Brent Swadley seeks new judge, new trial in latest court filing
OKLAHOMA CITY (KOKH) — An embattled restauranteur who is behind bars after being convicted of defrauding the State of Oklahoma is now asking for a new trial.
Brent Swadley was found guilty in May on six felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the state. After the verdict, the judge denied Swadley bond.
Nearly four months later, Swadley still has not been sentenced in the case.
In July, Judge Susan Stallings also denied Swadley’s request to be released on an appeal bond. In response, Swadley’s defense team asked that Stallings recuse herself from the case, saying they did not believe she could be impartial.
They claim that Stallings engaged in ex parte communications with jurors after the verdict, and that she relied on that communication to deny Swadley's request for a bond.
In their motion for recusal, the defense said Stallings's "actions and statements" during the hearing "cast serious doubt on her ability to impartially preside over the remaining proceedings in this case."
A new court filing shows that in addition to asking that Stallings be removed from his case, Swadley's defense team is also seeking a new trial.
In the filing, Swadley's team is asking that a new judge hold an evidentiary hearing on his claim of "judicial partiality, bias, and multiple errors in ruling."
"The Honorable Susan Stallings's use of Mr. Swadley's case as a campaign vehicle is evidenced by her actively soliciting votes from the Swadley jurors just moments after the verdict, coupled with her unsolicited comments to the jury affirming their guilty verdict. She signaled her reaffirmation to jurors by making several negative remarks about Mr. Swadley during her closed-courtroom discussion with the Swadley jurors. The trial judge did not disclose any of this information to the Defendant, despite being specifically asked directly by counsel about her 'back and forth,' off-the-record discussions with the Swadley jurors," the new filing states.
Much of the new filing focuses on Stallings's reported ex parte communications with jurors after the verdict about the case and her re-election campaign.
"The defense learned post-trial that Judge Stallings had ex parte communications with the jurors, and further learned (from a juror) that Judge Stallings solicited votes for her re-election. Judge Stallings solicited the jury while still robed and on the bench in her courtroom at the conclusion of the formal proceedings," it states.
The filing states that Stallings told the jurors that Brent Swadley had called the governor just a few weeks before the case, an accusation the defense claims is false and was never told to the jury during the trial.
"The information clearly made an impression on Judge Stallings and influenced her, as it remained top of mind for her to bring up with the jurors after the verdict.... It is clear she did not assess the witness's credibility before relaying this negative information to the jury on May 28, 2026, as this witness never testified before her at a hearing or trial. Judge Stallings simply took the State's word for it and then repeated that information, without verification, to the jurors. That does not have the appearance of a neutral or fair arbiter," it read.
The new motion also claims that actions by Stallings before and during the trial hindered Swadley's defense.
The defense claims that Stallings, without any objection from prosecutors, said Swadley's defense witness list was too long. A lawyer for Swadley's defense team said the prosecution had over 200 witnesses, so he was confused why the 48 witnesses on the defense's list was deemed too many.
"She then reviewed the list witness-by-witness demanding the relevance of each, and striking what she deemed not relevant...The defense's witness list was then shrunk down considerably further restricting the defense's presentation of evidence to the jury," the motion read.
The defense also said Stallings excluded two of Swadley's expert witnesses.
"By cutting so many defense witnesses, Mr. Swadley could not present a complete defense, including several key documents by Mr. DeMarco, who appeared to be the mastermind behind the Master Concession Lease Agreement and the specific terms of the State's contract with Mr. Swadley."
The defense says Stallings initially allowed documents detailing everything that led up to the contract with the state, but then reversed course during the trial.
"The disparate rulings seem to be driven by the State's flip flopping on this issue that the contract negotiations are first relevant and then not relevant. This ruling prevented the defense from presenting the other highly relevant documents to the jury that would have shown the State was not duped by Mr. Swadley but was in fact the mastermind behind this entire arrangement," it states. It goes on to say that "what was negotiated before the contract is relevant to Mr. Swadley's intent because Mr. Swadley believed his conduct was allowed based upon these precontract statements, even if the contract he signed said otherwise."
As a result, the defense is asking a court to grant Swadley an evidentiary hearing and a new trial.