A judge who presided over a high-profile murder trial with ties to the prosecution that sent her client to death row is now facing a test of her impartiality. Judge Susan Stallings, who has served on Oklahoma's criminal court bench since 2019, made a startling admission during a closed-door proceeding that may raise concerns about her ability to preside over Richard Glossip's retrial.
According to reports, Glossip's lawyers asked Stallings to recuse herself from the case due to her connections to Fern Smith, the former Oklahoma City prosecutor who first sent Glossip to death row. During their initial meeting, the judge revealed that she had worked for Smith in the early 1990s and had even taken a trip with her in 1997, just before Glossip was charged with murder.
While Stallings insisted that she would treat Prater "like I do anybody else," Glossip's lawyers argue that this is not enough to ensure impartiality. They point out that Stallings has shown loyalty to Smith on several occasions, including by devoting more pages of her opinion in a different case to Smith's testimony than anyone else's.
In fact, experts say that appearances matter when it comes to recusal motions. "The very first Canon in Oklahoma's judicial code requires judges to avoid not only 'impropriety,' but the appearance of impropriety," says Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in legal ethics.
Glossip's lawyers argue that Stallings is too close to Prater and Smith to preside over Glossip's retrial. "The game is already rigged" if Stallings remains on the case, they say.
As Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond prepares to retry Glossip for first-degree murder, defense lawyers are concerned about a lack of transparency in the case. The attorney general announced his decision despite a lack of reliable evidence and without warning Glossip's attorneys, who had previously made secret deals with him.
In essence, Stallings' recusal is not just about whether she can be impartial but also about appearances. If she does not step down, it could undermine the commitment to fairness that Drummond has claimed.
According to reports, Glossip's lawyers asked Stallings to recuse herself from the case due to her connections to Fern Smith, the former Oklahoma City prosecutor who first sent Glossip to death row. During their initial meeting, the judge revealed that she had worked for Smith in the early 1990s and had even taken a trip with her in 1997, just before Glossip was charged with murder.
While Stallings insisted that she would treat Prater "like I do anybody else," Glossip's lawyers argue that this is not enough to ensure impartiality. They point out that Stallings has shown loyalty to Smith on several occasions, including by devoting more pages of her opinion in a different case to Smith's testimony than anyone else's.
In fact, experts say that appearances matter when it comes to recusal motions. "The very first Canon in Oklahoma's judicial code requires judges to avoid not only 'impropriety,' but the appearance of impropriety," says Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in legal ethics.
Glossip's lawyers argue that Stallings is too close to Prater and Smith to preside over Glossip's retrial. "The game is already rigged" if Stallings remains on the case, they say.
As Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond prepares to retry Glossip for first-degree murder, defense lawyers are concerned about a lack of transparency in the case. The attorney general announced his decision despite a lack of reliable evidence and without warning Glossip's attorneys, who had previously made secret deals with him.
In essence, Stallings' recusal is not just about whether she can be impartial but also about appearances. If she does not step down, it could undermine the commitment to fairness that Drummond has claimed.
. A judge who worked with someone who sent Glossip to death row should totally recuse herself from his retrial. It's not just about being impartial, but also about appearances. I mean, think about it - she knows the DA and the prosecutor who initially got Glossip sentenced to death. That's a lot of baggage 
. And what's with all this lack of transparency from Drummond? Retrying someone for murder without warning them first? That's just shady 
. It's gotta be tough for Glossip's lawyers, knowing that their guy might not get a fair shake. Fingers crossed Stallings does the right thing and steps down 
. I get it, they're old friends and she worked with her back in the day, but that doesn't automatically disqualify her from presiding over Glossip's retrial.
. And what's with Drummond not being transparent about the evidence or anything? That just makes me wanna roll my eyes 
. It feels like there's some serious impropriety going on here, and I don't think Stallings' recusal is just a formal thing – it's more about appearances.
. The game might not be rigged, but it feels like it is right now.
. i mean, if she really wants to prove herself, she should step down from the case altogether. but even that might not be enough, as some ppl say appearances matter in these situations... and trust me, this is one situation where appearances are EVERYTHING 
and these experts say appearances matter which makes total sense because who wants to trust a judge who's basically besties with the person who sent someone to death row? 
its not just about impartiality anymore its about maintaining some semblance of integrity in the system.
but seriously, it's not like Stallings is trying 2 help Prater out or anythin... she's just sayin she'll treat him equally, which isnt exactly what the prosecution wants ppl 2 think... and omg, experts say appearance matters?? who didnt know dat? 
it's all about perception, fam. if Glossip's lawyers think Stallings is biased, then maybe they should be worried 
. And now Glossip's lawyers are saying she can't be impartial because of it 
.
. It's about transparency and fairness in the justice system 
. The fact that Drummond announced his decision without warning Glossip's attorneys raises some serious red flags 
.
. If we start removing judges from cases because of past friendships or professional associations, how do we ensure that justice is actually served? It's not just about Stallings' impartiality; it's about the integrity of the entire system 
. I mean, a judge who's friends with the prosecutor who sent her client to death row? That doesn't exactly scream impartiality 
. If Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond can just announce his decision without warning Glossip's attorneys, that's just a major red flag 
. But hey, at least we're having a good chat about it, right? 
I'm low-key shocked that Judge Susan Stallings is being called out for her ties to Fern Smith. idk if the connections are just a coincidence or if there's more to it... 
. I mean, a judge who's worked with the prosecutor in a case that sent someone to death row is now being questioned about her impartiality? It's not like she was directly involved, but still... 
. And what's with the fact that she took a trip with Smith just before Glossip got charged? That's like, totally sketchy 
. And let's be real, folks are gonna be watching this closely - if Stallings can prove she's still impartial, great 
. But if not... well, that's just another case of the system being messed with 