A public reprimand was issued by the Oklahoma Supreme Court against Tulsa County District Judge Sharon Holmes in Investigation of Sharon Holmes (2026 OK 67) for cumulative violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Previously, the Council on Judicial Complaints had recommended invoking removal proceedings for “oppression in office”, but the Supreme Court found her actions were merely legal errors and abuses of discretion as opposed to grounds for removal.
The Court did agree with the Council’s findings that Holmes had violated several rules of judicial conduct. 1. Ex parte communications: Holmes held unauthorized private conversations with a criminal defendant in a hallway, and spoke privately with jurors for several minutes (refusing to disclose the substance of this conversation). And she read private emails from incarcerated defendants’ families without filing them or notifying the parties. 2. Failure to disqualify: she did not recuse herself from cases involving such ex parte communications, as well as cases brought by attorneys who had previously represented her. 3. Sentencing violations: she disregarded statutory sentencing restrictions by allowing ineligible defendants to plead into a specialty treatment docket (Arise Program) without making mandatory on-the-record findings. 4. Undignified demeanor: she demonstrated a pattern of hostile courtroom behavior, including screaming at an assistant public defender in a hallway (as opposed to during a trial) and left the bench to approach an agitated defendant with her firsts raised in a manner that was taken to mean she was preparing to fight them. 5. Lack of candor: her testimony to the Council contradicted evidence, indicating dishonesty.
The Court rejected the Council’s recommendation for removal because they found “oppression in office” (intent to commit acts that are wrong or beyond judicial authority) had not been proven. Two of the justices offered dissenting opinions, recommending a removal trial (Justice Combes), or a suspension without pay (Justice Rowland).
The Council had begun its investigation in June 2025 when they received a complaint of an ex parte communication, and then received additional complaints as they commenced. In the central violation, in open court, a criminal defendant asked to speak with Holmes about a personal matter. Holmes replied that while she could not privately discuss the case, “she would speak to him privately as long as it was alright with his attorney.” It almost seems as if she was set up to make a mistake because neither attorney’s objected in court to this conversation, but then the Tulsa County DA asked for Holmes’ recusal from this case because of it. Holmes refused to recuse herself because this conversation “did not have anything to do with this case, at all.” In the second case where she spoke with jurors, she did recuse herself eventually “in the interest of efficiency to allow the case to move forward quickly.” The Council argued that these brief private conversations were sufficient for her impartiality to be reasonably questioned.
Seemingly, it was certainly unbecoming for her to have shouted at an assistant public defender, but witnesses proved their own hostility when they described her as being “very hostile and very nasty”. This seems to be a case of coworkers and subordinates refusing to accept the authority of a female judge. Accusing her of yelling and being “nasty” seem to be insults designed to minimize her power. It is very difficult for women today to find a “balance” between been powerfully intimidating (as male bosses are to gain leadership positions) and remaining femininely polite while bossing people around.
And observers might have assumed Holmes was obtaining some benefit to bending the rules to send convicts to the Arise Program because it echoes the Kids for Cash scandal from a few years ago that took down for kickbacks (from a for-profit juvenile detention facility) Pennsylvania judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan.
In contrast, Holmes seems to have been speaking with parties and referring unqualified convicts to a rehabilitation program out of a desire to seem especially helpful. Holmes was first elected to this position back in 2014 as the first Black woman elected as a district judge in Tulsa County. She was an Assistant District Attorney for Tulsa County (2000-3). She won the 2026 reelection by default and is scheduled to remain in her judgeship through at least 2030. Holmes’ approach to mixing bombastic yelling with yielding on talking about personal matters, and being especially kind to some defendants in sentencing has been the reason she had acquired and retained a job no other Black woman had previously climbed into. When judges are elected, they must placate the defendants they see in court to convince the public she represents the interests of the populace poor. Ideally, it would be possible to stop judges from displaying favoritism either because they are being corruptly influenced in a given case or because their reelection depends on them placating some organized criminal group sponsoring their runs. An auditor is unlikely to have witnesses of bribery confessing to having bribed a judge to gain favor. So, they have to rely on appearances of impropriety, of which there were a few in this case. And the problem was not merely that she chatted with jurors, but that she refused to disclose the content of this conversation, which suggested it included inappropriate content she did not want to out. Given these uncertainties and borderline questions, it is a good sign that the Council investigated these allegations, and probably also a good sign that the Court ruled they were not serious enough for the removal of the first female Black judge in this district.
