On Friday, April 4, 2025, Oklahoma Voice reported that the ongoing criminal case against the co-founders of Epic Charter School faced yet another delay as defendant David Lee Chaney requested the presiding judge to recuse herself. This request was made during a closed-door meeting, according to an attorney present at the session. Fellow co-founder Benjamin Scott Harris had previously employed a similar strategy, prolonging the case for much of the past year.

Chaney, 45, and Harris, 49, were charged in 2022 with racketeering and multiple financial crimes. Prosecutors allege that the two orchestrated a scheme that misappropriated millions of taxpayer dollars intended for students at Epic Charter School. The co-founders, who established the school in 2011, maintain that their business practices were legal and assert that they were merely following the advice of their legal counsel while managing the rapid expansion of their virtual charter school during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Epic Charter School, once the largest public school system in Oklahoma, severed ties with Chaney and Harris in 2021. Currently, the school serves approximately 31,000 students, a significant decrease from its peak enrollment of nearly 62,000 in 2020.

In March 2024, prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office began presenting their case against Chaney and Harris during a preliminary hearing. This hearing is crucial, as a judge will ultimately determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. However, time constraints have hindered the ability of attorneys on both sides to thoroughly question witnesses and review evidence. The hearing, initially set to continue in May, has been stalled for nearly a year due to various conflicts.

On the same day the preliminary hearing was supposed to reconvene, an attorney representing the case’s star witness and co-defendant, former Epic CFO Joshua Aaron Brock, filed a request for Chaney’s attorney, Gary Wood, to recuse himself. Brock, 43, claimed that Wood had previously represented him, making it inappropriate for Wood to cross-examine a former client. Wood, however, denied ever representing Brock.

Before the issue regarding Wood’s potential disqualification could be resolved, Harris’s attorney had already called for Judge Susan Stallings to recuse herself last year. Defense attorney Joe White argued that Stallings exhibited bias in favor of the prosecution. Stallings is set to preside over the trial if it progresses and is responsible for deciding on Wood’s disqualification as well.

Stallings declined to step down from the case, prompting White to appeal her decision three times. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decisions, allowing Stallings to remain in charge of the proceedings.

Following the latest developments, Chaney’s attorney made the recusal request during a confidential meeting with Stallings. After the meeting, Wood did not comment on the discussions held within the closed courtroom. Additionally, the Attorney General’s Office chose not to provide any commentary regarding the matter.

Chris Box, an attorney representing Brock, confirmed that Wood had requested Stallings to disqualify herself due to a prior representation by an attorney from the Attorney General’s Office. The judge is scheduled to address the recusal request in a public hearing on May 2 at 2:30 p.m.

Given the history of this case, it is anticipated that resolving the dispute may take several months. Attorneys typically initiate requests for a judge’s recusal privately, and if the judge declines, they can make the request publicly. Should the judge deny the request again, the matter can be escalated to the county’s chief district judge and potentially to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, culminating in a decision from the state Supreme Court.

 

 

Source: Oklahoma Voice