The case against suspended Jefferson County Probate Judge Yashiba Blanchard includes hours of secretly recorded conversations between her and a senior court clerk, other non-disclosed recordings and about 56 potential witnesses, a recent court filing shows.
Because of the volume of that evidence, Blanchard’s lawyers in a filing Wednesday asked Judge William Cole, chief judge of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for a 90-day extension to her trial that is set Dec. 7 in Montgomery. The trial will determine the fate of her political future and legal career.
“Judge Blanchard cannot receive a fair trial under the current scheduling order,” lawyers Matt Hart and Jess R. Nix wrote. “Judge Blanchard appreciates the need to expedite this proceeding and welcomes the opportunity to clear her name at trial, but must be given adequate time to gather the facts and muster the evidence necessary to do so.”
Blanchard has been suspended with pay from the bench since May following a 120-page complaint from the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission that accuses her of multiple violations including bullying, intimidation and improper management of cases.
Judges are automatically suspended pending their trial before the Court of the Judiciary, the oversight panel.
The latest filing provides more details into the case against Blanchard, including hours from at least 31 recordings from a chief clerk in the probate office along with additional recordings that Blanchard has not accessed.
“One of these witnesses testified to the JIC that they began making recordings of Judge Blanchard just after she assumed the bench,” Blanchard’s lawyers wrote. “Presumably, the witness continued making recordings for many months thereafter, potentially up to the point at which Judge Blanchard was suspended from the bench with the filing of this action.”
The request for more time also cites her relatively new defense team. Former prosecutor Matt Hart and Jess Nix were hired in September.
Hart declined to comment when reached by AL.com.
Also, Blanchard argues that while the Judicial Inquiry Commission has been investigating her at least since March 2026 with the cooperation of Jefferson County, its employees and in-house lawyers, her time for a defense is severely limited.
While the time frame for Blanchard’s trial is similar to previous trials of judges, her lawyers note the enormity of the complaint against her and other factors have complicated her case.
“The complaint in this matter is longer, more detailed, and more complex than a typical complaint filed in this court,” lawyers wrote. “Specifically, the complaint here is 120 pages consisting of 307 numbered paragraphs followed by seven charges under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Conduct. Drawing on the materials supplied by the complainants, the complaint references dozens of underlying probate court matters, quotes liberally and frequently from emails and other documents, and references dozens of individuals who interacted with Judge Blanchard.”
Blanchard’s new attorneys had previously requested a trial date of March 1, 2027 but Judge Cole set the trial for December 7, 2026.
Cole’s tenure as presiding judge of the Court of the Judiciary expired at the end of 2026 and he has told lawyers that he wanted Blanchard’s case to be completed by the end of the year.
Further complicating matters, Blanchard’s lawyers note that they had to respond to an audit from state examiners in which Judge Blanchard has had to justify more than $500,000 in expenses.
To do so, they had to get court permission to access her office and files at the Jefferson County Courthouse, which they said was delayed.
“Judge Blanchard submits that each of these factors alone and certainly all of them in combination constitute “good cause” for the continuation of this case,” lawyers wrote. “Absent that continuance, Judge Blanchard’s right to defend with counsel is an empty formality.”
While the filing did not specifically mention the nature of the spending, Blachard as probate judge controls a discretionary fund that was created primarily to preserve and digitize old county records.
Blanchard in a little over a year approved more than $1 million in spending for two consultants, along with thousands more for radio commercials and promotional materials including T-shirts and photo shoots.
AL.com previously obtained detailed spending records from the probate court’s discretionary account.
Blanchard, who took office in early 2025, approved spending of at least $637,000 to CBG Strategies LLC, a Birmingham-based political and public relations firm led by Lindsey McAdory.
While most check entries are labeled as “professional services,” a few notes give some indication of what CBG provided. Those services include a note on a $31,301 check entry, dated May 2025, for “direct mail reimbursement” and a similar note for a $22,331 check in May 2026.
The probate court under Blanchard also paid $450,000 to Greene Consulting Group LLC. Most of those entries were labeled generally as professional services. The Huntsville-based government affairs and consulting company was founded by Samuel T. Greene II.
Additionally, Blanchard spent $142,000 for radio ads, some of which featured her giving guidance on how to prepare for upcoming elections. The probate judge is the county’s elections official.
Spending from the discretionary fund also included thousands more for office furnishings and donations to community health and neighborhood organizations.
Blanchard has defended her spending as valid and within the parameters of the fund’s use.
According to the latest court filing seeking an extension, Blanchard and her attorney traveled to Huntsville Oct. 9 to meet with a contractor and his lawyer to gather documents and information to answer questions raised by auditors.
Her lawyers argue that the time for the audit further complicated her defense by taking away needed time for the upcoming trial.
Blanchard’s lawyers further argue that giving the judge additional time presents a larger greater purpose by ensuring public confidence in the process, regardless of the outcome.
“It will also give the voters of Jefferson County and the citizens of this State greater confidence that this case was decided fairly and on the merits instead of being unnecessarily rushed to a truncated conclusion where a judge chosen by the voters of Jefferson County is replaced by an unelected political appointee,” the lawyers wrote.
