Background of the case
The assistant prosecutor, who has not been publicly named, originally alleged that Schuck pressured her into sexual acts in his chambers last May and engaged in a pattern of coercive behavior while she handled cases in his courtroom. Those accusations triggered both a civil stalking lawsuit against Schuck and a separate criminal investigation being led by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, according to court filings and local news reports.
In fall 2025, a Franklin County visiting judge granted a preliminary protection order barring Schuck from contacting the woman, a move that effectively limited his ability to communicate with her directly or indirectly. Since then, Schuck has taken a voluntary leave of absence from the bench while the misconduct probe continues.
The LinkedIn “stalking” allegation
In filings submitted Friday in the civil stalking case, the woman’s attorneys argue that recent activity on LinkedIn suggests Schuck—or someone acting on his behalf—viewed her profile and that of her attorney in a manner that violates the no‑contact provisions of the protection order. The court documents assert that a profile bearing the same initials as Schuck appeared on the platform and was linked to page‑view notifications sent to the prosecutor and her counsel, which the attorney characterized as “stalking‑like behavior” enabled through the social‑networking site.
Law enforcement was notified and served a subpoena on LinkedIn earlier this month, which reportedly caused the allegedly offending account to be deleted after LinkedIn preserved data tied to the account’s IP address. The prosecutor’s legal team is now asking the court to review whether the judge should be held in contempt for breaching the protection order, citing the page‑view notifications and the underlying account activity as evidence of prohibited contact.
Defense: “Passive viewing” vs. stalking
Schuck’s attorney has pushed back sharply, arguing that the LinkedIn notifications stemmed from the platform’s automatic architecture, not from any intentional message or outreach by the judge. In a written response, the defense contends that merely viewing a publicly available profile and triggering LinkedIn’s automated alerts does not amount to “intentional communication” covered by the protection order.
The defense also noted that Schuck has maintained a pseudonymous LinkedIn account since 2021, prior to the current legal dispute, which he says was created after a criminal defendant used his public profile to gather personal information and make death threats. That background, the judge’s attorneys argue, undercuts the claim that any LinkedIn activity this year was part of a targeted campaign to stalk the assistant prosecutor.
What’s at stake for the judge and the prosecutor
If the court finds Schuck in contempt of the protection order, he could face sanctions ranging from fines to potential jail time, in addition to the already ongoing criminal and civil probes into the sexual‑coercion and stalking allegations. For the assistant prosecutor, the LinkedIn episode is being framed as a continuation of the conduct she says has undermined her safety and professional standing, and her attorneys are urging the judiciary to treat the matter as a serious breach of court‑ordered protections.
Administrators at Delaware County Common Pleas Court have not commented on the LinkedIn specifics, but have previously called the underlying accusations “serious” and emphasized that the matters are being handled by an assigned neutral judge and outside investigative body. The case remains active, with both sides expected to present additional evidence on the nature of Schuck’s alleged online activity in the coming weeks.