Judge recuses himself from Rivera trial
A visiting judge recused himself from the trial of a Butler man charged in the October 2023 death of a 15-year-old boy who was struck while he was riding his bike. The decision will likely delay the trial that was scheduled to begin in September.
Senior Judge Christopher St. John recused himself as the trial judge Monday, Aug. 17, during a hearing into a motion the district attorney’s office filed Aug. 7 seeking the action.
The trial for Joshua Rivera, 41, who has been charged with third-degree murder, homicide by vehicle and other offenses in the Oct. 19 death of 15-year-old Aiden Lutz, was scheduled to begin Sept. 21 following jury selection Sept. 16 in Butler County Common Pleas Court. Rivera is being held in the Butler county Prison in lieu of $500,000 bail.
Assistant district attorney Ben Simon’s motion for recusal claims St. John made biased statements during a meeting held in chambers following an Aug. 4 hearing, despite not having all the evidence.
During the meeting with Simon and public defenders Joseph Smith and Kimberly Hudak, who are representing Rivera, St. John made unsolicited statements that he did not view the case as a third-degree murder case when he agreed to preside over it and he did not believe the prosecution can prove its case for third-degree murder, according to the motion.
St. John made personal comments that children are irresponsible, children ride e-bikes on the road and don’t think about what they are doing and Lutz probably turned in front of Rivera causing him to strike Lutz, according to the motion.
St. John also said in the meeting he had been a public defender for decades, according to the motion.
Simon argued in his motion his office has concerns that St. John led the defense attorneys to believe they would succeed in a motion to acquit Rivera of the third-degree murder charge.
At Monday’s hearing, Simon said he has never asked a judge to recuse himself and described the motion as “uncharted territory.” He said he is not claiming corruption, but said he filed the motion due to actual or an appearance of bias from St. John against the third-degree murder charge. He said accusations of corruption have circulated on social media.
“Recusal is the appropriate decision,” Simon said.
St. John said he has been, and can continue to be fair, impartial and unbiased. He said his comments wouldn’t impact his rulings and he has made no prejudgments, but he was concerned about the impact the claims of bias have on the public perception of the judiciary.
He said he began a self-examination of the case and his notes after the recusal motion was filed.
Regarding the third-degree murder issue, he said that charge was not among the original charges against Rivera when the complaint was filed Oct. 20, 2023. The charge was added by the district attorney’s office Feb. 23, 2024, before he said he was asked by the state Supreme Court to accept the case. It was assigned to him on May 17, 2024. He said he presided over a hearing held due to the addition of the charge and he ruled in favor of the district attorney’s office over the objection of the defense.
On April 11, 2024, the public defender’s office filed a motion to recuse the district attorney’s office and St. John said he denied the motion June 24, 2024.
Following the unscheduled, in-chambers meeting on Aug. 4, which St. John said was a settlement conference, he said he issued rulings denying two recent defense motions. One was to dismiss the case against Rivera because the prosecution exceeded the time limit to bring the case to trial and the second was to exclude potential evidence uncovered while a previous ruling was under appeal in Superior Court.
Even though the conference was informal and no record of it was made, St. John said some of his comments were “not the best things to say,” but what a judge says during such a conference does not reflect what a judge believes.
He said he does not have a “fixed position” on the third degree murder charge and has not made any prejudgments in the case. He said he only was expressing thoughts and a jury would decide the facts of the case, not him.
People can have a misconception that a trial judge has all the information about a case, but judges don’t see the evidence until the jury does, St. John said. He has not seen any of the evidence in the case against Rivera or reviewed any expert reports.
He said he considers his comments “fairly innocent,” but understands how the prosecution could consider them unfavorable to their case.
He said his recusal will cause a significant delay in the case because another senior judge will have to be assigned.
St. John did not address a defense motion filed Aug. 10 asking him to reconsider his denial of the previous motion filed April 11, 2024, to recuse the district attorney’s office and refer the case to the attorney general’s office. He said it will be up to the new judge to address the motion.
The 2024 motion from the public defender’s office asked for the recusal due to a conflict of interest arising from political actions and campaign materials mailed to all Republican voters in the 2023 election for the district attorney’s office and ongoing civil litigation in which the district attorney is a party based on similarly situated claims.
The motion refers to a suit filed against District Attorney Richard Goldinger and several others alleging libel, slander and defamation by attorney Jennifer Gilliland Vanasdale stemming from the 2023 election in which she ran against Goldinger. St. John dismissed the case in October 2025. The case has been appealed to Superior Court.
After Monday’s hearing, Goldinger said most of the county Common Pleas Court judges recused themselves from the Rivera case due to the defamation case, so another visiting judge might have to be assigned.
He said he doubts the trial will go on as scheduled.
