Judge Susan Stallings
Assistant Attorney General Gayland Gieger stands by as Assistant Attorney General Ricky Lutz and Jeff Box — an attorney representing Josh Brock — walk toward an Oklahoma County Courthouse elevator Friday, May 2, 2025, following a hearing in the criminal case against Brock and Epic Youth Services co-founders Ben Harris and David Chaney. (Sasha Ndisabiye)

Refuting claims she had an “attorney-client relationship” with Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s office owing to a prior recusal motion filed by Epic Youth Services co-founder Ben Harris, Oklahoma County District Judge Susan Stallings denied another motion requesting her recusal Friday from David Chaney, Harris’ longtime business partner and co-defendant in the embezzlement and racketeering case that features a preliminary hearing on hold for more than a year.

“This court finds that I have a duty to hear and decide matters that are assigned to me,” Stallings near the end of during Friday’s hearing. “I have no personal interest in this case. I do have an official interest in this case as the assigned judge. (…) I believe that the petitioner, Mr. Chaney, in this case, has failed to show that there was any attorney-client relationship that ever existed between myself and the Attorney General’s Office.”

Stallings initially refused to recuse after a private conference with attorneys last month during a hearing on a separate recusal motion where co-defendant Josh Brock — the former chief financial officer of Epic Charter Schools who has testified against Harris and Chaney as part of a plea deal — was requesting the recusal of Chaney’s attorney, Gary Wood, owing to an alleged prior legal relationship. The motion to recuse Wood could become the next event in the 2022 criminal case as it approaches the three-year anniversary of its filing by former Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater.

Stallings denied Chaney’s request for her to recuse May 2 at a hearing that lasted less than 30 minutes. It marks the second time a Rule 15 motion requesting a judicial recusal has been filed against Stallings — and denied — in a case that prosecutors have called “a complicated criminal enterprise.”

In his motion filed April 21, Chaney said Stallings’ continued involvement in the criminal case would violate Chaney’s Sixth Amendment rights because she had been represented by the AG’s office when Stallings moved to quash a subpoena seeking her testimony in the disqualification motion brought by Harris in 2024.

“Judge Stallings has a unique role in this case, a role that distinguishes her situation from others where a district judge faces a request to recuse from simply presiding over a jury trial,” wrote Gary Wood, Chaney’s legal counsel. “Under the circumstances, Judge Stallings should not have engaged the prosecutor to defend her in this case. An appearance of judicial partiality understandably creates doubts in the minds of litigants and other members of the public.”

Harris and his attorney, Joe White, filed a similar motion to recuse Stallings in August 2024, arguing that she “exhibited a biased attitude in favor of the state and against Mr. Harris.” Stallings and Oklahoma County District Court Presiding Judge Richard Ogden each denied Harris’ motion, which was later denied a third time Dec. 20 by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellate court said Harris’ appeal was not filed within proper time parameters.

State prosecutors from the AG’s office replied to Chaney’s motion on April 28, arguing the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ordered “Stallings or her designated representative” to respond to the claims raised by Harris. In court Friday, Wood argued that the AG’s office illegally represented Stallings.

“It says that [the Attorney General’s office] shall represent you only if, and only if directed to do so, by the chief of the Supreme Court,” Wood said. “It doesn’t say ‘attorney-client relationship,’ it doesn’t say any of that. It says ‘represent,’ which is exactly what they did and exactly what the court admitted to. And the only reason they won’t admit to it is because they know it creates an assurance of impropriety and questions the impartiality.”

Using prior case exhibits and court transcripts, Wood attempted to prove Stallings had “elected” Drummond as her counsel, but Senior Assistant Attorney General Jen Hinsperger argued the attorney general was a designated representative, which would invalidate Wood’s argument under Title 74, Section 20f.

“Regardless of what this [transcript] says, the state has never represented this court in front of the Court of Criminal Appeals,” Hinsperger said. “We were the designee for this court.”

Following a short exchange, Stallings rejected Woods’ request to comment following Hinsperger’s final argument refuting Wood’s claims.

Woods quickly asked, “May I, your honor?”

Stallings replied, “No, we’re done,” in a sharp tone.

Agreeing with Hinsperger, Stallings explained it was the Court of Criminal Appeals that told her representative to respond to Harris’ motion to disqualify, insinuating that Wood may have been confused when she said Drummond represented her. As the designee to represent Stallings in her motion to quash the subpoena, the AG’s office responded to Harris’ motion.

Wood seemed unappeased with Stallings’ reasoning, smiling and letting out a quiet chuckle during her final remarks. Wood said after the hearing that he thought Stallings failed to address the issue.

“She still didn’t address what impartial minds — what reasonable minds — would find regarding her impartiality,” Wood said. “I think reasonable people would see that when she’s been represented by the Attorney General’s Office under whatever language they want to use — and is prohibited by statute — that she can’t be impartial in the case.”

Both Harris’ and Chaney’s now-denied Rule 15 motions have further delayed a hearing to consider the disqualification of Wood as Chaney’s legal counsel. Brock alleges that Wood represented him while he was employed at Epic Youth Services — the contracted management organization Harris and Chaney founded along with the charter school in 2011.

With Brock’s motion to disqualify counsel pending, it is unclear when the stalled preliminary hearing to bind Harris and Chaney over for trial could resume. Chaney has five days to decide whether to appeal Stallings’ denial of his recusal motion.

Read David Chaney’s motion to disqualify Stallings

Read the state’s response to Chaney’s April 21 motion

  • Sasha Ndisabiye

    Sasha Ndisabiye grew up splitting her time between southern California and southern Arizona before moving to Oklahoma to attend Langston University. After graduating from Langston with a bachelor’s degree in broadcast journalism and a minor in sociology, she completed a NonDoc editorial internship in the summer of 2024. She became NonDoc’s education reporter in October 2024.