Judge Denied Acquittal in Oklahoma Price-Fixing Case
A federal judge ruled that the price-fixing antitrust trial against an Oklahoma construction employee will proceed.
Updated on Sept. 28, 2026 in Criminal Justice
District Judge Bernard M. Jones denied a motion for acquittal filed by Randall David Shelton, an employee of Sioux Erosion Control. The defendant faces charges from the Department of Justice for an alleged price-fixing conspiracy involving Oklahoma transportation construction contracts.
Why it matters
The ruling ensures that the antitrust case against the defendant will continue to trial. The judge determined that a jury could reasonably find that Shelton knowingly participated in the conspiracy to fix prices on public construction projects.
A US federal judge officially denied the motion for acquittal, allowing the case to move forward to the next phase. The court concluded that sufficient evidence exists for a jury to determine if the defendant knowingly joined the conspiracy.
The players
Bernard M. Jones
He is a District Judge who presided over the antitrust motion in federal court.
Randall David Shelton
He is an employee of Sioux Erosion Control who is facing federal price-fixing conspiracy charges.
Department of Justice
This federal executive department is responsible for enforcing laws and administering justice in the United States.
Sioux Erosion Control
This is a private company that provides construction and environmental control services.
The details
The Department of Justice brought the case against Shelton, alleging he participated in a conspiracy to fix prices for transportation construction contracts funded by the public. Following a jury's finding of his involvement, the defendant requested an acquittal, but the court ruled that the trial must move toward a conclusion.
Timeline
September 28, 2026: District Judge Bernard M. Jones issued the ruling denying the acquittal motion.
Legal Context
This criminal case fits into broader enforcement patterns surrounding the Sherman Antitrust Act, which criminalizes conspiracies that restrict competition in public bidding. Such cases are frequently prosecuted to maintain the integrity of transportation infrastructure contracts.
This case directly impacts the local community by examining the misuse of public funds intended for transportation infrastructure. Residents and local businesses are affected by the outcome, as price-fixing conspiracies historically inflate the costs of taxpayer-funded road projects.
The takeaway
Antitrust litigation is a critical tool for protecting public sector funds from private manipulation. Taxpayers should note that courts maintain a strict standard for conspiracy evidence when evaluating whether to halt a prosecution.
Further reading
Learn more about the legal proceedings in this region by visiting Criminal Justice.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Mlex.
