Trending
WARREN -- Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy has ruled that Warren Municipal Court Judge Natasha Natale should not be removed from hearing a second charge filed against a defendant just because an appeals court found that the judge erred in refusing to dismiss another charge in the same case.
The ruling comes in response to a request by Assistant Public Defender Shawna Merkich that Natale be disqualified from hearing the misdemeanor criminal trespassing case against a 19-year-old Youngstown man for his behavior at Warren G. Harding High School on Aug. 21, 2025.
The case involved several people seen on surveillance video approaching a door to the school as a student was exiting the building, including, allegedly the defendant. One of the people assaulted the student, though documents state that it was not the defendant charged with the criminal trespassing.
The Warren-based 11th District Court of Appeals court earlier ordered that an assault charge the man faced in the same matter be dismissed. Natale presided over that matter as well.
Merkich's filing asked that Natale be disqualified from continuing to hear the trespassing case based on remarks Merkich says Natale made at the time of an Oct. 7, 2025, hearing regarding the assault charge that Merkich said showed that Natale had an "anticipatory judgment concerning [the defendant's] conduct and guilt" and showed that Natale could not "remain a neutral arbiter in the pending case."
Merkich stated that Warren prosecutors asked for Natale to dismiss the assault charge at the Oct. 7 hearing, saying the surveillance video indicated that the man was "not involved in the assault."
Merkich said the attorneys spoke with Natale in the judge's chambers about the case, and Natale asked to see the surveillance video. After viewing it, Natale said, "Well, it's complicity then," according to Merkich's filing, adding that no one had brought up the idea of charging the man with complicity to assault prior to Natale bringing it up.
Natale also "suggested that the (assistant city law director) personally interview the alleged victim, urged additional investigation and instructed the (assistant city prosecutor), the defense and the entire courtroom on the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence and the law governing complicity," the Merkich filing states.
Natale refused to dismiss the charge, leading to the appeal being filed by city prosecutors. It was the second time that the 11th District Court of Appeals ruled that Natale erred in refusing to dismiss a charge against a defendant at the request of the Warren prosecutor's office.
Both rulings stated that the issue raised in the appeal was the "interplay of ... two separate but co-equal branches of our government," the judiciary and executive branches, with the executive being in this case prosecutors.
One of the rulings noted that federal courts "have had occasion to offer insight into these roles while discussing the separation of powers doctrine. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly emphasized that" decisions on what charge to file or bring before a grand jury "are decisions that generally rest in the prosecution's discretion."
Regardless of how the earlier ruling by the 11th District appeals court came out, Kennedy stated in her ruling that the facts related to the defendant's trespassing charge and Natale's actions have to be separated from the circumstances surrounding the earlier ruling regarding the defendant's assault charge.
Kennedy wrote that "it is well established that a judge's participation in the trial of a prior case, during which the judge acquired knowledge of the facts of the underlying case, does not require disqualification" from hearing the second case.
It cited 1997 case law involving a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judge in stating that a judge "may preside over a criminal defendant's trial, even after accepting guilty pleas from three accomplices and presiding over the trial of two other accomplices."
The reason is because "(i)n general, what a judge learns in his or her judicial capacity creates no personal bias for the judge and is not the kind of information that results in disqualifying the judge from a future case."
Instead, "(j)udges are expected to be able to keep their prior opinions from intruding on their duties to fairly and impartially decide each case."
Kennedy's ruling added that in a similar way, "a judge may continue presiding over a case when the judge's rulings of law are reversed on appeal," and a judge "may preside over a companion or related case, even though the judge was reversed in a prior case based on the same or similar facts."
Kennedy ruled that in this case, "Merkich has not presented evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that Judge Natale is fair and impartial in the trespass case." Kennedy noted that the appeals court found that Natale "erred in refusing to dismiss the assault case," but Natale's written response to Merkich's arguments "explained (Natale's) conduct in the assault case and denies that she was trying to advocate against" the defendant.
"The judge also affirms that she has not formed any opinions in the ... trespass case," and "Merkich has not pointed to any words or conduct in the trespass case that would support an inference that the judge harbors personal bias against" the defendant, Kennedy stated.
Kennedy concluded that "Merkich has not demonstrated that Judge Natale is biased or prejudiced, and no reasonable observer with full knowledge of the facts would believe the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired." Natale remains as the judge handling the case.