On Tuesday, January 20, 2026, THV11 reported that Aaron Spencer’s legal team formally requested Judge Barbara Elmore’s recusal from his trial. The motion was filed in the 23rd Judicial Circuit in Little Rock, Arkansas. Spencer is set to be tried for the death of Michael Fosler, who allegedly sexually abused Spencer’s daughter.
According to the motion filed by Spencer’s attorneys, the recusal request stems from concerns regarding the judge’s impartiality in the case. The defense team has raised questions about previous proceedings, specifically pointing to the court’s decision to seal the case and impose a gag order. They argue that these actions contribute to their skepticism about the judge’s ability to remain impartial and maintain transparency throughout the trial.
Furthermore, Spencer’s attorneys stated that multiple justices had previously cautioned about the potential need for case reassignment. This warning was prompted by what they describe as a “troubling pattern of attempts to shield [the] case from public view,” as stated in the motion.
The motion also highlights the disappearance of crucial dashcam video evidence. During Spencer’s pre-trial hearing on December 18, 2025, it was discovered that specific dashcam footage from Fosler’s truck, where he was fatally shot, was missing. While the footage is no longer available, attorneys have debated who should be held accountable for its loss.
During last month’s pre-trial hearing, it was revealed that the lead detective in the investigation failed to properly submit the dashcam video of the incident into evidence in a timely manner. The investigator admitted to keeping the video in his office and only submitting it as evidence in October 2025, nearly a year later.
In addition, the SD card containing the dashcam footage was reported missing in early December 2025. The detective acknowledged the violation and assured the court that he had secured the card properly in the camera. However, the prosecution argued that the detective’s mistake was not made in bad faith and did not constitute a Brady violation. The defense countered, stating that the video’s audio would provide crucial insight into the events that transpired in real-time.
Source: THV11
