.png)
In a surprising turn of events, Judge Danielle Gaughan of the Marion Superior Court has recused herself from presiding over the felony intimidation case against Gabriel “Gabe” Whitley, a former Indiana congressional candidate. The recusal comes after months of tension between Whitley and the judge, culminating in a formal complaint filed this week with the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, where Whitley accused Gaughan of bias and misconduct.
Whitley’s legal troubles began in August 2024 when he was arrested and charged with felony intimidation following a series of inflammatory posts on X. One post in particular drew significant attention: Whitley called for “national law enforcement” to raid the home of Indianapolis-based political commentator Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, accusing him of stealing money from the Marion County Fairgrounds. The post was part of a broader pattern of online behavior that led Shabazz to report Whitley to the Indianapolis police for stalking and threats, citing fears for his safety and that of his family. Whitley’s subsequent arrest marked a dramatic escalation in a feud that had already seen civil litigation between the two.
Since his arrest, Whitley has been subject to GPS monitoring as a condition of his release on bail, a measure that has become a focal point of contention in the case. Court records indicate that Whitley has repeatedly sought to have the GPS tracker removed, filing motions in December 2024 and again as recently as Tuesday, February 25, 2025. Both requests were denied by Judge Gaughan, who has overseen the case from its outset in Marion Superior Court.
Whitley’s frustration with Gaughan’s rulings boiled over into public protests, including a demonstration near the judge’s neighborhood earlier this week. He has accused Gaughan of harboring bias against him, a claim he formalized in his complaint to the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications. In the filing, Whitley alleges that Gaughan “lied on the record” by claiming she had addressed his request to remove the GPS monitor, when in fact, she had consistently denied it. Whitley asserts that this discrepancy, combined with what he describes as a pattern of unfavorable rulings since December, demonstrates prejudice that undermines his right to a fair trial.
The specifics of Gaughan’s recusal remain unclear, as judicial recusals are often announced without detailed public explanation to maintain courtroom impartiality. However, the timing—coming just days after Whitley’s protest and his complaint to the judicial commission—suggests that the mounting pressure and accusations may have influenced her decision to step aside. Gaughan, who was appointed to the Marion Superior Court in 2022 by Governor Eric Holcomb after a long tenure as a magistrate judge, has faced scrutiny before but has generally maintained a reputation for diligent case management.
Whitley’s case, already high-profile due to his political background and the nature of the charges, now takes on an additional layer of complexity with Gaughan’s exit. Whitley, who ran unsuccessfully in the Republican primary for Indiana’s 7th Congressional District in 2024, has also recently agreed to plead guilty in a separate federal case involving campaign finance fraud—an admission that may further complicate his legal strategy in the intimidation matter.
For now, the case will be reassigned to another Marion Superior Court judge, with no official timeline announced for the transition. Whitley’s complaint against Gaughan will proceed through the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, an independent body tasked with investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. The commission’s findings could have broader implications for Gaughan’s tenure, though such investigations often take months to resolve.
As the situation unfolds, Whitley remains a polarizing figure, with his actions—both online and in protest—continuing to fuel debate about the intersection of free speech, legal accountability, and judicial fairness. Whether his claims of bias hold weight or are merely a tactic to shift the narrative, the recusal marks a significant chapter in an already contentious saga.