State v. Dean
127 Ohio St. 3d 140
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Dean was charged with two counts of aggravated murder and related offenses, including robbery; the death penalty was sought.
- Pretrial, the state certified that a key witness’s address could expose her to harm, triggering Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(e) proceedings.
- Defense moved to disqualify the trial judge after learning of the certification hearing; Gillard rule was discussed but ultimately not applied.
- Defense counsels’ relationship with the judge deteriorated, with threats of contempt and concerns about ethical conduct, leading to a motion to withdraw.
- Dean then sought to represent himself, claiming duress and bias; the court ultimately denied the request, and trial proceeded with the original counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of self‑representation was proper given the judge’s bias | Dean contends the waiver was clear and the judge’s bias tainted proceedings | State argues the waiver was involuntary and bias unsupported | Abused; Dean entitled to self‑representation; remanded for new trial |
| Whether the judge’s hostile remarks toward counsel violated due process | Dean argues bias against defense counsel made trial unfair | State contends remarks did not show impermissible bias | Bias proven; due process violated; new trial required |
| Remedy for the tainted trial—vacatur of convictions and remand for new trial | Dean seeks new trial with impartial proceedings | State seeks affirmation of convictions | Convictions and death sentence vacated; case remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillard, 40 Ohio St.3d 226 (1988) (disqualification when state handles discovery matters to avoid bias)
- McGuire, 80 Ohio St.3d 390 (1997) (recognizes Gillard-based disqualification rationale)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self‑representation requires clear, intelligent waiver)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (extrajudicial sources of bias; Rule 1: remarks may show bias if extreme)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181 (2002) (necessity of impartial tribunal for fair trial)
- State v. Reed, 74 Ohio St.3d 534 (1996) (per se reversible error for denial of self‑representation when properly invoked)
- Garey, 540 F.3d 1253 (2008) (Voluntary self-representation can be found when defendant rejects counsel and understands consequences)
- Walberg v. Israel, 766 F.2d 1071 (1985) (bias against counsel can deprive client of impartial tribunal)