James Schuck Faces New Judge in Sexual Assault Case

Table of Contents

Background of the Case

A retired Franklin County judge, Richard Frye, who had a professional relationship with Delaware County Judge James Schuck, has been involved in a case where an assistant prosecutor accused Schuck of sexual assault. According to county records, Frye was initially removed from the case, but subsequent records from the Ohio Supreme Court indicate that he is still presiding over it.

On December 24, Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy denied a request from attorneys for the assistant prosecutor to have Frye removed from the case involving Schuck. The woman had filed for a protection order against Schuck, who is accused of sexually assaulting her in his judicial chambers and harassing her over several months. Despite this, records from the Ohio Supreme Court show that Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge Joshua Berkowitz has been assigned as the presiding judge on the specific case involving the assistant prosecutor's civil protection order, as well as on other listings related to Schuck's pending caseload.

Legal Proceedings and Judicial Bias Concerns

The attorneys for the assistant prosecutor requested the state's highest court to remove Frye from the case, citing potential bias. They argued that Frye, who had previously covered Schuck's caseload when he was out of the office, was present in Schuck's office hours after the alleged sexual assault and showed clear bias during an initial hearing in the case.

In the Supreme Court's decision, Kennedy stated that the woman's attorneys had not met the required burden to prove that Frye could not be impartial. She noted that the affiants had failed to substantiate their claims that Frye advocated for Schuck during the November 25 hearing or made comments that would cause an objective observer to question his impartiality. Frye maintained that the transcript did not support the affiants’ descriptions of his rulings or conduct, and he cited portions of the transcript that either contradicted assertions in the affidavits or provided necessary context.

Protection Order and Procedural Issues

The assistant prosecutor filed a request for a civil protection order in late November and also filed a police report with the Delaware County Sheriff's office. The investigation was later transferred to the Montgomery County Sheriff's office to avoid any ethical conflict of interest.

Instead of holding a private hearing on the protection order request as required by Ohio's court procedures, Frye allowed Schuck to have an attorney present and to cross-examine the woman, according to court records. Both of the woman's attorneys, Joseph Patituce and Nicholas Froning, filed sworn affidavits with their Dec. 9 request detailing comments they say Frye made during the hearing.

Patituce wrote that Frye's actions gave the impression of his lack of appropriate judicial impartiality in the matter. He also mentioned that Frye's comments regarding his concern for Schuck's reputation took priority over the protections the law provides to a petitioner. Froning noted that because Frye is referenced in text messages between Schuck and the assistant prosecutor, Frye could be called as a witness in the case.

Current Status of the Case

The protection order expired in late December while the proceedings were on hold and the Ohio Supreme Court considered the request to remove Frye. The assistant prosecutor's attorneys appear to have filed a request for that order to be reinstated on an emergency, ex parte basis, according to portions of the case's docket visible to the public online.

The case file has been sealed, but the titles of filings can be viewed through the Delaware County Clerk of Court's website. Those listings show the Ohio Supreme Court decision was filed on Dec. 30. A telephone conference is now scheduled for Jan. 9, according to court records.