[Cite as In re Disqualification of Synenberg, 127 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2009-Ohio-7206.]

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF SYNENBERG. 

THE STATE OF OHIO v. D’AMBROSIO. 

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Synenberg, 

127 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2009-Ohio-7206.] 

Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied. 

(No. 09-AP-033 — Decided June 10, 2009.) 

ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 

Pleas Case No. CR-232189-B. 

__________________ 

MOYER, C.J. 

{¶ 1} William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Assistant Prosecutors Lisa Reitz Williamson and Matthew E. Meyer have filed an 

affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the 

disqualification of Judge Joan Synenberg from acting on any further proceedings 

in case No. CR-232189-B, the death-penalty case of defendant Joe D’Ambrosio in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. 

{¶ 2} Affiants allege that Judge Synenberg has acted in a manner causing 

the state to reasonably question her impartiality and fairness. According to 

affiants, the judge (1) failed to disclose her role several years ago as a defense 

attorney for Thomas Keenan, D’Ambrosio’s codefendant, (2) treated prosecutors 

with hostility and thereby deprived the state of a meaningful opportunity to 

participate in two hearings, and (3) inappropriately provided a journalist with a 

journal entry and other information that caused an inaccurate and inflammatory 

newspaper story, prejudicing the state’s ability to obtain a fair trial. 

{¶ 3} Judge Synenberg has responded in writing to the concerns raised in 

the affidavit. The judge expressly denies ever representing Keenan. She further 

maintains that the record in the underlying case reflects that she has been fair, 

impartial, and respectful to all participants. In regard to the third allegation, Judge 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Synenberg concedes that she provided an order to a newspaper columnist, but she 

denies any impropriety because that order had been rendered in open court and on 

the record one day earlier. 

{¶ 4} Robert L. Tobik, counsel for D’Ambrosio, has also filed an 

affidavit in response. Tobik maintains that Judge Synenberg has been 

consistently polite and fair to all counsel throughout these proceedings. 

Moreover, he disputes the state’s assertion that the judge has treated prosecutors 

with hostility or disrespect. Rather, Tobik states that Judge Synenberg has shown 

great restraint despite the fact that prosecutors have acted at times in a 

confrontational and abrupt manner. 

Background 

{¶ 5} In 1988, the state charged D’Ambrosio, Keenan, and Edward 

Espinoza with the aggravated murder of Anthony Klann. Keenan and 

D’Ambrosio were tried separately. Keenan was tried twice, convicted, and 

sentenced to death. See State v. Keenan (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 133, 689 N.E.2d 

929. D’Ambrosio was tried, convicted, and also sentenced to death. See State v. 

D’Ambrosio (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 652 N.E.2d 710. 

{¶ 6} On March 24, 2006, the United States District Court, Northern 

District of Ohio, Eastern Division, found that the state had failed to disclose 

exculpatory evidence prior to trial and granted D’Ambrosio a conditional writ of 

habeas corpus. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. D’Ambrosio v. Bagley (C.A.6, 2008), 

527 F.3d 489. Accordingly, on September 11, 2008, the district court issued an 

order instructing the state to set aside D’Ambrosio’s aggravated-murder 

conviction and death sentence or retry him within 180 days. 

{¶ 7} In September 2008, the state sought a retrial, which is the subject 

of the instant affidavit of disqualification. D’Ambrosio’s retrial was assigned to 

Judge Synenberg, who set the matter for trial on March 2, 2009, eight days before 

the expiration of the federal court’s conditional writ. 
January Term, 2009 

3 

{¶ 8} On February 25, 2009, Judge Synenberg sanctioned the state for 

failing to comply with Crim.R. 16. Specifically, on February 20, the state 

discovered the existence of four items of physical evidence that had been 

recovered during the murder investigation but had not been provided to 

D’Ambrosio. The judge accepted the state’s proposal that she impose the least 

restrictive sanction available and continue the trial to allow for forensic testing of 

the newly discovered evidence. Judge Synenberg thereafter rescheduled 

D’Ambrosio’s trial for May 4, 2009. 

{¶ 9} Because the judge’s order extended the trial beyond the district 

court’s 180-day deadline for retrying D’Ambrosio, the state returned to federal 

district court on March 4, 2009, to request an extension of time within which it 

could retry its case. On March 26, 2009, the state filed the instant affidavit of 

disqualification against Judge Synenberg. The state filed a copy of the affidavit 

of disqualification with the district court as a “supplemental authority.” On April 

24, 2009, the district court denied the state’s motion to extend the deadline for 

retrying D’Ambrosio. Instead, the district court ordered that D’Ambrosio’s 

conviction and death sentence be expunged as a remedy for the state’s failure to 

engage in a good-faith effort to comply with the 180-day mandate. The district 

court, however, did not bar the state from retrying D’Ambrosio on the charges in 

the original indictment. 

Judge Synenberg’s Alleged Representation of Keenan 

{¶ 10} Affiants first allege that Judge Synenberg previously acted as 

defense counsel to Thomas Keenan, D’Ambrosio’s codefendant in the murder of 

Klann. According to affiants, in 1993, then attorney Synenberg served as cocounsel to Keenan during his second trial. Because Keenan and D’Ambrosio 

were both accused of murdering Klann, affiants argue that Judge Synenberg’s 

representation of Keenan has given her personal knowledge of disputed facts in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

D’Ambrosio’s case. Thus, affiants seek the judge’s disqualification to avoid any 

conflict of interest. 

{¶ 11} Affiants discovered this information on February 25, 2009, when a 

member of the public (who requested anonymity) alerted the lead prosecutor that 

Judge Synenberg was listed as an attorney of record for Keenan on the on-line 

docket of the Cuyahoga County clerk of courts. Prosecutors broached this subject 

with Judge Synenberg during a hearing on March 2, 2009, and asked the judge to 

formally disclose what role she had in Keenan’s case and to recuse herself from 

D’Ambrosio’s case. According to affiants, Judge Synenberg refused to 

acknowledge or otherwise disclose her prior representation of Keenan. Thus, 

affiants contend that Judge Synenberg’s refusal to disclose her involvement in 

Keenan’s trial – either before it came to the prosecutor’s attention or after – 

constitutes a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

{¶ 12} Affiants rely foremost on the clerk of courts’ website, which 

contains on-line case and docketing information. Affiants cite specifically the 

attorney-information page in Keenan’s case listing “Joan C. Synenberg” as an 

attorney of record in that case. See case No. CR-88-232189-A, 2007 WL 

5581004. Affiants aver that the clerk’s website “is an official record relied on by 

the Court in the ordinary course of its business.” 

{¶ 13} Affiants have also submitted affidavits of Frank C. Gasper and 

Mark J. Mahoney, the assistant prosecutors in Keenan’s second trial. According 

to Gasper’s affidavit, in October 1993 Joan Synenberg – then known as Joan 

Lehmann – appeared as co-counsel for Keenan in place of attorney Rocco Russo. 

Gasper recalls that he attended pretrials with attorney Lehmann in the Keenan 

case and also provided her with discovery materials. As for Mahoney, he states 

that during Keenan’s second trial, defense counsel James Kersey told him that “an 

attractive new female lawyer would be assisting [Kersey] with the trial, and 
January Term, 2009 

5 

[Kersey] mentioned the woman as being named ‘Joanie.’ ” Mahoney also recalls 

seeing Judge Synenberg on at least one occasion present in the courtroom of 

Judge Calabrese during pretrial proceedings in Keenan’s case, “sitting in front of 

the bar and directly behind defense counsel’s trial table.” Mahoney, who is the 

lead prosecutor in D’Ambrosio’s case, explains that he did not recall until 

recently Judge Synenberg’s involvement in Keenan’s second trial due to the 

length of time that had elapsed since that time. 

{¶ 14} Despite the judge’s name appearing in Keenan’s case on the 

clerk’s website and the affidavits of Gasper and Mahoney, I cannot conclude on 

the record before me that Judge Synenberg acted as defense counsel in Keenan’s 

retrial. First, the attorney-information page listing Judge Synenberg as counsel in 

Keenan’s case contradicts affiants’ assertion that the clerk’s website is an official 

court record. The attorney page includes a disclaimer stating that “[o]nly the 

official court record available from the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts, 

available in person, should be relied upon as accurate and current.” Moreover, 

users of the clerk’s website also “are cautioned to verify independently any 

information or data obtained from this Website with the official court record 

information maintained by the office of the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts.” 

{¶ 15} Second, Judge Synenberg’s name does not appear in any official 

court record. That is, there is no existing docket entry, hearing transcript, trial 

transcript, or any other court document that lists the judge as having represented 

Keenan. Indeed, affiants concede that they have thoroughly read through the 

transcript from Keenan’s retrial and confirmed that Judge Synenberg is not named 

or mentioned as an attorney during any on-the-record hearing. 

{¶ 16} Third, according to Prosecutor Mason, neither Judge Anthony 

Calabrese, who presided over Keenan’s retrial, nor his bailiff could recall whether 

Judge Synenberg appeared as counsel in Keenan’s case. Likewise, Sandra 

McPherson, Keenan’s mitigation specialist, could not recall whether Judge 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

Synenberg appeared. Additionally, James Kersey, Keenan’s co-counsel, 

submitted an affidavit stating that he has no recollection of Judge Synenberg 

appearing in Keenan’s case as counsel or as a stand-in for attorney Russo.1 

Moreover, Kersey specifically denies making the statements attributed to him in 

Mahoney’s affidavit. 

{¶ 17} Fourth, Judge Synenberg has expressly denied that she represented 

Keenan or appeared at any proceeding during Keenan’s retrial or otherwise. She 

further notes that she was not qualified for death-penalty cases at the time of 

Keenan’s retrial in 1993 and 1994. Moreover, she maintains that she never shared 

discovery documents with Gasper or any other assistant prosecutor in Keenan’s 

case. 

{¶ 18} To prevail on an affidavit of disqualification, an affiant must 

demonstrate clearly the existence of bias, prejudice, or other disqualifying interest 

that requires a judge’s removal. See In re Disqualification of Crow (2000), 91 

Ohio St.3d 1209, 741 N.E.2d 137. Affiants, however, have not offered the type of 

compelling evidence necessary to order disqualification of a judge. Based on the 

evidence presented by affiants, no reasonable and objective observer would 

harbor serious doubts about the judge’s ability to preside over the case in a fair 

and impartial manner. See In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 

2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8 (setting forth the proper test for 

disqualifying a judge). 

Judge Synenberg’s Treatment of Prosecutors 

{¶ 19} Affiants allege that Judge Synenberg’s hostile treatment of the 

prosecutors handling this case demonstrates her inability to serve as a fair and 

impartial jurist. Affiants first claim that the judge denied their request for time to 

prepare a written response to defense counsel’s motion to dismiss or for 

 

1. Attorney Russo is deceased. 
January Term, 2009 

7 

alternative sanctions stemming from the state’s failure to provide discovery. 

Affiants complain because the judge ordered the hearing on the motion to go 

forward on February 24, 2009, despite knowing that Mahoney was already 

engaged in another capital murder trial before a different judge and had expected 

to appear only for a bond hearing rather than a hearing regarding the alleged 

discovery violations. 

{¶ 20} An affidavit of disqualification addresses the narrow issue of 

possible bias or prejudice of a judge; it 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. Judge Synenberg’s alleged failure to 

grant the prosecutors time to respond to a motion is a matter within the judge’s 

sound discretion and is not, by itself, evidence of bias or prejudice. See In re 

Disqualification of Eyster, 105 Ohio St.3d 1246, 2004-Ohio-7350, 826 N.E.2d 

304, ¶ 4. Indeed, trial judges are entitled to exercise their discretion in ruling on 

many matters, and it is not my role in deciding an affidavit of disqualification to 

second-guess each ruling. In re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio St.3d 1208, 

2005-Ohio-7146, 850 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 6. 

{¶ 21} Moreover, vague or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to 

establish bias or prejudice. In re Disqualification of Walker (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 

606, 522 N.E.2d 460. Contrary to affiants’ assertions, Judge Synenberg informed 

all counsel on February 23 that she would hold a hearing the next day on the 

recently discovered evidence in the state’s possession. Thus, affiants’ claim that 

they had expected to appear only for a bond hearing is not supported by the 

record. There is also no evidence that the judge denied any request for time to 

respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss. No written request for time was filed, 

and no objection was made to the judge’s decision to go forward with the 

February 24 hearing. In fact, Mahoney urged Judge Synenberg to proceed 

immediately with the hearing on the motion. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

{¶ 22} Affiants next maintain that the judge berated and screamed at 

prosecutors during an off-the-record meeting on March 2, 2009, after they had 

asked the judge to recuse herself. According to Assistant Prosecutors 

Zimmerman and Meyer, Judge Synenberg accused them of “sandbagging” her 

and grandstanding for the media. 

{¶ 23} Defense counsel Tobik and J. Michael Goldberg, the judge’s staff 

attorney, dispute affiants’ version of events, and they indicate that the judge was 

respectful and fair at all times. As for Judge Synenberg, she admits to being 

surprised and upset that the state had chosen to request her recusal in open court 

without having investigated the matter or first discussing it with her in chambers. 

She denies, however, that she treated the state’s attorneys disrespectfully. 

{¶ 24} If a judge’s words or actions convey the impression that the judge 

has developed a “hostile feeling or spirit of ill will” or reached a “fixed 

anticipatory judgment” that will prevent the judge from presiding over the case 

with “an open state of mind * * * governed by the law and the facts,” State ex rel. 

Pratt v. Weygandt (1956), 164 Ohio St. 463, 469, 58 O.O. 315, 132 N.E.2d 191, 

then the judge should not remain on the case. Judges are, however, entitled to 

express dissatisfaction about attorneys’ conduct and tactics inside and outside the 

courtroom, as long as the judge’s dissatisfaction is “expressed in a way that 

promotes public confidence in the integrity, dignity, and impartiality of the 

judiciary.” In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 10. As Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B) directs, judges should be 

“patient, dignified, and courteous” to parties and their lawyers, even in the most 

difficult of circumstances. 

{¶ 25} Judge Synenberg was clearly taken aback by the manner in which 

the state sought her recusal. But those who were present during the March 2 

meeting between the judge and counsel remember the conversation quite 

differently. On the record before me, I am unable to establish whether Judge 
January Term, 2009 

9 

Synenberg actually made the alleged comments, let alone determine whether the 

comments reflect bias or prejudice. Thus, in the wake of the conflicting stories 

presented here, I cannot conclude that the judge should be removed from 

presiding over further proceedings. See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 

105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 8. 

{¶ 26} Affiants’ third claim here is that during the March 2 hearing, the 

judge allowed defense counsel to make extended remarks about the state’s alleged 

failure to disclose evidence and then consistently interrupted, cut off, and argued 

with prosecutors when they attempted to explain why defense counsel’s 

arguments were factually and legally incorrect. 

{¶ 27} I have rejected in other cases the type of concerns voiced by 

affiants in this case. In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214, 

2003-Ohio-5484, 798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4 (an affidavit of disqualification “is not a 

vehicle to contest matters of substantive or procedural law”). Moreover, after 

review of the March 2 hearing transcript, I am convinced that the judge conducted 

herself in a manner consistent with Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B), which requires judges to 

be “patient, dignified, and courteous” when speaking to litigants, lawyers, and 

others in an official capacity. The hearing was primarily devoted to resolving 

discovery issues arising out of the state’s belated disclosure of additional 

evidence. Although the judge did prevent the state from making certain 

arguments, this was done only as to matters that the court had previously 

addressed. Certainly, judges have wide discretion in how they conduct courtroom 

proceedings, and nothing about Judge Synenberg’s conduct raises serious 

questions for me about her ability to set aside any frustration with the state’s 

attorneys and preside fairly over further proceedings. 

Cleveland Plain Dealer Article 

{¶ 28} Finally, affiants allege that Judge Synenberg was a source for an 

extremely inaccurate and scathing February 27, 2009 newspaper column that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

accused prosecutors of hiding evidence and called for ending the “charade called 

justice.” According to affiants, the judge inappropriately provided a journal entry 

to a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer before the entry was filed with the 

clerk of courts. In addition to the entry, affiants claim that Judge Synenberg made 

direct comments to the columnist about the substance of the case in violation of 

the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

{¶ 29} Judge Synenberg admits that she provided a newspaper columnist 

with a journal entry before the entry was filed with the clerk. The subject of this 

entry was the judge’s decision to continue the trial as a sanction for the state’s 

discovery violations. The judge’s decision to provide the media with a copy of 

her entry before counsel had received the entry was ill-advised. Nevertheless, I 

do not find that the judge’s action requires her disqualification. Judge Synenberg 

informed both parties in open court on February 25, 2009, of her decision to 

continue the trial. Moreover, contrary to affiants’ claims, there is no compelling 

evidence that the judge made any direct comment about the substance of the case 

to the columnist. Judge Synenberg avers that she referred the columnist to the 

transcripts, journal entries, and orders, but did not otherwise discuss the case, and 

I see nothing before me that would lead me to question the judge on this matter. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 30} As I have stated, “[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. 

{¶ 31} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 

denied. The case may proceed before Judge Synenberg. 

______________________