Local Defense Attorney Faces Trial Possibly Fueled by Retaliation From State Officials
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Ardmore, OK – Apr 17, 2025
A respected local defense attorney, Jason May, known for challenging unconstitutional practices in cases across District 20 (Carter, Johnston, Love, Marshall and Murray Counties) is set to face trial on April 28th, 2025 under circumstances raising serious concerns about potential retaliation.
Back in 2022, the Attorney exposed the discovery of a recording device in the attorney/client conference room at the Carter County Jail. The discovery drew significant and deserved public criticism of The Sheriff’s Office and District Attorney’s Office.
Notably, some of the state’s key witnesses in the upcoming trial include the very officials named in those earlier criticisms , drawing scrutiny to the government’s motives.
The charges—related to disputed court filings in case(s) involving the seizure of cash totaling over six figures—were filed the same month Melissa Handke took over as District Attorney.
District Attorney, Handke, is one of three, state officials on the prosecution’s witness list, under public scrutiny, with known potential impeachment evidence, as well as Former Sheriff Chris Bryant, and former District Attorney Craig Ladd.
This prosecution appears designed, not only to punish speech, but to discredit a vocal critic of unchecked district power.
In a controversial move, prosecutors have filed a motion in limine to suppress testimony from sitting District and Tribal Judges—testimony that is essential to ensuring a fair trial.
These judges, who have observed the defendant’s legal practice first hand over many years, are expected to offer critical character and professional context to the trial .
Potential for Prejudicial Impact:
For a defendant who is also a practicing attorney, the judge-witnesses may be able to contextualize professional conduct, explain accepted norms of legal practice, and even challenge the interpretation of ethics violations being advanced by the prosecution.
Excluding this testimony could result in unfair prejudice—misleading the jury about what is normal, ethical, or criminal within the legal profession.
Legal observers warn that suppressing such testimony could violate the Sixth Amendment’s right to compulsory process and due process protections under the Constitution.
A second Motion in Limine was filed on April 17, 2025, further describing what testimony the state wants to be “off limits” at trial.
If convicted, May faces, not only potential incarceration but also disbarment and permanent reputational damage—an outcome that makes full and fair testimony from those who know the defendant’s work indispensable.
This isn’t just a legal case—it’s a constitutional stress test. When the government tries to silence judges who can speak to the defendant’s truth, it threatens the very integrity of the judicial process.
The trial is scheduled to begin April 28, 2025 and is expected to draw widespread public and legal community attention.
Find Out More, Join Our Facebook Event: “The State vs. The People’s Defender”!
*This press release is in no way endorsed by either side of the aforementioned case. Our comments are our own.*