The legal fight between Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond and Brent Swadley, founder of Swadley’s Bar-B-Q, has escalated. In an interview, Swadley’s lead attorney, Bryan King, revealed the basis for a formal motion asking the court to disqualify Drummond and his office from prosecuting the criminal case, accusing the attorney general of making repeated, prejudicial public statements that could compromise Swadley’s right to a fair trial.
Speaking with political analyst Scott Mitchell, King characterized the motion as “extraordinary,” but necessary given what he described as “extrajudicial statements” by Drummond that crossed the ethical line.
Attorney says AG’s public comments endanger trial fairness
According to King, the core issue is not the indictment itself, but what has happened since.
“Any person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” King said. “And so the what appears to be the blending of campaign rhetoric, along with commenting on an active criminal proceeding, is concerning to us.”
King pointed to multiple public comments made by Drummond in speeches and press releases, including a statewide release issued on May 29 that tied the Swadley case to a now-vetoed “anti-corruption” bill. The AG used the case as an example of why reforms were needed. King argues that these statements were not just informational, but suggestive of guilt.
>> Brent Swadley Waives Right To Preliminary Hearing
Legal ethics expert supports disqualification
To support the motion, King’s legal team submitted an affidavit from Dean Larry Hellman, dean emeritus at Oklahoma City University School of Law and one of the state’s foremost experts in legal ethics. Hellman reviewed Drummond’s public statements and concluded they likely violate Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which limits attorneys, particularly prosecutors, from making statements that could prejudice a jury pool.
“All prosecutors are duty bound to ensure the fundamental fairness,” King said. “Right to a fair trial of the accused and the public’s perception of the judicial process.”
King stressed that this is not a political response, but a legal one grounded in constitutional rights. He said the defense initially tried to resolve the matter privately by sending a cease-and-desist letter to the attorney general last year. According to King, the letter was ignored, and the frequency of public remarks increased as the case moved closer to trial and as Drummond’s rumored campaign for governor ramped up.
Campaigning on a criminal case?
King went further, telling Mitchell that the attorney general’s commentary appears to be intentionally woven into a larger political narrative.
“It concerns us that the statements appear to be, have objectives that are more to do with the political campaign,” King said. “This particular attorney general is in the midst of an active campaign to be the next governor of Oklahoma and has made a so-called culture of corruption and scandal.”
Alleged harm to Swadley’s business
King also discussed how Drummond’s public statements have damaged Swadley’s business reputation. He pointed to a specific example in the motion: a bank loan that was denied after a public appearance in which Drummond discussed the case and implied Swadley would “do some time.”
>> Swadley’s BBQ Co-Founder Says Family’s Reputation & Business Are Under ‘Attack’
In addition to reputational damage, King said Swadley’s has lost catering work contracts that are critical to the company’s operations during Oklahoma’s severe weather season.
What’s next
The attorney general’s office has said it “will vigorously oppose” the motion. A court hearing has not yet been scheduled, but King estimates it may take place in late July or early August after a required briefing period.
Swadley, Hooper, and Breuklander face felony charges stemming from their contract with the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department. Prosecutors allege they submitted false invoices for public reimbursement, a claim Swadley denies. The criminal case follows civil litigation, legislative investigations, and years of public scrutiny.
