— McALESTER — Prosecutors with the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office are asking a judge to impose civil contempt violations on a defense attorney for former District 18 Drug Court Coordinator Angie Marcum.

Oklahoma Assistant Attorneys General Charles Rogers and Megan Tilly have filed motions asking the court to impose the sanctions for what they allege are the defense attorney’s failure “to comply with her duty” to meaningfully make discovery disclosures required under Oklahoma’s Criminal Code.

Discovery disclosures refer to each side in a case providing the other side with a list of their witnesses and a summary of expected testimony from those witnesses, as well as a list of court exhibits or other evidence expected to be presented during a trial.

In their filings, the state prosecutors say the alleged discovery issues do not appear to be Marcum’s “personal doing.”

Instead, “It appears to be solely the conduct of her attorney that may be addressed through the court’s civil contempt powers to coerce compliance ...” the state prosecutors contend.

Tulsa attorney Shannon McMurray is the defense counsel for Marcum referred to in the filing by the Attorney General’s Office.

Marcum, who is the former District 18 Drug Court coordinator for Pittsburg and McIntosh counties, is accused in an Oklahoma Multicounty Grand Jury indictment unsealed in 2011 of embezzling public money and property, along with stealing, destroying or secreting a public book or record in the form of receipts for payments made by drug court participants.

The case had been set to go to trial Aug. 6, but Okmulgee County District Judge Ken Adair delayed the trial because neither side was ready. The case is now expected to go to trial Oct. 1 at the Pittsburg County Courthouse.

Adair was previously appointed to preside over the case after judges in Pittsburg County were recused from hearing it.

In the most recent court filings, prosecutors said that what they’ve received from the defense so far amounts to a “witness list” that does not provide a “significant summary” of the witnesses’ expected testimony.

As a result, the state has been unable to prepare for jury trial, prosecutors contend.

“The discovery disclosure currently provided by the defendant to the state is only marginally more informative than if no discovery had been made at all,” prosecutors say in their court motion.

In addition, the witness list provided by the defense “may, and probably does, reference numerous persons the defendant has no intention to call as witnesses at the jury trial; thus providing camouflage to mask the identity of those persons actually expected to be called as witnesses for the defendant,” prosecutors allege in court documents.

Prosecutors go on to state that the court has repeatedly instructed the defense counsel to make meaningful discovery disclosures to the state.

The state prosecutor also referred to an earlier discovery order issued in January, followed by another one in July.

“Had counsel for the defendant promptly complied with the state’s scheduling order, or if she had complied even with the additional time permitted in the court’s July 21, 2012 order, the state of Oklahoma would have been able to announce ready for trial as scheduled on Aug. 6, 2012, since it had served all of its necessary witnesses and provided defense counsel full and fair discovery,” prosecutors said in court documents.

In the court motion, Rogers and Tilly allege that what they call the lack of meaningful discovery disclosures to the state has caused the jury trial to be rescheduled from Aug. 6 to Oct. 1 and contend the matter “should reap an appropriate action from the court to prevent it from continuing and potentially causing harm to the next trial date.”

They are seeking indirect contempt sanctions.

James Beaty is the senior editor at the McAlester News-Capital.