What Went Wrong?
The motions to recuse Judge Glanville stemmed from his controversial decision to hold an ex parte meeting involving key witness Kenneth Copeland (aka “Little Woody”). Copeland, initially reluctant to testify, was granted immunity but remained resistant, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. In an effort to secure his testimony, Judge Glanville convened a private meeting with prosecution counsel, Copeland’s attorney, and other participants, excluding defense counsel.
This meeting became the cornerstone of allegations against Judge Glanville. Defense attorneys argued that the ex parte interaction undermined the integrity of the proceedings and created an appearance of bias. According to court filings, Judge Glanville not only presided over the meeting but later defended its propriety, further escalating concerns about his impartiality.
In the recusal order, the court found that Judge Glanville’s actions violated the principles of judicial neutrality. By defending his decisions in subsequent hearings, he inadvertently assumed a quasi-advocacy role.
