Biased Ohio death penalty case remanded

In a 7-0 decision, this morning, the Ohio Supreme Court held that rulings and statements made by a judge during trial demonstrated bias against a defendant and his attorneys that prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial.

Indicted on two counts of aggravated murder arising from the killing of one victim, the defendant had also been indicted on six additional counts of attempted murder and on eight additional counts, with firearm specifications included, in 12 counts of the indictment for other victims. The defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges, but the jury found him guilty and he received the death sentence for the aggravated murder. He appealled the convictions and death sentence to the Supreme Court, advancing 23 allegations of legal or procedural error by the trial court. (Appellant's brief)

"Among those assignments of error," the Court's summary says, "defendant asserted that the trial judge had violated his right to a fair trial by threatening to pursue post-trial sanctions against his attorneys based on their attempts to have the judge disqualified from hearing the case, repeatedly denying defense motions and requests for brief delays in trial proceedings that the state did not oppose, and by refusing to allow his attorneys to resign from the case or allow the defendant to dismiss his attorneys and represent himself based on the judge's apparent hostility to the attorneys.

Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton wrote, "This court has a responsibility to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system, which includes a duty to ensure that all defendants have received a fair trial from an impartial judge. Where the record demonstrates that such has not occurred, the remedy is a new trial ….

"The record shows that the trial judge harbored a bias against defense counsel that was manifested through his comments and rulings during the trial. This bias first became apparent after counsel filed the affidavit of disqualification, and it continued throughout the rest of the proceedings. … (T)he trial judge suggested that counsel had manipulated, defrauded, and deceived the court in requesting him to preside over the certification hearing in order to disqualify him from sitting on the trial … the trial judge threatened counsel with sanctions and warned them, ‘[I]f it’s established you did that, you’ll be held accountable.’ After counsel moved to withdraw from the case, the trial judge expressed his belief that counsel were using their concern about being held in contempt as ‘leverage to try to get this Court to come off of its stance to hold them accountable for anything they may have done.'"


Text of Decision