On Thursday, March 27, 2025, News 9 reported that the Oklahoma County Sheriff, Tommie Johnson, is calling for the removal of District Judge Amy Palumbo, citing an incident where she allegedly attempted to have him arrested based on a false complaint. Sheriff Johnson characterized Palumbo as “unworthy of the position” following her actions last year, which he claims violated the integrity of the judicial system.
The controversy emerged after an open records request revealed details about the judicial complaint filed by Johnson and a reprimand issued to Palumbo by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. According to sworn statements from four deputies, the incident occurred on April 17, when Judge Palumbo expressed frustration over courthouse noise and security issues. Johnson stated that Palumbo verbally berated the deputies and subsequently sent a message instructing him to appear in her courtroom.
Johnson recounted that Palumbo deemed the noise level disturbing enough to consider holding him in contempt of court, which could have led to his arrest. He expressed his astonishment at her actions, insisting he had not breached any court protocols. Following the incident, Johnson sought clarification from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who allegedly confirmed that Palumbo had overstepped her authority.
The sheriff described his experience as distressing, noting the impact it had on his family. He questioned why he had to explain to his wife and children the possibility of facing jail time for actions he deemed appropriate. He also mentioned that his professional reputation and livelihood were at stake due to the incident.
Johnson approached the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office for guidance on possible recourse, only to be told that there was no legal action that could be taken against a judge. This led him to file a formal judicial complaint a week later. Nine months after filing, he learned that Palumbo had received a reprimand, though the details remained undisclosed to him, as it was classified as a private reprimand.
Frustrated with the lack of transparency in the process, Johnson questioned how justice could be served if the outcome was not made known to the public. He emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and expressed his belief that judges should be held accountable for their actions.
In response to the situation, District Attorney Vicki Behenna stated that her office cannot comment on privileged conversations regarding elected officials. She reiterated that the appropriate channel for complaints against judges is the Council on Judicial Complaints, clarifying that district attorneys do not oversee or influence the decision-making processes of judges.
Source: News 9
