Prosecuting with a Rap Sheet: The Perjured Prosecutor of Muskogee
Current ADA Convicted of Drug Charges & Prosecuting Drug Crimes
A current Muskogee Assistant District Attorney now spends her days quite literally being the pot that calls the kettle black… as she prosecutes the people of Oklahoma while convicted of, not one… not two… but, THREE felonies.
“Hutson, a former police officer, became a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association on September 25, 1991, after graduating from law school. Her post-law school graduation work consisted primarily as an attorney in the District Attorney's office covering various counties including Muskogee, Cherokee, Wagoner, Adair, and Sequoyah. She also worked in private practice, and was appointed as a special prosecutor by the Oklahoma Attorney General in 1995 to prosecute the notorious Baby Luke case in Pittsburg County.”1
Court records indicate that Janet L. Bickel-Hutson prosecutes cases on behalf of the District 15 Attorney's office [Larry Edwards], despite pleading guilty to offering false evidence, drug possession and perjury2 following a multicounty grand jury investigation and an arrest in Arkansas in 2011 for public intoxication3.
In 2006 she was indicted on charges possession of methamphetamine, offering false evidence and perjury after allegedly taking drugs from a crime scene in Tahlequah4 and attempting to conceal her actions. Hutson was employed as a Cherokee County assistant district attorney at the time.
Subsequently, she surrendered her law license in July 2007, foregoing disbarment proceedings. Hutson petitioned for reinstatement on July 25, 2018, and was denied in April of 2019, with recommendations that Hutson “pursue her commitment to recovery of substance abuse”5.
Muskogee County Court records indicate she has prosecuting criminal cases in District 15 since November of 2024.
A prosecutor convicted of perjury has fundamentally compromised the integrity required to uphold justice. Perjury—lying under oath—directly contradicts a prosecutor’s duty to seek truth and fairness, making it impossible for them to credibly present evidence or argue cases in court. Allowing such an individual to continue practicing law erodes public trust in the legal system, undermines the credibility of prosecutions, and creates serious ethical and legal conflicts.
Prosecutors guilty of perjury have an ethical and constitutional duty to disclose their own misconduct to defense counsel in every case. Under Brady v. Maryland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972), prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could affect the credibility of a witness—including their own history of dishonesty. A prosecutor convicted of perjury has demonstrated a willingness to lie under oath, making their statements and legal arguments inherently unreliable.
Failure to disclose this information violates due process, deprives defendants of their right to a fair trial, and could result in overturned convictions or misconduct sanctions. Such disclosures are required to be both perpetual and retroactive, meaning that District Attorney Larry Edwards has a constitutional duty to disclose this information to EVERY defendant who’s case Janet Hutson was involved in.
As of the date of this article, there is no indication within the public court record for the 50+ cases assigned to Hutson, that Larry Edwards’ office made any brady disclosure to the defense in relation to Hutson’s history of perjury and other crimes. Coincidentally, many of the court documents on OSCN for CF-2018-00319 conveniently [for the state] have broken links that indicate the records were removed or changed in some manner, obstructing the public from easy access to the case.
In February of 2021, news outlets reported allegations that Hutson, while defending former Hulbert police chief, Casey Rowe, against bribery charges, intimidated a plaintiff seeking a protective order against Rowe. The plaintiff said she feared nude photographs of her would be published online and requested the protective order be dismissed.
Allowing a prosecutor with Hutson’s moral turpitude to continue trying cases poses a profound threat to the integrity of the justice system. It not only undermines public trust but also casts doubt on the fairness of past and present convictions. The legal repercussions can be far-reaching, with appeals, overturned verdicts, and dismissed cases draining both time and taxpayer resources.
Moreover, it violates the ethical standards that prosecutors are sworn to uphold, creating conflicts of interest that compromise the very foundation of justice. Ultimately, the damage extends beyond the courtroom, re-traumatizing victims and jeopardizing the rights of defendants, highlighting the critical need for strict accountability and swift removal of compromised officials from positions of power.
Wagoner County District Court Case No. CF-2006-037 for offering false evidence in violation of 21 O.S. 453 [felony]and for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance in violation of 63 O.S. 2-402 [felony], and in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CF-2006-597 for Perjury in violation of 21 O.S. 491. [SCBD-5285]
Id. fn 1, paragraph 14
“Ultimately, all of the drug charges against the individuals who were arrested in the raid were dropped due to the tainted evidence.” Id. fn 1 paragraph 13
Id. fn 1 paragraph 1