In re Disqualification of Bates
134 Ohio St. 3d 1249
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Judge Bates’ spouse is Lucas County prosecuting attorney; disqualification sought under Jud.Cond.R. 2.11.
- Affiants filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking Bates’s disqualification from Pettaway’s capital case.
- Remittal of disqualification was signed Oct 25, 2011, allowing Bates to preside if defendant agreed.
- Pettaway signed remittal; later attempted withdrawal on May 8, 2012, which Bates denied.
- Affiants alleged chilling effect and bias but provided no direct proof (IQ issues, later events).
- Court denies disqualification and allows case to proceed before Bates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spouse’s position requires disqualification | Pettaway argues bias due to spouse prosecuting. | Bates and defense say noPersonal involvement by spouse in case. | No disqualification required; remittal and lack of personal prosecutorial participation. |
| Effect of judge’s remarks on potential bias | Remarks about fees show bias. | Comments were ill-advised but do not prove bias. | Remarks not disqualifying; lack of chilling effect shown. |
| Impact of barring victim’s mother from courtroom | Order could reflect prejudice. | No proven bias; order within courtroom management. | Not a basis for disqualification. |
| Effect of Pettaway withdrawing remittal | Withdrawal could undermine impartiality. | Remittal status independent of disqualification decision. | Remittal withdrawal does not mandate disqualification. |
| Governing standard for disqualification in this context | Jud.Cond.R. 2.11 requires disqualification. | Rule not satisfied; no appearance of improper influence. | Disqualification not required under applicable standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243 (2004-Ohio-7354) (judge may be impartial despite related prosecutor if not personally involved in case)
- In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214 (2003-Ohio-5484) (affidavits must allege bias with specific facts)
- In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217 (2003-Ohio-7351) (disqualification not warranted for discretionary rulings)
- In re Disqualification of Sutula, 105 Ohio St.3d 1237 (2004-Ohio-7351) (judge's forceful language does not prove bias)
- State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St. 463 (1956) (appearance of bias must be compelling to overcome presumption of impartiality)
- In re Disqualification of Lewis, 2004-Ohio-0 (2004) (test for appearance of impropriety)