Title: In re Disqualification of Turner McCall

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Turner McCall, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2021-Ohio-252.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF TURNER MCCALL. 
THE STATE OF OHIO/THE CITY OF CLEVELAND v. CORNELY. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Turner McCall, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2021-Ohio-252.] 
Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03 and 2701.031—Affiant failed 
to demonstrate bias or prejudice by judge or that judge has a conflict of 
interest—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 20-AP-107—Decided January 22, 2021.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cleveland Municipal Court 
Case No. 2018 CRB 017558. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Jay F. Crook, counsel for the defendant, has filed an affidavit pursuant 
to R.C. 2701.03 and 2701.031 and Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 5(C), 
seeking to disqualify Judge Shiela Turner McCall from the above-referenced case. 
{¶ 2} In 2019, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic violence 
and Judge Turner McCall sentenced him to community control.  The defendant later 
appealed a decision denying his motion to modify a condition of his community 
control.  The defendant’s appeal remains pending.  The defendant also filed 
separate complaints for a writ of procedendo and a writ of prohibition against Judge 
Turner McCall.  The Eighth District Court of Appeals granted the writ of 
procedendo, see State ex rel. Cornely v. McCall, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109832, 
2020-Ohio-4384 (“Cornely I”), but dismissed the complaint for a writ of 
prohibition, see State ex rel. Cornely v. McCall, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110125, 
2020-Ohio-6747 (“Cornely II”). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 3} In his affidavit of disqualification, Mr. Crook alleges that Judge 
Turner McCall is biased against the defendant and favors the victim.  Primarily, 
Mr. Crook asserts that the judge has engaged in obstructionist behavior and has a 
conflict of interest and that there have been “a number of irregularities in the 
proceedings” that would cause an objective observer to question her impartiality. 
{¶ 4} Judge Turner McCall filed a response and a supplemental response to 
the affidavit and denies any bias against the defendant. 
{¶ 5} In disqualification requests, “[t]he term ‘bias or prejudice’ ‘implies a 
hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will or undue friendship or favoritism toward one of 
the litigants or his attorney, with the formation of a fixed anticipatory judgment on 
the part of the judge, as contradistinguished from an open state of mind which will 
be governed by the law and the facts.’ ”  In re Disqualification of O’Neill, 100 Ohio 
St.3d 1232, 2002-Ohio-7479, 798 N.E.2d 17, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Pratt v. 
Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 132 N.E.2d 191 (1956).  “The proper test for 
determining whether a judge’s participation in a case presents an appearance of 
impropriety is * * * an objective one.  A judge should step aside or be removed if 
a reasonable and objective observer would harbor serious doubts about the judge’s 
impartiality.”  In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-
7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 6} For the reasons explained below, Mr. Crook has not established that 
Judge Turner McCall has hostile feelings toward the defendant or has formed a 
fixed anticipatory judgment on any remaining issue in the underlying case.  Nor has 
Mr. Crook set forth a compelling argument for disqualifying Judge Turner McCall 
to avoid an appearance of partiality. 
Alleged obstructionist behavior 
{¶ 7} Mr. Crook alleges that Judge Turner McCall’s failure to rule on one 
of the defendant’s motions resulted in the Eighth District issuing the writ of 
procedendo against her.  He further alleges that in the defendant’s pending appeal, 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
the judge has ignored remand orders from the Eighth District.  The judge’s 
obstructionist actions, Mr. Crook asserts, have impeded his client’s right to seek 
meaningful relief in the court of appeals. 
{¶ 8} In response, Judge Turner McCall attempts to explain why she did not 
rule on the motion that led to the procedendo action.  She also states that she has 
fully complied with remand orders from the Eighth District and that the Eighth 
District recently dismissed the defendant’s prohibition complaint in which he raised 
many of the same arguments that he asserts in his affidavit of disqualification. 
{¶ 9} Mr. Crook has failed to establish that Judge Turner McCall has 
engaged in obstructionist conduct warranting disqualification.  In the procedendo 
action, the Eighth District found Judge Turner McCall’s arguments “ill-founded,” 
Cornely I, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109832, 2020-Ohio-4384, at ¶ 6, and ordered 
her to rule “forthwith” on a pending motion, id. at ¶ 6, 12.  The judge complied and 
decided the motion within weeks.  Nothing suggests that the judge’s legal position 
in the procedendo action was the product of bias against the defendant.  Rather, it 
appears that the judge mistakenly believed that she was unable to rule on the 
motion.  See id. at ¶ 4, 6. 
{¶ 10} In the prohibition action, the Eighth District noted that Judge Turner 
McCall had complied—at least in part—with remand orders in the defendant’s 
appeal.  Cornely II, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110125, 2020-Ohio-6747, at ¶ 22.  
Regardless of whether Mr. Crook believes that finding is accurate, this is not the 
appropriate forum in which to determine whether Judge Turner McCall has 
complied with remand instructions from the Eighth District.  The court of appeals 
should first resolve that issue in the defendant’s appeal.  An affidavit of 
disqualification “is not the mechanism for determining whether a judge has 
complied with the law.”  In re Disqualification of Griffin, 101 Ohio St.3d 1219, 
2003-Ohio-7356, 803 N.E.2d 820, ¶ 8. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Alleged conflict of interest 
{¶ 11} Mr. Crook avers that Judge Turner McCall has a conflict of interest 
based on the following facts: the judge is a former employee of the City of 
Cleveland Law Department, the victim is a longtime attorney with the law 
department and served at the same time as the judge, the law department prosecuted 
the underlying criminal case against the defendant, and the law department 
represented the judge in the related procedendo action.  Thus, Mr. Crook argues, 
the same law department that serves as Judge Turner McCall’s counsel also 
employs the victim.  In addition, Mr. Crook notes that in the defendant’s ongoing 
divorce case, the victim included Judge Turner McCall as one of her witnesses. 
{¶ 12} Judge Turner McCall disagrees that she has a conflict.  The judge 
acknowledges that she was employed as an assistant prosecutor for the City of 
Cleveland Law Department from 2005 through 2010 and that the victim is an 
attorney for the law department.  But the judge further states that she and the victim 
worked in different divisions of the law department and that before the underlying 
criminal case, the judge had never met the victim and had no knowledge of her.  
The judge also notes that she was unaware that she had been named as a witness in 
the defendant’s divorce proceeding and that she will not participate in that matter. 
{¶ 13} In general, “[t]he prior professional activities of a judge are not 
grounds for disqualification where the record fails to demonstrate the existence of 
a relationship or interest that clearly and adversely impacts a party’s ability to 
obtain a fair and impartial trial.”  In re Disqualification of Cross, 74 Ohio St.3d 
1228, 657 N.E.2d 1338 (1991).  Considering that Judge Turner McCall did not 
know the victim prior to the underlying case, the record is insufficient to support 
the conclusion that the judge could be tempted to depart from her expected judicial 
neutrality merely because the victim is employed by the same law department that 
previously employed the judge. 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
{¶ 14} Nor has Mr. Crook established that the judge has a conflict because 
the law department represented the judge in the procedendo action.  Although a 
trial judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned if she presides over a case 
in which a litigant is represented by the judge’s own lawyer, Mr. Crook 
acknowledges that the law department is required by city code to represent judges 
of the Cleveland Municipal Court when they are sued in their official capacities.  
As previously explained, “[i]f a judge is represented by the prosecuting attorney or 
the attorney general, the judge should not hear cases in which the same individual 
attorney representing the judge is also representing a litigant in a case before the 
judge.  The appearance of another lawyer from the prosecutor’s office or attorney 
general’s office, however, would not necessitate the judge’s recusal.”  In re 
Disqualification of Reinbold, 152 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2017-Ohio-9427, 94 N.E.3d 
570, ¶ 5.  There is no indication here that the same attorney who prosecuted the 
defendant also defended Judge Turner McCall in the procedendo action. 
{¶ 15} Finally, the fact that one of the parties in the defendant’s divorce 
case identified Judge Turner McCall as a potential witness does not automatically 
require the judge’s removal from the underlying criminal matter.  At this point, it 
is unclear whether the judge will in fact be called as a witness in the divorce 
proceedings and whether the criminal matter will be pending at the time of the 
divorce trial. 
Other alleged “irregularities” 
{¶ 16} Mr. Crook also alleges that Judge Turner McCall has engaged in 
numerous instances of impropriety, including having or encouraging improper ex 
parte contacts with the victim and acting in a hostile manner toward the defendant 
at multiple hearings.  For her part, Judge Turner McCall thoroughly responded to 
each of Mr. Crook’s averments. 
{¶ 17} Upon review, none of Mr. Crook’s allegations demonstrate the 
existence of bias or an appearance of bias.  For example, “[a]n alleged ex parte 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
communication constitutes grounds for disqualification when there is ‘proof that 
the communication * * * addressed substantive matters in the pending case.’ ” 
(Ellipsis sic.)  In re Disqualification of Forsthoefel, 135 Ohio St.3d 1316, 2013-
Ohio-2292, 989 N.E.2d 62, ¶ 7, quoting In re Disqualification of Calabrese, 100 
Ohio St.3d 1224, 2002-Ohio-7475, 798 N.E.2d 10, ¶ 2.  “The allegations must be 
substantiated and consist of something more than hearsay or speculation.”  Id.  Mr. 
Crook’s allegations here, however, are based on speculation or hearsay. 
{¶ 18} Additionally, in deciding affidavits of disqualification, “[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.  To overcome the presumption, affiants are often required “to submit evidence 
beyond the affidavit of disqualification supporting the allegations contained 
therein.”  In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, 135 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2012-Ohio-
6341, 985 N.E.2d 494, ¶ 6.  Here, Mr. Crook alleges that Judge Turner McCall 
acted in a hostile manner toward the defendant at an October 2020 hearing.  Yet he 
has failed to substantiate his allegation with a copy of the transcript.  Considering 
that Judge Turner McCall expressly denies any such hostility, Mr. Crook has failed 
to overcome the presumption that the judge is fair and impartial. 
{¶ 19} For the reasons explained above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Turner McCall. 
________________________