In re Disqualification of Nastoff
134 Ohio St. 3d 1232
Ohio2012Background
- Davis filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking disqualification of Judge Nastoff from postconviction proceedings.
- Nastoff presided over the capital sentencing hearing for Davis in 2009.
- Davis later filed a postconviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance for not seeking recusal.
- Nastoff denied a motion to recuse himself on January 6, 2012.
- The court held no basis for disqualification and permitted the case to proceed before Nastoff.
- The ruling clarifies the bias-impartiality standard in postconviction contexts against vague or unsupported allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disqualification is warranted based on alleged bias or interest | Davis argues Nastoff’s prior role creates bias in postconviction review | Nastoff argues no bias shown and fair ability to rule | No disqualification; no bias proven |
| Whether presiding judge may hear postconviction petitions after trial | Davis contends prior involvement requires recusal | Nastoff asserts ability to adjudicate impartially | Presiding judge may hear postconviction petition absent bias |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disqualification of Kilbane, 42 Ohio St.3d 602 (Ohio 1989) (judge who presided at trial not disqualified absent bias or disqualifying interest)
- In re Disqualification of Aubry, 117 Ohio St.3d 1245 (Ohio 2006) (state and federal courts have been virtually unanimous on bias standards)
- In re Disqualification of Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606 (Ohio 1988) (vague, unsubstantiated allegations insufficient to establish bias)