Judge Mike Hogan stepped aside Wednesday from the long-delayed retrial of Karl Fontenot after a months-long fight over unofficial courtroom audio recordings, saying he personally reviewed the tapes but would recuse "out of an abundance of caution." His decision shifts the retrial, tied to the 1984 kidnapping and slaying of Ada convenience-store clerk Denice Haraway, to a new judge and adds yet another procedural layer to a case already weighed down by years of litigation. Fontenot’s attorneys have urged court officials to reassign the matter quickly, arguing he has already waited nearly four years for a new trial.
Prosecutors Push For Off-The-Record Audio
Prosecutors with the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office moved in late 2025 to obtain recordings from hearings in Judge Hogan’s courtroom, saying they wanted to learn what was said during portions of the proceedings that occurred off the record. That request sparked a legal fight after court reporter Kristy Evans refused to hand over the files without a court order, as reported by KOKH. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a formal hearing on the state's bid to remove Judge Hogan, but he stepped aside before that could play out.
Federal Courts Ordered A Do-Over
Fontenot was convicted by two juries for the 1984 kidnapping and murder of Denice Haraway, but federal courts later found serious constitutional violations and ordered a new trial, as detailed in a Tenth Circuit opinion. The appellate record describes withheld evidence and witness problems that the court said undermined confidence in the original verdict. Since then, the retrial has been repeatedly delayed by fights over what evidence can be used and who will preside.
Hogan Listens, Recuses, And Hands Off
On June 4 Judge Hogan wrote that, after listening to the recordings, he found no violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct but, "out of an abundance of caution," recused and requested reassignment, according to court filings reported by KOKH. Fontenot’s attorneys are pressing officials to move quickly in naming a replacement judge, saying the interests of justice call for prompt reassignment. It is still unclear whether the disputed recordings will be released to the state or the public, and the next judge will inherit a case built on decades-old evidence and multiple layers of appellate scrutiny.
Legal Implications
The recusal pauses the immediate fight over whether Judge Hogan should be removed but leaves unresolved the broader transparency questions surrounding courtroom recordings. Prosecutors told the court they do not dispute the accuracy of existing transcripts and said the unofficial audio could reveal what was said off the record, while defense lawyers and court staff have pushed back. Whether the audio becomes part of the retrial record will be decided by the reassigned judge and could set off yet another round of appeals.
