THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 32 | AUGUST 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. convicted of tax stamp charges than courts in Craig County. In sum, the results from Craig County are consistent with the revenue generation hypothesis. Craig County prosecutors filed tax stamp charges often, especially in light of the low population levels and low number of felony charges in the county. Tax stamp charges rarely resulted in distinctive sentences of incarceration for defendants. Yet Craig County courts also dismissed tax stamp charges far less frequently than courts in comparable jurisdictions. These results suggest that the point of filing and convicting on tax stamp charges was to generate revenue, rather than to promote public safety. CONCLUSION Although tax stamp charges have significantly increased, the offense is not one of the most frequently charged offenses in Oklahoma’s criminal system. That said, the pattern of tax stamp prosecutions illustrates at least two broader critiques of Oklahoma criminal law in action. First, the proliferation of tax stamp prosecutions since 2017 is an example of prosecutorial discretion. The lack of incarceration associated with tax stamp prosecutions indicates that the rationale for these charges is likely not public safety. Rather, the proliferation in tax stamp charges since 2017 is more plausibly a feature of the broader financial incentives of district attorneys to generate revenue from charging offenses. This incentive is specifically enabled for the charge of tax stamp, to which the Court of Criminal Appeals has been unwilling to apply Oklahoma’s statutory prohibition on charge stacking.16 Tax stamp cases therefore illustrate the pattern of “profit-driven prosecution”17 that is often critiqued but difficult to identify or dislodge. Second, the geographic concentration of tax stamp cases raises broader questions about prosecutorial accountability for charging decisions. Prosecutors are “the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system,”18 and prosecutorial charging decisions reflect the apotheosis of that power. Yet there are no uniform standards for how cases should be charged across (and often within) jurisdictions. It is difficult to imagine that county-level disparities like those evinced in tax stamp prosecutions would be tolerated for other kinds of discretionary decisions by public officials. Authors Note: The authors are grateful to Ryan Gentzler and the team at Open Justice Oklahoma for conducting the initial research on tax stamp charges in 2022. This research is an outgrowth of Samuel Galoob’s midyear project at Booker T. Washington High School. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Kat Albrecht is assistant professor of law at the TU College of Law, where she teaches and researches data law and technology, criminal law, and evidence. She is a graduate of the University of Minnesota, Northwestern University (where she received her J.D. and Ph.D.), and the University of Georgia (where she received an M.F.A. in screenwriting). Corey Boyd is a student at the TU College of Law, where he serves as a 10th Circuit Yearin-Review fellow. He is a graduate of Southwestern Oklahoma State University, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in finance. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Boyd served 11 years as a law enforcement officer, finishing his career at the rank of detective. He is interested in criminal law and civil rights litigation. Sam Galoob is an undergraduate student at TU. The research in this article is an outgrowth of his midyear project at Booker T. Washington High School, where he received the IB diploma. Stephen Galoob is professor of law at the TU College of Law, where he teaches criminal law and related topics. He is a graduate of OU, the University of Virginia School of Law, and the University of California-Berkeley (where he received his Ph.D. in jurisprudence and social policy). ENDNOTES 1. Shima Baradaran Baughman, Alan Cicotte, and Kristina Bishop, “The Police-Prosecutor Charging Decision,” Iowa Law Review (forthcoming 2026). 2. Stephen R. Galoob, Colleen McCarty & Ryan Gentzler, “Oklahoma’s State Question 780: Criminal Justice Reform and Resistance,” 31 Fed. Sent. Rptr. 182 (2019). 3. Id. at 183-4. 4. Id. at 184-5. 5. 68 Okla. Stat. §450.1(2). These minimum quantities are significantly lower than the quantities specified in Oklahoma’s Trafficking statute, 63 Okla. Stat. §2-415. 6. See, e.g., Brian Boeheim, David Dossman, and Stephen Galoob, Oklahoma Criminal Law and Procedure With Forms (2025 ed.), at §5.03 (citing White v. State, 1995 OK CR 15, 900 P.2d 982 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995)). The sole exception is that tax stamp charges cannot be charged alongside simple possession, since simple possession charges do not contain any elements that are not also elements of tax stamp charges. Id.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==