Jump to content

Ward v. Village of Monroeville

From Wikisource
Ward v. Village of Monroeville (1972)
Syllabus
4670474Ward v. Village of Monroeville — Syllabus1972
Court Documents
Dissenting Opinion
White

Supreme Court of the United States

409 U.S. 57

Ward  v.  Village of Monroeville

Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio

No. 71-496.  Argued: October 17, 1972 --- Decided: November 14, 1972

Petitioner was denied a trial before a disinterested and impartial judicial officer as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where he was compelled to stand trial for traffic offenses before the mayor, who was responsible for village finances and whose court through fines, forfeitures, costs, and fees provided a substantial portion of village funds. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510. A statutory provision for the disqualification of interested or biased judges did not afford petitioner a sufficient safeguard, and it is of no constitutional relevance that petitioner could later be tried de novo in another court, as he was entitled to an impartial judge in the first instance. Pp. 59-62.

27 Ohio St.2d 179, 271 N.E.2d 757, reversed and remanded.


BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, STEWART, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 62.


Bernard A. Berkman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Niki Z. Schwartz.

Franklin D. Eckstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Joseph F. Dush.