On Tuesday, May 20, 2025, NEA Report reported that Arkansas Judge Doug Brimhall denied a recusal request from District Prosecutor Sonia F. Hagood concerning cases involving the 2nd Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s office. The decision, issued on April 28, 2025, responded to Hagood’s motion filed on January 14, 2025, which sought Brimhall’s recusal from all cases involving her office.

In his order, Brimhall stated that the request lacked objective evidence of bias or prejudice, citing legal precedent that a judge’s personal experiences or prior legal matters do not inherently require recusal. He further noted that the state’s motion did not provide sufficient facts to warrant a hearing, allowing him to summarily deny the request.

Hagood responded on May 14, 2025, by filing a motion for reconsideration, again requesting a hearing. In this filing, she outlined several specific concerns about Brimhall’s impartiality. First, she alleged that Brimhall misrepresented facts in an interview with NEA Report, falsely suggesting she had informed the media about his resignation following criminal proceedings.

Second, Hagood claimed Brimhall inaccurately implied she had obstructed an investigation involving a family member, asserting that the Greene County Sheriff’s Office had thoroughly investigated the matter without interference. Third, she referenced Brimhall’s public comments about their professional relationship, which she interpreted as implying a personal conflict.

Additionally, Hagood pointed to Brimhall’s mention of a campaign donation, noting his claim that her husband was a significant contributor to his opponent’s campaign. She also highlighted letters from members of the legal community questioning Brimhall’s fitness to serve, which he dismissed as lacking “professional courtesy.” Hagood argued that such statements undermined public trust in the judiciary and suggested a lack of accountability.

Finally, she cited Brimhall’s remark that experiencing the defendant’s perspective in a criminal case made him more qualified as a judge, calling it inappropriate and indicative of bias against prosecutors.

The motions for recusal relate to multiple cases, primarily property forfeiture proceedings, which are civil matters brought by the state and prosecutors. These cases include docket numbers 18CV-25-245, 18CV-24-1200, 56CV-24-182, and others. Hagood’s reconsideration motion emphasized what she described as undeniable instances of conduct that question Brimhall’s impartiality, urging the court to revisit its ruling and grant a hearing.

Brimhall’s April 28 order referenced legal standards, stating that recusal is only necessary when a judge’s impartiality can be reasonably questioned. He argued that neither his past conduct nor the actions of the prosecuting attorney’s office, such as appointing a special prosecutor to avoid conflicts, provided grounds for recusal.

 

 

Source: NEA Report