In re Disqualification of Nadel - 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 NADEL.
THE STATE OF OHIO v. CLEMONS.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Nadel (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Disqualification from post-conviction
relief proceedings not warranted by judge's comments at sentencing phase
of capital murder trial that he could not forgive the petitioner for his
conduct and that he recognized the right of victim's families to be heard
during criminal proceedings -- Section 10a, Article I, Ohio Constitution
and R.C. Chapter 2930 -- Sentences imposed by judges are reflections of
their personal beliefs as to the propriety of the punishments imposed.
(No. 97-AP-132 -- Decided September 30, 1997.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County
Court of Common Pleas case No. B9511119.

MOYER, C.J. Affiant, Luz V. Lopez-Ortiz, is counsel for the petitioner
Gerald L. Clemons in a post-conviction relief action pending before Judge Norbert
A. Nadel. Affiant contends that Judge Nadel should be disqualified from the post-
conviction relief action because of comments made by the judge during the
sentencing phase of the petitioner's capital murder trial.

Prior to sentencing the petitioner, Judge Nadel stated that he could not
forgive the petitioner for his conduct and made a general statement indicating that
he had heard the comments made by members of the victim's family. Affiant
claims that these comments reflect a bias and prejudice on the part of Judge Nadel
that mandates his disqualification from the post-conviction proceedings.

Having reviewed Judge Nadel's comments and considering them in the
context in which they were made, I cannot conclude they demonstrate a bias or
prejudice against the petitioner that mandates the judge's disqualification. The

latter statement by Judge Nadel was a general statement in recognition of the right
of victims to be heard during criminal proceedings. See, generally, Section 10a,
Article I of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. Chapter 2930. This statement does not
appear to be specific to victims of the defendant's crime or to the facts of this case.
As to the former statement, affiant maintains that the comment represents Judge
Nadel's "personal belief in the propriety of the punishment." Any sentence
imposed by a judge is a reflection of that judge's personal belief as to the propriety
of the punishment imposed in relation to the defendant's conduct and other
relevant factors. The additional comment upon which affiant relies does not, in
my view, demonstrate a bias or prejudice that would preclude Judge Nadel from
fairly and impartially considering the issues presented in the post-conviction relief
proceeding.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken
and is denied.

2