Full time civil rights activist, journalist, constitutional law scholar, first amendment auditor and fourth place wrestling champion Jose “Chille” DeCastro filed new paperwork this week to force the replacement of the District Attorney and recusal of the judge who is handling charges DeCastro is facing in Oklahoma.
DeCastro was charged in December with three charges of molesting a police vehicle stemming from a September incident where he filmed himself at the Duncan police station attempting to enter three police vehicles after seeing what he said were “unsecured” AR-15s within the vehicles.
The diminutive YouTuber has previously attempted to have a California court intervene and place an emergency injunction on the warrants issued by Duncan, Oklahoma, police while a California court examined the legality of DeCastro’s arrest.
DeCastro has stated in his California filings that since the incident happened in September and a warrant wasn’t issued for his arrest until December; the warrants were issued in retaliation against DeCastro for making a records request in an unrelated case.
The California federal court rejected DeCastro’s emergency injunction and would later transfer the lawsuit from California to Oklahoma at DeCastro’s request. Since the move, there have been no further updates to his lawsuit.
DeCastro had also demanded a Frank’s hearing with the Oklahoma court handling his case. In that request, he made a case that Detective Suzannahe Smith lied in her statement that led to the probable cause determination because of what DeCastro described as a timeline error.
He further attempted to disqualify Lori Adams, the notary who notarized Smith’s statement, as Adams had asked DeCastro’s associates to stop filming her car before DeCastro entered the parking lot and attempted to gain access to the police vehicles.
In Monday’s supplemental filing, DeCastro inquired as to why two case numbers were assigned to the same incident and why Smith was allowed to file a probable cause affidavit when the local district attorney had already recused himself and a special prosecutor from outside of county had yet to be named.
He also questioned why special prosecutor Dan Jacobsma had the power to issue the warrants for DeCastro’s arrest on December 10, when the attorney general’s appointment letter was not filed until December 26.
DeCastro continued this line of reasoning in his separately filed motion to disqualify Jacobsma. In his filing, DeCastro again questioned why there were two separate case numbers for the same incident and demanded that the duplicate case be dismissed.
He again questioned Jacobsma’s authenticity in swearing that the information in the probable cause affidavit was “true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” Directly questioning the timing of the filing of the affidavit and Jacobsma’s official assignment to the case some months later.
The YouTuber also filed to force the recusal of Judge Carrie Hixon, who found probable cause for DeCastro’s multiple arrest warrants to be issued on December 10, 2025, and who was assigned to handle the case.
According to DeCastro, before being assigned as Special District Judge for Stephens County, Oklahoma, Hixon worked as an assistant district attorney in “the same judicial district and prosecutorial system now appearing before her.” He further claimed that since Hixon worked alongside police officers in the district up until her appointment in 2023, she has biases and a direct interest in his prosecution.
DeCastro wrote:
“A reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would have legitimate doubts about whether a Judge who recently served as a prosecutor in the same district can impartially evaluate challenges to the conduct of law enforcement officers with whom she previously worked.
This concern is highlighted in a case where the defendant has filed a Franks motion directly challenging the truthfulness of law enforcement affiant. The Franks inquiry requires the Court to assess whether the affiant made false statements knowingly or with reckless disregard to the truth – a credibility determination that goes to the officer’s integrity.
Unlike routine probable cause determinations, a Franks hearing places the affiant’s credibility directly at issue. The court must determine whether the affiant lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
A judge who previously worked alongside the affiant in a prosecutorial capacity – or who worked within the same law enforcement ecosystem – faces an inherent tension when asked to make such credibility determinations.
Defendant does not allege actual bias. Defendant asserts that the circumstances create an objective appearance of impropriety that warrants reassignment to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the proceedings.”
DeCastro is seeking the replacement of Judge Hixon with “a judge without recent prosecutorial ties to the District Attorney’s office or Duncan Police Department.”
This is an on-going news story.
You really have to wonder how chilli can claim to be anything when he clearly does not understand the basic separation of government functions, législative judicial and executive. Nor does he understand how things work in that the special prosecutor was appointed in Sept but only informed the court in Dec? So? Also, just how could this special prosecutor swear an oath on the subject? chilli also goes after the fact of two case numbers.
All of these issues are in fact only issues in his chat gt and not actually legal issues.
Let’s start with the separation of powers. All judges are lawyers to begin with. So they either come from the DA office or the public defenders side of things. Sometimes both. chilli is saying that disqualifies the judge, She worked for the prosecutor’s office… By that same token, the DA could then disqualify any judge who worked with the public defenders office. And then where would we be.
In law, to remove a judge, you have to show a bias in their actions within the case or a bias inherent within the judge itself. So, if the judge was best friends with chilli, they would not hear his case. Just because that might show a bias. chilli seems to think this is the same thing present with the judge he has. Basically in desperation he is trying to throw anything he can come up with to avoid going to trial. So if the judge does recuse, it would only mean a new judge would sit in on this and get up to speed a lot faster.
Let’s note for the record, there is a timeline, justice delayed is justice denied.
Sort of like the SOVCIT on the side of the road telling the cops they only have a few minutes to hold him, all the while not handing over their drivers license. Seemingly not knowing that any time limit on a police stop only starts the clock ticking after you have identified and given all necessary and required information. chilli’s timeline only starts after he has arrived in court to have his preliminary hearings. Something that has not happened yet. So while he may try to run out the clock, the clock has not started to tick yet.
A person switching from an executive role to a judicial role is often done as a matter of course. So by chilli claiming some sort of inherent bias on the judge’s part. is not a road they will go down. It will either be a swift exit for the judge or more likely as there is no bias, a denial by the judge all the way down the line for this manner of attack by chilli.
chilli made a great deal on the dates when the special prosecutor informed the court. Now, if the dates were revered, it would matter. If the warrant was issued in Sept and the special prosecutor was names in Dec. That would be an issue. The other way around is not. And this person can swear the think this is all the truth with merely reading the reports. A prosecution, does not have to rely on first hand knowledge. They do not have to perform the lab tests. They can just read the lab test results and trust they are trueful. It would then be up to the defense to show the lab report was in error or perjurious. Not the other way around and certainly not to have a warrant issued
First stage, probable cause, means the Judge has to take everything from the prosecution in the best possible light. In other words, assume it is all true and factual. At the next stage, the judge has to decide on the balance of probability, Meaning that things or more likely the way the state has told its story. A feather on the scale to tip things towards the government. It is only at the last stage, the trial, does the government have to show with clear and convincing evidence that that their case is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
On order to issue a warrant for cause, they need only the affidavit by the police in this case, to show that there might be a crime here. If all that they have stated in the warrant is true, then there might be a crime here, At the next stage, they may need to bring in the detective who signed the affidavit to testify under oath and be subjected to cross examination to again show there might be more or less than sufficient reason to hold a trial. Then at trial is were we see the video tapes, the body cam, the witnesses to testify and show beyond reasonable doubt that chilli did the things they say he did, and that chilli also agreed with everything they say he did because he did it.
And at this point, chilli’s best legal defense might just be to try and get a first amendment shield for his actions. Not to deny what he has already admitted to in his Calf court filing,
He cannot deny he did it as he admitted to doing what they say he did under perjury in Calf
He cannot defend himself saying he had no intention of stealing things. This is a no intent crime. Like speeding, they do not have to prove you knew you were breaking the speed limit and did so anyways to give you a ticket. All they have to do is show sufficient evidence that the speed limit was so high and that you were recorded or registered at a higher speed then permitted. No intent needed.
So when the facts are not on your side and law is not on your side, just bang on the table a lot…
So, chilli’s best bet? Go to the special prosecutor and make a deal to plead guilty and get a fine or minimum jail time.
Which won’t happen due to hubris on chillis side.
lastly, the two case numbers. Why two? I suspect the first number was defective.
CM 2025- 529
CM 2025- 00530
Note the difference in the two case numbers. Whereas the second as those two 00 in front of the number?
I suspect that they made the first case without the numbers and their system did not like the way it was done. So rather than fight with it over and over they simply issued a new case number and moved forward with both. You cannot be convicted to 2 crimes based on the same evidence. Double jeopardy. (Not getting into the weeds on federal and state charges here) So, at some point the cases will either be dismissed or combined at the states request or dismissed as to one or the other by motion from the defense. He will not be convicted on both cases.
At this point, one can only wonder at how the legal scholar, greatest mind of his generation missed all these things.