In re Disqualification of Crow - 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

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Crow, 91 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2000-Ohio-199.]

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CROW.
IN RE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Crow (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 1209.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Failure to support allegations with
supporting affidavits and documentation -- Affidavits demonstrate lack of
personal knowledge when based on mere "belief" -- Disqualification not
required.
(No. 00-AP-097 -- Decided October 24, 2000.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Meigs County Common Pleas Court case
No. 00CV122.
__________________

MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification filed by John R. Lentes
seeks the disqualification of Judge Fred Crow from further proceedings in the
above-captioned case. The affiants are the Meigs County Prosecuting Attorney
and two of his assistants.

The underlying action was initiated by Judge Crow, based on his belief
that the appointment of a special prosecuting attorney may be warranted to
investigate the actions of the elected prosecuting attorney in related civil and
criminal actions that previously were before the court. Having reviewed the
allegations of the affiants, I cannot conclude that there exists a bias, prejudice, or
other disqualifying interest that requires Judge Crow's disqualification from
further proceedings in this action.

Affiants make a number of claims in support of their general allegation
that Judge Crow has displayed bias and prejudice toward them and cannot fairly
and impartially preside over the underlying case. However, affiants fail to
document these claims by providing supporting affidavits from participants in

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
allegedly improper conversations or providing any detail about the substance of
the allegedly improper communications. Affiants also fail to include any
documents that are referred to in the affidavit, such as the letter to the editor
allegedly authored by a member of the judge's staff or the newspaper article that
affiants claim was based on an interview with Judge Crow. Moreover, affiants
demonstrate a lack of personal knowledge regarding certain of their allegations,
stating in two instances their mere "belief" that particular conversations had
occurred.

Having reviewed the record before me, I conclude that the affiants have
failed to demonstrate clearly the existence of bias, prejudice, or other
disqualifying interest that mandates Judge Crow's disqualification from the
underlying case. The matter shall proceed before Judge Crow. Having reached
this conclusion, I do not find it necessary to address affiants' request that Judge
Crow be disqualified from all pending cases in which the prosecuting attorney is a
party or counsel for a party.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken
and is denied.
__________________
2