Title: In re Disqualification of Crow

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Crow, 91 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2000-Ohio-199.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CROW. 
IN RE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Crow (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 1209.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Failure to support allegations with 
supporting affidavits and documentation — Affidavits demonstrate lack of 
personal knowledge when based on mere “belief” — Disqualification not 
required. 
(No. 00-AP-097 — Decided October 24, 2000.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Meigs County Common Pleas Court case 
No. 00CV122. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification filed by John R. Lentes 
seeks the disqualification of Judge Fred Crow from further proceedings in the 
above-captioned case.  The affiants are the Meigs County Prosecuting Attorney 
and two of his assistants. 
 
The underlying action was initiated by Judge Crow, based on his belief 
that the appointment of a special prosecuting attorney may be warranted to 
investigate the actions of the elected prosecuting attorney in related civil and 
criminal actions that previously were before the court.  Having reviewed the 
allegations of the affiants, I cannot conclude that there exists a bias, prejudice, or 
other disqualifying interest that requires Judge Crow’s disqualification from 
further proceedings in this action. 
 
Affiants make a number of claims in support of their general allegation 
that Judge Crow has displayed bias and prejudice toward them and cannot fairly 
and impartially preside over the underlying case.  However, affiants fail to 
document these claims by providing supporting affidavits from participants in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
allegedly improper conversations or providing any detail about the substance of 
the allegedly improper communications.  Affiants also fail to include any 
documents that are referred to in the affidavit, such as the letter to the editor 
allegedly authored by a member of the judge’s staff or the newspaper article that 
affiants claim was based on an interview with Judge Crow.  Moreover, affiants 
demonstrate a lack of personal knowledge regarding certain of their allegations, 
stating in two instances their mere “belief” that particular conversations had 
occurred. 
 
Having reviewed the record before me, I conclude that the affiants have 
failed to demonstrate clearly the existence of bias, prejudice, or other 
disqualifying interest that mandates Judge Crow’s disqualification from the 
underlying case.  The matter shall proceed before Judge Crow.  Having reached 
this conclusion, I do not find it necessary to address affiants’ request that Judge 
Crow be disqualified from all pending cases in which the prosecuting attorney is a 
party or counsel for a party. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied. 
__________________