In re Disqualification of Winkler
135 Ohio St. 3d 1271
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Campbell filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Ralph E. Winkler from resentencing in Hamilton County Case No. B-0808031.
- Campbell alleged Winkler made biased and prejudiced comments at the initial sentencing and had recused himself in another proceeding against Campbell.
- Winkler responded denying bias, claiming his comments were based on the trial record and PSI, and that he should oversee resentencing as the trial judge.
- Campbell had received a 28-year sentence at the 2009 sentencing, and the Ninth Circuit remanded in 2012–2013 for resentencing after finding allied offenses of similar import.
- The court found that Winkler’s remarks crossed the line to create an appearance of impropriety, warranting reassignment, though no actual bias was proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit warranted disqualification | Campbell argues appearance of bias requires removal | Winkler asserts no actual bias and that comments were appropriate | Yes; disqualification granted due to appearance of impropriety |
| Waiver of the disqualification objection | Campbell timely raised concerns despite delay in filing | Waiver because facts known since 2009 but not raised promptly | Not waived; interim remand and ongoing proceedings justified filing |
| Whether Winkler’s sentencing comments created an appearance of impropriety | Comments showed hostility and prejudice toward Campbell | Comments reflect damage assessment based on record and PSI | Yes; appearance of bias supported by the remarks |
| Whether reassignment to a different judge was appropriate | Reassignment preserves public confidence in fairness | Reassignment is unnecessary if impartiality can be preserved | Yes; Judge Winkler must participate no further and reassignment ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disqualification of Hoover, 113 Ohio St.3d 1233 (2006-Ohio-7234) (appearance of impropriety can require disqualification)
- In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1215 (2003-Ohio-7354) (statements unchallenged could suggest impropriety)
- In re Disqualification of Cleary, 88 Ohio St.3d 1220 (2000-Ohio-1106) (judicial demeanor must avoid appearance of bias)
- In re Disqualification of Ruehlman, 74 Ohio St.3d 1229 (1991-Ohio-1339) (appearance of bias can mandate disqualification)
- In re Disqualification of Sheward, 77 Ohio St.3d 1258 (1996-Ohio-365) (look to appearance of prejudice for disqualification)
- Turner v. Marshall, 123 Ohio St. 586 (1931-Ohio-454) (litigant’s confidence in fairness is vital)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (warning that biases from experience may be permissible in some contexts but can require disqualification when appearance of impropriety arises)