Swadley's

[David]

That just makes me really curious what is in the state's evidence.

[catcherinthewry]

That just makes me really curious what is in the state's evidence.

Is it worse than what is already public? That would be really bad for Brent.

[Pete]

Is it worse than what is already public? That would be really bad for Brent.

It would be at least all the details, including the massively inflated invoices, lots of testimony from at the one guy inside Swadley's who was the whistleblower and now testifying for the prosecution.

Now, it's just: "The State alleges Swadley forged invoices", etc.

But seeing documents in black and white and reading testimony under oath from someone who worked at Swadley's would not allow Brent to keep playing the victim card, and that would likely cost him a ton of business and could even sink him.

Grand jury indictments lead to convictions 92% of the time. There is no way he is going to get off the hook here; it's all about preserving public perception.

[Jersey Boss]

My gut is telling me that Swadley will end up making an Alford plea, where he maintains his innocence but accepts the court's penalties, especially if he can negotiate a fine with a suspended sentence or something similar.

It seems clear that he does not want the state's evidence made public, which makes it unlikely that he will go to trial.

He'll probably continue to make a big show about being innocent and the victim of political persecution, but will end up paying millions back to the state and continuing to run his successful restaurant chain.

In this case, appearances for Swadley are more important than the actual outcome.

To be clear here. The State has to offer this to Swadley. It is not a right.

[Pete]

To be clear here. The State has to offer this to Swadley. It is not a right.

True of all plea bargains.

[Wishbone]

I passed by Swadley ranch out in Piedmont the other day. He's been making a ton of money somehow.

[Jeepnokc]

To be clear here. The State has to offer this to Swadley. It is not a right.

Although no right for a negotiated plea from State, a defendant has the absolute right to change his plea even if the State objects or doesn't offer anything. Basically called a blind plea leaving it up to the judge to determine sentencing after hearing from both sides.


https://www.oklahoma-criminal-defens...a-in-oklahoma/

[jn1780]

There's back office politics that happen with plea bargains also. May not be worth going through all the media circus of a Swadley trial that probably won't even change any opinions regardless of the outcome.

[Jersey Boss]

Although no right for a negotiated plea from State, a defendant has the absolute right to change his plea even if the State objects or doesn't offer anything. Basically called a blind plea leaving it up to the judge to determine sentencing after hearing from both sides.


https://www.oklahoma-criminal-defens...a-in-oklahoma/

I made my comment in response to the poster saying Swadley will "make" an Alford plea. "Take" one maybe. Can't just "make" one. Even then the judge can reject it.

[Midtowner]

It could be interesting to see where this goes.

I do think that the Governor's office broke several land speed records in the act of distancing themselves from Mr. Swadley after this whole debacle went public--and the grift was common knowledge at the state capitol. Virtually every gathering with state money came from a Swadley's facility--made mostly at taxpayer expense at a state resort and then trucked in. I'm guessing the AG might settle for several bigger fish. Certainly, the previous Attorney General who rubber stamped all of these highly inappropriate contracts has some responsibility here. Winchester almost certainly has some liability here. Maybe even Stitt. The current AG is not a party hack--he's a real law and order guy, so it could get really interesting.