Title: In re Disqualification of Cottrill

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Cottrill, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4800.] 
 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF COTTRILL. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. WEAVER. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Cottrill, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2022-Ohio-4800.] 
Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Even in cases in which no 
evidence of actual bias or prejudice is apparent, a judge’s disqualification 
may be appropriate to avoid an appearance of impropriety or when the 
public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is at issue—An 
appearance of bias can be just as damaging to public confidence as actual 
bias—Disqualification granted. 
(No. 22-AP-153—Decided December 30, 2022.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Muskingum County Court of Common 
Pleas, General Division, Case No. CR2015-0216. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Rachel Troutman, counsel for the defendant, Emile Weaver, has filed 
an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 and Article IV, Section 5(C) of the Ohio 
Constitution seeking to disqualify Judge Kelly J. Cottrill from the above-referenced 
case.1   
{¶ 2} For the reasons explained below, a new judge will be assigned to this 
case to avoid any appearance of bias. 
 
 
 
1.  Ms. Troutman filed a prior affidavit seeking Judge Cottrill’s disqualification, but it was denied 
because nothing was pending before Judge Cottrill at the time that affidavit was filed.  See Supreme 
Court case No. 22-AP-152.    
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Background 
{¶ 3} In 2016, after the death of her newborn, Weaver was found guilty of 
one count of aggravated murder, one count of gross abuse of a corpse, and two 
counts of tampering with evidence.  Judge Mark Fleegle sentenced Weaver to life 
in prison without the possibility of parole.  On December 8, 2022, this court 
remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing before a different 
judge.  State v. Weaver, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4371, ___ N.E.3d ___, 
¶ 63.  This court found that Judge Fleegle had abused his discretion in denying 
Weaver’s petition for postconviction relief and had violated her due-process rights 
by acting in a biased manner.  Id. at ¶ 30-62. 
{¶ 4} In Ms. Troutman’s affidavit of disqualification, she alleges that an 
appearance of bias would exist if Judge Cottrill—the only other judge of the 
Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, General Division—presided over 
Weaver’s new sentencing hearing.  Ms. Troutman first argues that because Judge 
Cottrill and Judge Fleegle have been colleagues for approximately 17 years, Judge 
Cottrill “will effectively be communicating his agreement” with this court’s 
conclusion that his long-time colleague was biased if he sentences Weaver to 
anything less than life without parole.  Ms. Troutman also asserts that a case similar 
to the underlying matter “played a part” in Judge Cottrill’s 2004 election to the 
common-pleas-court bench. 
{¶ 5} Judge Cottrill submitted a response to the affidavit and disagrees that 
any appearance of bias would exist if he presided over Weaver’s sentencing 
hearing.  Regarding his relationship with Judge Fleegle, Judge Cottrill says that 
although he respects his judicial colleague, he is “not a Judge Fleegle clone” and 
accepts that this court already determined that Judge Fleegle was biased in 
Weaver’s case.  Judge Cottrill further states that it is impossible to determine what 
effect, if any, the prior similar case had on his 2004 election to the common-pleas-
January Term, 2022 
 
 
3 
court bench.  He disclaims having any preconceived opinions about the appropriate 
sentence for Weaver. 
Merits of the affidavit of disqualification 
{¶ 6} The allegations in Ms. Troutman’s affidavit do not support a finding 
that Judge Cottrill has an actual bias against Weaver or that he would be unable to 
fairly and impartially sentence her.  Further, there is no merit to Ms. Troutman’s 
contention that Judge Cottrill’s long-time professional relationship with Judge 
Fleegle would somehow cloud Judge Cottrill’s ability to fairly weigh the 
appropriate sentencing factors. 
{¶ 7} “Nevertheless, even in cases in which no evidence of actual bias or 
prejudice is apparent, a judge’s disqualification may be appropriate to avoid an 
appearance of impropriety or when the public’s confidence in the integrity of the 
judicial system is at issue.”  In Disqualification of Crawford, 152 Ohio St.3d 1256, 
2017-Ohio-9428, 98 N.E.3d 277, ¶ 6.  Indeed, “[a]n appearance of bias can be just 
as damaging to public confidence as actual bias.”  In re Disqualification of Murphy, 
110 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2005-Ohio-7148, 850 N.E.2d 712, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 8} Here, there appears to be no dispute that Weaver committed acts 
similar to those committed by Jennifer Bryant.  In 2004, Judge Cottrill’s 
predecessor and election opponent—former Judge Howard Zwelling—granted 
Bryant judicial release after she had served six months in prison.  Ms. Troutman 
claims that Bryant’s sentence influenced Judge Cottrill’s election to the common-
pleas-court bench in 2004.  To support that claim, Ms. Troutman has submitted a 
newspaper article and two letters to the editor that were published in the same 
Zanesville newspaper. 
{¶ 9} The article contrasted the qualifications of Judge Cottrill and Zwelling 
and directly addressed Zwelling’s sentence in Bryant’s case.  The article noted: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
Zwelling has drawn some criticism for decisions—most 
recently his decision to release Jennifer Bryant, the former 
Muskingum College student who dumped her deceased baby in a 
trash bin, after only six months in prison.  Zwelling said knowing it 
was an election year he could have kept Bryant in prison, but “I may 
not have been able to sleep at night.” 
* * * 
Cottrill, too, speaks of his experience in legal circles.  He 
successfully tried hundreds of cases in common pleas court as a 
lawyer and was a prosecutor for the city of Zanesville.  But he 
believes he and Zwelling are polar opposites when it comes to their 
views of the law. 
“I’m a conservative, no-nonsense, tough-on-crime judge.  
My opponent is not,” Cottrill said. 
He said Zwelling’s record and reputation in the community 
supports why he should replace him on the bench.  Although he 
would not speak specifically, he said there are decisions that 
Zwelling has made that he has not agreed with. 
“I hold convicted defendants accountable and responsible 
for their actions.  It takes work to do that,” Cottrill said. 
* * *  
[Cottrill] does not typically believe in early release from a jail 
sentence because he thinks there is no reason to sentence a person 
to two years in prison if you don’t actually expect that person to 
serve a full sentence. 
When deciding on an appropriate sentence, he said there are 
many factors to consider, but following the law and protecting the 
community are a must. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
5 
 
Although it appears that Judge Cottrill did not specifically comment on Bryant’s 
sentence for the article, the article’s reference to Bryant’s case is evidence that it 
was a factor used to influence the judicial election—at least for the local media. 
{¶ 10} As noted, Ms. Troutman also submitted two letters to the editor, one 
of which was written by Judge Cottrill’s brother.  The letter directly connected 
Bryant’s case to Judge Cottrill’s campaign and implied that Judge Cottrill would 
have sentenced Bryant more harshly.  In his letter, the judge’s brother said he was 
“outraged” at the sentence that Zwelling had imposed on Bryant and that a six-
month punishment for Bryant’s crime was demeaning to the severity of the crime.  
The judge’s brother further wrote: 
 
We must protect the helpless of our society.  Zwelling’s 
message to the mothers of our community seems to be if you must 
kill you[r] baby I’ll understand and only give you six months 
punishment.  If the citizens of Muskingum County want to protect 
the helpless and deter crime, vote for my brother, Judge Kelly 
Cottrill.  He has a much different attitude about protecting our 
citizens. 
 
{¶ 11} The second letter to the editor similarly urged readers to vote for 
Judge Cottrill because of Bryant’s sentence.  The letter stated: 
 
I have paid close attention to each of the candidates for Common 
Pleas Court since Howard Zwelling let Jennifer Bryant out of prison 
only after six months.  Remember her?  She only killed her own 
baby and discarded the body in a Dumpster * * *. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
Judge Cottrill is the obvious best choice for judge.  He is 
tough on criminals and protects our community.  He has given more 
than six months of incarceration to people convicted of 
misdemeanors, I know that a woman who killed and threw away her 
own baby would not be walking the streets in six months if it were 
up to him. 
* * *  
I saw the Times Recorder endorsed Zwelling (Oct. 21 
edition).  This in spite of praising Judge Cottrill’s record and work 
ethic.  The paper cited only Zwelling’s experience in support of its 
decision.  Don’t these same editors live in our same community and 
don’t they recognize that six more years of the “Zwelling 
experience” will put more killers in the neighborhood? 
I think it’s time for some old-fashioned, no-nonsense justice 
in our Common Pleas Court.  Protect our children and protect our 
community.  Please vote for Judge Cottrill. 
 
{¶ 12} These documents—especially the letters to the editor—suggest that 
Bryant’s sentence was made an issue in Judge Cottrill’s 2004 election to judicial 
office.  The letters to the editor specifically criticize the sentence that Zwelling 
imposed in Bryant’s case and essentially vouch for Judge Cottrill to be a judge who 
will mete out harsher sentences, especially on a defendant like Bryant.  There is no 
evidence that Judge Cottrill repudiated the letters to the editor at the time they were 
published.  In his response to Ms. Troutman’s affidavit of disqualification, Judge 
Cottrill notes that it is “unfounded and false” to assume that letters published 18 
years ago would have any impact on his judicial functioning.  But Judge Cottrill 
did not necessarily denounce the substance of those letters or distance himself from 
the inferences made by the letter writers. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
7 
{¶ 13} The Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges and judicial 
candidates from making public comments on pending and impending cases.  See 
Jud.Cond.R. 2.10 and 4.1.  Those rules are intended to protect the public’s 
confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.  See 
Jud.Cond.R. 2.10, Comment 1.  That is, judges decide cases based on the law and 
the individual facts before them.  Pledges or promises about how a judge will 
sentence a particular defendant may convey that the judge will not consider each 
case on the merits. 
{¶ 14} There is no evidence that Judge Cottrill himself violated any of those 
ethical rules.  But the lingering impression created by the article and letters is that 
Judge Cottrill disagreed with the sentence that Zwelling imposed in Bryant’s case 
and that his disagreement was used to influence the judicial election.  Given the 
similarities with the facts in Bryant’s and Weaver’s cases, an objective observer 
might reasonably question whether Judge Cottrill is open to the full range of 
permissible sentences that are available for Weaver.  See In re Disqualification of 
Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8 (explaining 
that an appearance of impropriety exists “if a reasonable and objective observer 
would harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality”). 
{¶ 15} Weaver has already been subjected to a biased judge—which itself 
is an affront to the essential notion of justice.  Indeed, this court found that Judge 
Fleegle had “willfully refused to consider the evidence of neonaticide” that Weaver 
offered to show that her trial counsel was ineffective.  Weaver, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 
2022-Ohio-4371, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 60.  And this court noted that Judge Fleegle 
had mentioned a previous case with similar facts that resulted in a much lighter 
sentence and that his comments about the prior case suggested he found it 
“personally distasteful.”  Id.  Ms. Troutman claims that the case referenced by 
Judge Fleegle was Bryant’s. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
{¶ 16} Considering the detailed findings of judicial bias in Weaver, it is 
imperative to remove any hint or question of an appearance of bias and to ensure to 
the parties and the public the unquestioned neutrality of an impartial judge.  This 
court long ago noted that “ ‘[n]ext in importance to the duty of rendering a righteous 
judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as will beget no suspicion of the 
fairness or integrity of the judge.’ ”  State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 
463, 471, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956), quoting Haslam v. Morrison, 113 Utah 14, 20, 
190 P.2d 520 (1948).  Consistent with that principle, Ms. Troutman’s affidavit of 
disqualification is granted to avoid any appearance of bias.  The assignment of a 
visiting judge to preside over Weaver’s new sentencing hearing will be addressed 
in a separate entry. 
_________________