Why Judge John J. Russo Should Not Sit on the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals
As the race for the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals draws closer, voters—and particularly legal professionals—must look beyond name recognition and focus on conduct, character, and constitutional integrity. One candidate, Judge John J. Russo, raises serious red flags that extend well beyond a single controversial moment.
Yes, many remember the appalling image: a Black defendant in an Ohio courtroom, his mouth duct-taped shut at the order of Judge Russo. That moment of dehumanization rightly drew widespread outrage. But the deeper concern is that this incident was not isolated. It is part of a troubling pattern that calls into question Russo’s fitness to serve on one of the state’s most consequential judicial bodies.
According to cleveland.com, a ruling by Retired Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Janet Burnside exposes an even more serious ethical breach that goes to the heart of judicial impartiality and due process.
Ethical Misconduct: Not Just a Mistrial—A Betrayal of Judicial Duty
In a 2019 aggravated murder trial involving the killing of Alishah Pointer, Judge Russo instructed his bailiff to send a text message to prosecutors—not defense counsel—asking whether they planned to call certain witnesses on a critical issue: whether the defendants had conspired to kidnap the victim. This issue directly related to whether hearsay statements by co-conspirators could be admitted under Ohio Rules of Evidence.
This communication—ex parte, secretive, and initiated by the judge himself—occurred in the middle of a trial. It is difficult to overstate how serious this is. Under Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9(A), judges are strictly prohibited from engaging in ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending matter, unless authorized by law.
Judge Burnside made it plain: this was not a misunderstanding. She found that Judge Russo “deliberately attempted private conversation with the prosecutors on the most contentious issue of the trial.” That is judicial misconduct, plain and simple.
Russo’s defense? That it was a “procedural clarification.” But Burnside rejected this justification outright, noting that Russo appeared to fundamentally misunderstand the rules of evidence, and in doing so, compromised the impartiality of the court. Most damning, however, was her observation that his choice to clarify this issue through an informal channel—and with only one side—was “inexplicable.” In a case involving aggravated murder, where the stakes were life and liberty, Russo attempted to gain an evidentiary advantage for the state behind closed doors.
No matter how it is framed, this conduct erodes the very foundation of due process and undermines the adversarial system. This is not behavior that can be tolerated, much less rewarded with a seat on the appellate bench.
The Stakes for Ohio’s Judiciary
This election is not merely about Judge Russo’s personal redemption—it’s about protecting the legitimacy of our judicial system. The Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals hears cases that impact thousands of lives and sets legal precedents that shape the future of justice in this state. Appellate judges are expected to be exemplars of integrity, steeped in legal knowledge and guided by unwavering commitment to fairness.
Judge Russo has repeatedly demonstrated an inclination to bend the rules when they conflict with his preferences. Whether it was publicly humiliating a Black defendant by having him duct-taped or secretly texting prosecutors in a capital trial, Russo has shown a pattern of conduct that should deeply trouble every attorney, judge, and citizen who believes in the rule of law.
To elevate him to the Court of Appeals is to disregard the core principles of ethical judging. It tells the public that misconduct can be overlooked if a judge is popular or experienced. That is a dangerous precedent.
The Legal Community Must Not Stay Silent
This moment calls for more than quiet discomfort. It requires vocal, unequivocal rejection of conduct that would not be tolerated from a first-year law student, let alone a sitting judge. Judicial integrity is not optional—it is foundational.
Let’s not be lulled into complacency by talk of second chances. This isn’t about redemption—it’s about fitness to serve. And Judge Russo’s conduct shows a reckless disregard for the ethical obligations that every judge must uphold.
The law is only as strong as those trusted to interpret it. We owe it to the legal profession, and to the communities that depend on fair courts, to demand better.
Want to dive deeper into the stories behind this article? Check the sources below:
Cuyahoga County Judge’s Improper Communications
cleveland.com article – A closer look at a judge’s controversial actions and their consequences.
Judge Duct-Tapes Defendant’s Mouth Shut
ACLU article – The shocking story of courtroom injustice that demands attention.
Read the court documents on the Ex Parte Communications of Judge John J. Russo
Google Drive court documents – This further shows why Judge Russo does not deserve your support in 2026 for Court of Appeals.