Sharon Holmes reprimanded by Oklahoma Supreme Court in Tulsa County

The Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a public reprimand against Tulsa County District Judge Sharon Holmes on Sept. 24. The justices determined her repeated judicial ethics violations did not warrant removal from the bench.

The Council of Judicial Complaints brought the investigation forward. The council alleged oppression in office and sought her removal. The court found her actions did not reach that legal standard.

Judges commit oppression in office by committing acts they know or should know are seriously wrong. The acts must also amount to an excessive use of judicial authority.

The state supreme court found Holmes violated seven rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Rule 1.2
• Rule 2.2
• Rule 2.6
• Rule 2.8
• Rule 2.9
• Rule 2.11
• Rule 2.16

Holmes held an ex parte meeting with a criminal defendant in June 2025. She did not recuse herself from that case. Additional ex parte meetings occurred that same month.

The court called multiple ex parte communications her most egregious violations. These involve private talks between a judge and one party about an active case.

In one complaint, a criminal defendant asked to speak with Holmes about a personal matter. Holmes said that “it was fine as long as it was alright with his attorney.”

No objection was made through the state or the defense attorney. Holmes also spoke with jurors in another instance.

The state asked Holmes to step down from that case. She initially declined the request. She recused herself the following day “in the interest of efficiency to allow the case to move forward quickly.”

Holmes failed to step aside from cases involving lawyers who previously represented her in Tulsa. She also displayed inappropriate behavior by yelling at lawyers and defendants.

Additionally, Holmes placed ineligible defendants into the Arise Treatment Program. She also gave some defendants suspended sentences despite state law prohibitions.

“We find Judge Holmes’s conduct indefensible–her conduct reflects a serious lack of impulse control, lapses in judgment, and a failure to appreciate and respect the boundaries imposed upon her by the Code of Judicial Conduct, warranting discipline from this Court. Her conduct presents both commissions of legal error and abuses of discretion, compounded by their repetitive occurrences for which we must impose discipline,” said the Court.

A public reprimand serves as an official sanction issued by the state supreme court against a sitting judge. The Council of Judicial Complaints investigates alleged misconduct before referring findings for discipline.

Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler said his office appreciates the high court’s work. Kunzweiler noted crime victims deserve full confidence that cases are judged legally, fairly and thoroughly.