As Oklahoma prosecutors continue to pile up indecent exposure charges against a retired judge accused of masturbating on the bench, both sides will have to wait a little longer for their day in court.

Retired Creek County District Judge Donald Thompson appeared in court Friday for a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to try him on charges that he repeatedly exposed himself while presiding over four trials in 2002 and 2003.

But the hearing on four felony counts and one misdemeanor count of misusing a state computer was postponed Friday after the third judge to be assigned to the case recused himself, this time for having spoken with a witness in the case.

The postponement is the latest in a series of conflicts that have beleaguered the disgraced judge's trial since January, when Oklahoma prosecutors filed three charges of indecent exposure alleging Thompson masturbated using a device known as a "penis pump" during two criminal trials and one civil trial in 2003.

Story continues

advertisement

Since then, prosecutors have twice filed amended charges against Thompson, first expanding the dates of the alleged incidents to cover longer periods of time, instead of pinpointing exact dates as the original complaint did.

Then, on Nov. 18, the team of special prosecutors added one more count of indecent exposure from a trial in 2002 and one count of misusing a state computer for explicit pictures that police allegedly found on a computer in Thompson's chambers.

Thompson's Tulsa-based attorney, Clark Brewster, requested the new preliminary hearing, claiming that the new dates would require him more time to prepare for the new witnesses.

"Every time they present a target, we meet it, so then they try to move it again," Brewster told Courttv.com. "We had witnesses who were in the courtroom for each of the days in question who could say that they did not see or hear any of these outrageous allegations."

Thompson waived his right to his first preliminary hearing in March. While he admits to keeping a penis pump in his chambers and occasionally on the bench as a "gag gift" he received from a colleague, he denies ever using it on the bench.

Brewster points to DNA reports indicating that the state's forensic evidence is not as strong as it seems.

"In spite of the state's representations of DNA evidence, in fact, there is none," Brewster said.

Lab reports in support of the state's notice of intent to use DNA evidence indicate that samples of carpet and fabric taken from the judge's bench failed to turn up the presence of his DNA, as did further Luminol testing.

Even so, the tests were able to match Thompson's DNA to samples of seminal fluid (actually prostate specific antigen) that were found on the judge's robe, his desk and chair from his chambers.

"But that could be explained by urine," Brewster said, referring to prostate and incontinence problems he claims his client suffers.

Special prosecutor Richard Smothermon did not return calls for comment, but documents filed in support of the complaint point to a case based on salacious statements from court personnel, jurors and trial witnesses who told police they saw Thompson use the device while presiding over several trials in his Creek County courtroom.

Court reporter Lisa Foster told police she saw Thompson attach the pump to his penis while court was in session and operate the device, "causing air pumping sounds" in open court, which she made note of on the court transcript.

Several jurors from the May 2003 trial provided similar statements to police, likening the noise to the sound of "pumping up an inflatable chair or a hemorrhoid donut," a blood pressure cuff or a bicycle pump.

The trial has presented a quagmire of conflicts, starting with Creek County District Attorney Max Cook's recusal from the case in a show of support for his longtime colleague.

The trial venue was also moved from the Creek County courthouse in Sapulpa, where the alleged incidents took place, to the Creek County courthouse in Bristow.

Finally, the original September trial date was quashed after a judge who had previously recused himself from the case participated in the prequalification of jurors without the knowledge of the defense.

A new judge will have to be found before a new preliminary hearing date is set.