In re Disqualification of Hunter, 2013 Ohio 4467

The Cincinnati Enquirer (through reporter Jennifer Baker) filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Tracie M. Hunter from hearing motions to close multiple juvenile delinquency proceedings.
Baker alleged a May 1, 2013 e-mail from Judge Hunter to the county prosecutor showed the judge believed Baker had “illegally forged” the judge’s name on media-access application forms, demonstrating bias.
Judge Hunter responded that the Enquirer lacked standing under R.C. 2701.03 and denied any bias, explaining she reported perceived improper affixing of her name to the prosecutor as a judicial duty.
The Supreme Court recognized the unique role and rights of the press in juvenile closure proceedings and treated the Enquirer as the equivalent of a party for purposes of standing under R.C. 2701.03 in these limited circumstances.
On the merits, the Court required specific, particularized factual allegations of bias; it found Baker’s affidavit conclusory and lacking sufficiently compelling, particularized evidence that Judge Hunter had formed a fixed, prejudicial judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to file affidavit under R.C. 2701.03	The Enquirer argued it has standing because it is affected by closure motions and has appeared and objected to closure.	Hunter argued only a party or party’s counsel may file and the Enquirer is not a party.	The Court held media entities participating in closure proceedings (like the Enquirer) are equivalent to a party for R.C. 2701.03 standing in these limited circumstances.
Whether Judge Hunter’s e-mail shows disqualifying bias	Baker argued the May 1 e-mail accusing her of forgery showed hostility and a fixed anticipatory judgment requiring disqualification.	Hunter argued the e-mail reflected a duty to report possible misconduct, denied personal bias, and asserted a presumption of impartiality.	The Court held the affidavit failed to allege specific, particularized facts sufficient to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality; disqualification denied.

State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56 (2006) (press and public have standing to contest juvenile court closure and may present evidence of a countervailing right to be present)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (press and public must be given opportunity to be heard on exclusion from proceedings)
Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (concurring opinion emphasizing public/press rights to be heard on closure)
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Geer, 114 Ohio St.3d 511 (2007) (prohibiting media restrictions issued without opportunity for affected parties to respond)
In re Disqualification of Cleary, 74 Ohio St.3d 1225 (1990) (statute limits affidavit-of-disqualification standing to parties or their counsel)
In re Disqualification of Mitrovich, 101 Ohio St.3d 1214 (2003) (affidavit must describe with specificity the facts supporting bias claim)
In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241 (2003) (disqualification is extraordinary; judge presumed impartial)