Legal Document

409 U.S. 57 93 Supreme Court Reporter 80 34 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 267 Clarence WARD, Petitioner,v.VILLAGE OF MONROEVILLE, OHIO. Number 71 - 496. Argued Oct. 17, 1972. Decided Nov. 14, Syllabus Petitioner was denied a trial before disinterested and impartial judicial officer as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment where he compelled to stand for traffic offenses mayor, who responsible village finances whose court through fines, forfeitures, costs, fees provided substantial portion funds. Tumey versus Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, L.Ed. 749. A statutory provision disqualification interested or biased judges did not afford petitioner sufficient safeguard, it is no constitutional relevance that could later be tried de novo in another court, entitled an judge first instance. Pp. 59—62, 27 Ohio St.2d 179, 271 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 757, reversed remanded. Bernard Atlantic Berkman, Cleveland, petitioner. Franklin D. Eckstein, Willard, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Pursuant Rev.Code Ann. § 1905.01 et seq. (1968), which authorizes mayors sit cases ordinance violations certain offenses, Mayor Monroeville, convicted two fined him $50 on each. The Appeals Huron County, 21 App.2d 254 375 (1969), Court, Hoio N.Ed.2d 757 (1971), three justices dissenting, sustained conviction, rejecting petitioner's objection mayor also had responsibilities revenue production law enforcement Amendment. We granted certiorari. 404 1058, 92 735, 30 745 (1972). 2 Monroeville has wide executive powers chief conservator peace. He president council, presides at all meetings, votes case tie, accounts annually council respecting finances, fills vacancies offices general overall supervision affairs. major part income derived from imposed his mayor's court. Thus, 1964 this contributed $23,589.50 total revenues $46,355.38; 1965 $18,508.95 $46,752.60; 1966 $16,085 $43,585.13; 1967 $20,060.65 $53,931.43; 1968 $23,439.42 $52,995.95. This such importance when legislation threatened its loss, retained management consultant advice upon problem.1 3 Conceding 'the produced provides municipality's funds,' held nonetheless 'such fact does mean impartiality so diminished thereby cannot act fashion capacity.' St.2d, 185, N.E.2d, 761. disagree with conclusion. 4 issue turns, acknowledged, whether can regarded under principles laid down 749 (1927). There, convictions prohibition rendered College Hill, were appeared that, addition regular salary, received $696.35 costs levied against alleged violators. 'it certainly violates deprives defendant criminal dur process subject liberty property judgment direct, personal, pecuniary interest reaching conclusion case.' Id., 523, S.Ct., 441. 5 there shared directly define limits principle. Although mere union power said violate due law,' id., 534, 445 test situation one 'which would offer possible temptation average man forget burden proof required convict defendant, might lead hold balance nice, clear, true between state accused . ..' 532, 444. Plainly 'possible temptation' may exist responsibilites make partisan maintain high level contribution This, too, 'situation official perforce occupies practically seriously inconsistent positions, other judicial, (and) necessarily involves lack defendants charged crimes him.' 445. 6 wholly unlike Dugan 277 61, 48 439, 72 784 (1928), deemed controlling here. There Xenia, functions but only very limited authority. city governed commission five members, including Mayor, exercised legislative powers. manager, together commission, In those circumstances, Mayor's relationship financial policy too remote warrant presumption bias toward conviction prosecutions judge. 7 Respondent urges Ohio's provision, 2937.20 (Supp.1971), interested, biased, prejudiced safeguard protect rights. argument persuasive. First, highly dubious available raise broad challenge respect fines imposed. apparently designed particular 'in specific circumstances municipality finding prejudice 184, 760 (emphasis added). If means must show special prejudicie case, statute requires much protects little. But even if have utilized procedure objection, passed contention despite failure invoke procedure. see Raley 360 423, 436, 79 1257, 1265, 1344 (1959), heard urge erred holding established claim. 8 argues any unfairness corrected appeal County Common Pleas. disagree. 'procedural safeguard' guarantee fair court; nothing suggest incentive possibility reversal appeal. Nor, event, State's constitutionally acceptable simply because State eventually offers adjudication. neutral detached instance.2 Accordingly, remanded further proceedings opinion. 9 It ordered. 10 Reversed 11 WHITE, whom REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. 12 judged direct stake outcome. (1927), therefore controlling, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions extend it. 13 To justify striking system face, assume either every mayor-judge will disregard oath administer justice contrary commands happen often enough prophylactic, per se rule urged neither assumption nor similar officials 16 States. Hence, leave matter decided case-by-case basis, question which, understand posture now us. affirm judgment. Ordinance 59—9: 'WHEREAS, known 102nd General Assembly greatly reduces jurisdictional Courts January 1, 1960; restrictions place hardship personnel surrounding areas endanger health, welfare safety persons residing being our village; provisions cause reduction additional result increased taxation and/or curtailment services essential 'BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VILLAGE (MONROEVILLE) OHIO: Section 1. That consulting firm Midwest Consultants, Incorporated Sandusky, employed conduct survey study ascertain extent effects Law loss Village (Monroeville), prepare future operations heath (sic), citizens Moreover, Monroeville's Chief Police, appointed 737.15 testified practice charge suspects ordinance, rather than statute, whenever choice existed. App. 9. viewed light 733.40 (1954), forfeitures collected shall paid county treasury, whereas into municipal treasury. asserts conceded carried out orders. record lends itself inference. 11. presented constitutionality participation adjudication punishment litigated elects contest charges him. intimate view unconstitutional permit serve essentially ministerial capacity violation accept free voluntary plea guilty nolo contendere, forfeiture collateral, like.

Classification Label: 3