Trending
By ED RUNYAN
Staff writer
WARREN -- Warren Municipal Court Judge Natasha Natale has filed a response to an affidavit filed by an attorney with the Ohio Public Defender's Office asking that the Ohio Supreme Court disqualify Natale from hearing a criminal case.
Assistant Public Defender Shawna Merkich, who works in the Trumbull County public defender's office, filed the affidavit regarding a criminal case involving a 19-year-old Youngstown man charged with misdemeanor criminal trespassing 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.
Merkich's filing asks that Natale be disqualified from continuing to hear the case based on remarks Merkich says Natale made at the time of an Oct. 7, 2025, hearing that Merkich said showed that Natale had an "anticipato ry 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.
But Natale's response filing says the discussion in the judge's chambers was held "off the record, at the request of counsel (Merkich and an assistant city prosecutor were present), not me."
Natale's response continues, "Because no transcript of that discussion exists, the affidavit's account rests on (Merkich's) recollection, and my differing recollection of the same conversation is entitled to no less weight."
Natale stated in her response that she made remarks about viewing the surveillance video because the information she was told in chambers Oct. 7 differed from what had been presented in the prosecution's request for dismissal of the assault charge.
Natale stated in her filing that there was some "uncertainty" coming from one or more of the attorneys, which "made it difficult to determine the existence of good cause (to charge the defendant)." Natale stated this is "what prompted me to ask clarifying questions."
Natae stated, "For example, I was told off the record that counsel held negative views regarding the named victim; however, counsel indicated that she had never spoken with the named victim herself and that this characterization had been relayed to her secondhand by someone else."
Further, Natale stated that she was told there had been difficulty contacting the named victim. "When I asked whether counsel for the city had attempted to contact Warren G. Harding High School, which the named victim attended ... I was told that no such contact with the school had been made either."
Natale stated that when the discussion did not provide her with a clear picture of the case, "I asked whether we should view" the surveillance video of the incident. "That request did not reflect an effort to reach a predetermined result; it followed directly from the type of information I was receiving and reflected an effort to determine whether good cause existed" for the charge to be filed.
"I did not direct, order or require that the video be produced over any objections; none was raised," Natale stated.
Natale started out her response document by suggesting that the Merkich filing is not valid because it pertains to the trespassing charge that was filed against the defendant and not the assault charge that Merkich discussed throughout her affidavit.
Merkich's affidavit "does not identify a single statement, question, ruling or exchange concerning the criminal trespass charge because none occurred," Natale stated. "I state this with certainty: the focus of every pretrial (hearing) in this matter was the assault charge."
Natale said she "expressed no opinion and formed no view regarding" the trespassing charge. She provided the Ohio Supreme Court with audio recordings of all of the hearings related to the charges "so that the point can be verified directly rather than taken on my word," the filing states.
On July 13, the 11th District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the same defendant in an appeal filed by the Warren prosecutor's office of Natale's refusal to dismiss the assault charge in the Harding case. The ruling overturned Natale's refusal to dismiss the charge.
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.