In re Disqualification of Winkler - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF WINKLER.
THE STATE OF OHIO v. JONES.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Winkler (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Judge's simple expression of
condolences to victim's family and offer to answer questions following trial
does not indicate bias -- Judge does not demonstrate predisposition to
impose death penalty, when.
(No. 96-AP-188 -- Decided December 6, 1996.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County
Court of Common Pleas case No. B9508578.

MOYER, C.J. Affiant is co-counsel for the defendant in a capital murder
case currently pending before Judge Ralph Winkler of the Hamilton County Court
of Common Pleas. On November 26, 1996, the jury in the case returned verdicts
of guilty on two counts of aggravated murder, with death penalty specifications,
one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated robbery. The
mitigation hearing on the aggravated murder convictions is scheduled to begin on
December 9, 1996.

Affiant alleges that Judge Winkler should be disqualified from presiding
over the sentencing phase of the trial to avoid the appearance of prejudice,
partiality, and impropriety and cites two events to support her claim. First, affiant
says that following the conclusion of the presentation of evidence on November
21, but before closing arguments, Judge Winkler spoke to the son and daughter-in-
law of the victim in the courtroom. During this conversation, affiant states that
Judge Winkler expressed his condolences and indicated that if the son or daughter-
in-law had questions following trial, they could contact him. Affiant contends that

this conversation demonstrates a bias toward the victim's family. Judge Winkler
does not dispute the affiant's version of his conversation with the victim's family.

Sentiments such as these are more appropriately expressed by a judge
following conclusion of the trial. However, I cannot conclude that a judge's
simple expression of condolences and offer to answer questions that the family
members may have following the trial demonstrates a bias toward the victim's
family or mandates Judge Winkler's disqualification to avoid the appearance of
impropriety.

Second, affiant states that following the jury verdicts, she was told by Judge
Winkler that he would impose the maximum sentences on the defendant and run
the sentences consecutively so that if there were a problem with the death
specifications on appeal, the defendant would be incarcerated for a long time.
Affiant contends that this statement demonstrates a predisposition on the part of
the judge toward imposing the death penalty before presentation of any mitigating
evidence. Judge Winkler states that his comments were limited to the aggravated
robbery and aggravated burglary charges and were based on his belief that the
evidence presented at trial warranted imposition of consecutive sentences. Judge
Winkler denies making any statements relative to imposing the death penalty and
says that such a suggestion, without having the benefit of the jury's
recommendation, is "ludicrous."

Judge Winkler's statements appear to have been limited to the potential
sentences to be imposed on the aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery
convictions. Although the statements probably should not have been made until
all phases of the trial were completed, I do not conclude that the judge's
statements demonstrate a predisposition to imposing a sentence of death on the
defendant. Sentences on these offenses could be imposed independent of the

2

mitigation hearing on the aggravated murder convictions. Moreover, I do not
conclude that such statements demonstrate Judge Winkler's predisposition to the
death penalty given the fact that the judge has yet to hear evidence in mitigation or
a recommendation from the jury.

For these reasons, I do not find that Judge Winkler's disqualification is
warranted to avoid the appearance of prejudice, partiality, or impropriety. The
affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken and is denied. The case shall
proceed before Judge Winkler.

3