USA v. Cole et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON DALE COLE, and
CRYSTAL FAYE CHESSER,
Defendant.
Case No. CR-24-080-RAW
ORDER
On October 1, 2025, Defendant Cole was found guilty by a jury of his peers of all ten
counts in the Superseding Indictment:
- 	Count One: possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B);
- 	Count Two: possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2);
- 	Count Three: felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(8);
- 	Count Four: use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 924(c)(1)(B)(ii);
- 	Count Five: possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A);
- 	Count Six: possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D);
- 	Count Seven: felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(8);
- 	Count Eight: possession of unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5846, 5861(d)
and 5871;
- 	Count Nine: use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 924(c)(1)(B)(ii); and
- 	Count Ten: maintaining drug involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) and 18
U.S.C. § 2.
The Defendant is now awaiting sentencing.
6:24-cr-00080-RAW Document 230 Filed in ED/OK on 06/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
This case was originally filed on May 15, 2024. Since that time, the Defendant has been
appointed eight (8) attorneys and has fired them all. Additionally, he filed a bar complaint
against his eighth appointed attorney.
The court held a hearing on May 27, 2026, during which the court released the
Defendant’s eighth appointed attorney. During that hearing, the court admonished the Defendant
that he has abused the system and instructed him to show cause as to why he has not waived his
Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. The Defendant complained that all of his
attorneys were ineffective, arguing primarily that they failed to raise the issue of the credibility
of Trooper Mulkey.1 The court admonished the Defendant that his trial is over and that he need
not repeat those arguments in his show cause brief.
At one point during the hearing, the Defendant stated that he waived his right to counsel
and was ready to proceed to sentencing. The right to counsel, however, may be waived by a
defendant, only when “relinquishment of the right is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.”
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 786 (2009). Thus, the court directed the Defendant to show
cause.
Now before the court is the Defendant’s “show cause letter” [Docket No. 228]. The
Defendant again complains about Trooper Mulkey, argues without evidence that all of his
attorneys were “clearly compromised by the courts to secure a conviction,” requests that the
undersigned recuse, and states that he has filed OBA grievances and is in the process of reporting
the undersigned judge and the prosecutor to the D.O.J. office of the inspector general. In sum,
Defendant believes everyone involved in this case has been against him.
1 This court ruled on the issue of Trooper Mulkey’s credibility on July 7, 2025 in an order
affirming and adopting the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Jackson.
Docket No. 159.
6:24-cr-00080-RAW Document 230 Filed in ED/OK on 06/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Still, despite having fired every attorney appointed to represent him, the Defendant
unequivocally states that he does not wish to waive his right to counsel and requests that another
attorney be appointed to assist him in filing a direct appeal. As the court noted above, the
Defendant is currently awaiting sentencing.
The Defendant has no doubt abused the process. The Tenth Circuit has previously noted
that “[a] defendant may not use the right to refuse representation of counsel to play a cat and
mouse game with the court.” United States v. Padilla, 819 F.2d 952, 959 (10th Cir. 1987).
“When faced with a situation of potential abuse, the district court may properly impose restraints
on the right to reject counsel to prevent the right from being manipulated so as to obstruct the
orderly procedure of the courts.” Id.
Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the court will allow the Defendant one final
appointed attorney. The court cautions the Defendant that his sentencing is the current issue. Of
course, he may consult with his attorney regarding the filing of a direct appeal after his
sentencing. Accordingly, the court hereby directs the Federal Public Defender to appoint
counsel from the CJA panel forthwith for Defendant Jason Dale Cole.2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24 th day of June, 2026.
______________________________________
THE HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
2 The undersigned judge declines to recuse in this case. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 455, a judge
shall recuse in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The
undersigned judge does not believe his impartiality might reasonably be questioned here. The
Defendant’s threat of filing complaints against the undersigned judge simply puts him in the
same position as that of the other attorneys involved in this case. The undersigned judge has no
personal bias or prejudice concerning the Defendant.
6:24-cr-00080-RAW Document 230 Filed in ED/OK on 06/24/26 Page 3 of 3