A visiting senior judge will issue a ruling on whether to recuse the district attorney’s office from prosecuting the man charged with striking and killing 15-year-old Aiden Lutz while he was riding his bicycle in October 2023.

Senior Judge James Arner, who was assigned the case after Senior Judge Christopher St. John recused himself in August, said he will issue a ruling as soon as possible following a hearing Wednesday, Sept. 16, on the public defenders’ motion.

Jury selection was scheduled to begin Wednesday and the trial was going to start Monday, Sept. 21, before St. John recused himself at the conclusion of an Aug. 18 hearing. St. John held the hearing on the district attorney office’s motion for him to recuse himself.

In June 2024, St. John denied a motion filed by Rivera’s attorney, public defender Joseph Smith, to recuse the district attorney’s office. Wednesday’s hearing was held on a motion Smith filed last month to reconsider that decision.

On Wednesday, Smith argued District Attorney Richard Goldinger sought St. John’s recusal for personal and political reasons, and St. John’s concerns about the perception of the judiciary were due to the district attorney’s recusal motion.

The public defender’s recusal motion claimed a conflict of interest has been created 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 stemming from the election.

This refers to a suit filed against Goldinger and several others alleging libel, slander and defamation by attorney Jennifer Gilliland Vanasdale, who ran as an Independent against Goldinger in the election. St. John dismissed the case in October 2025. The case has been appealed to Superior Court.

Smith said Goldinger has a personal and political stake in the outcome of the case.

He said St. John’s recusal has caused a delay in the case and the district attorney’s office should be recused and replaced by the attorney general’s office to protect the integrity of the proceedings.

In addition, Smith said Rivera told him that Simon represented him in a previous case.

Goldinger said assigning the attorney general’s office to the case would delay the trial at least six months and Lutz’s family has been waiting for justice and closure. He said his office is ready for the trial.

He said St. John ruled against Smith’s politics-based motion and the civil suit filed three years ago is not relevant to the Rivera case. He said the public defender’s office has not presented further evidence that he is using the Rivera case for his potential run for reelection next year.

“I’m elected. All cases have political ramifications for me,” Goldinger said.

Goldinger said his office pursued recusing St. John because of a belief that he wasn’t going to be fair and impartial toward the prosecution. He said the facts in the case show a disregard for human life and justify the third degree murder charge.

Arner noted St. John previously issued a ruling allowing the third-degree murder charge to be added against Rivera.

Regarding the claim that Simon previously represented Rivera, Goldinger said Simon might have represented Rivera before he joined the district attorney’s office 19 years ago. He said it would not be a conflict of interest if he did. He said Simon doesn’t recall representing Rivera.

At the recusal hearing for St. John, assistant district attorney Ben Simon argued St. John made biased statements about the third-degree murder charge filed against Rivera during an off-the-record meeting held in chambers following an Aug. 4 hearing. Simon said St. John made unsolicited statements to the effect he did not view the case as a third-degree murder case and he did not believe the prosecution can prove its case for third-degree murder.

Simon said 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.

St. John said he has been and could continue to be fair, impartial and unbiased. He said his comments wouldn’t impact his rulings and he has made no prejudgments, but he recused himself after saying he was concerned about the impact the claims of bias would have on public perception of the judiciary.

A new trial date has not been scheduled.