2003 
3 
the defendant’s father had been her supervisor until this affidavit of 
disqualification was filed.  Judge Solovan also states that he sees no conflict of 
interest or appearance of impropriety even if, as speculated, his daughter again 
has summer employment where she is supervised by the defendant’s father.  I 
decline to require disqualification based on this past connection between the 
judge’s daughter and the defendant’s father or on the speculation of a future 
connection. 
{¶7} 
For the foregoing reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found 
not well taken and is denied. The cause shall continue before Judge Solovan. 
{¶8} 
The affidavit also included defendant’s Motion for Leave to 
Recuse the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of Belmont County, Ohio.  Two 
different prosecuting attorneys, in their private law practices, represent members 
of the defendant’s family.  One represents the defendant’s wife in a divorce 
proceeding, and another represents the defendant’s cousin in a civil matter.  The 
Chief Justice does not have the authority to rule upon the disqualification of a 
prosecuting attorney.  The disqualification of counsel in a particular case is a 
matter for the trial court. 
__________________