The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News | A Texas News Source

“Don’t F* With Me”: Texas Judge Faces Backlash for Courtroom Behavior

“Don’t F* With Me”: Texas Judge Faces Backlash for Courtroom Behavior

By

In a striking case of judicial overreach and misconduct, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued a public admonition and mandated additional education for Judge Stephen Rogers of the 268th District Court in Richmond, Fort Bend County. The disciplinary action comes after a series of contentious incidents in the courtroom, culminating in findings that Judge Rogers failed to uphold legal standards, acted unprofessionally toward attorneys, and displayed bias in handling cases.

The Incidents Behind the Admonition

The Commission’s investigation focused on multiple incidents tied to State of Texas v. Amanda Lynn Vasquez, a series of criminal cases presided over by Judge Rogers. Defense attorneys Annie Scott and Michael Elliott were representing Vasquez when tensions flared during a pre-trial hearing on July 25, 2023. According to findings, Judge Rogers aggressively confronted the attorneys over their intention to allow Vasquez to appear in court in jail clothing, which is legally permissible if the defendant consents.

Rather than address the issue calmly, Judge Rogers refused to allow Vasquez to appear in jail attire, dismissing the attorneys’ confirmation of her preference by stating that such a move “was not going to happen in [his] courtroom.” He then went a step further by ordering the attorneys to go to Walmart and purchase alternative clothing for Vasquez. When Scott and Elliott requested that Vasquez be brought into the courtroom to personally confirm her choice to wear jail clothing, Judge Rogers denied their request.

The situation escalated when Judge Rogers ended the hearing with a loud outburst, slamming his hand on the bench and shouting, “Don’t f— with me in my court.” Witnesses and court video confirmed the incident, which the Commission characterized as unprofessional and inappropriate.

The fallout continued when Scott filed a motion to recuse Judge Rogers, citing bias and inappropriate conduct. However, instead of following legal procedure by referring the motion to a presiding judge within three business days, as mandated by Texas law, Judge Rogers initially denied the motion himself and later transferred the case without proper authority. This procedural misstep became another focal point of the Commission’s investigation.

Retaliation Against Attorney Michael Elliott

Judge Rogers’ conduct raised further concerns on September 25, 2023, when attorney Michael Elliott, appearing in court for unrelated matters, was escorted out of the courtroom by the judge’s bailiff and informed he was “banned” from returning. Elliott’s cases were transferred out of Judge Rogers’ courtroom without explanation. Judge Rogers later admitted he had instructed the bailiff to bar Elliott from the courtroom, citing prior interactions, but the Commission found this action to be unwarranted and prejudicial.

In addition to findings of unprofessional conduct and bias, the Commission’s investigation highlighted troubling deficiencies in Judge Rogers’ legal competence, particularly regarding his approach to legal research. Judge Rogers testified that he does not perform his own legal research and does not have access to tools such as LexisNexis or Westlaw. Instead, he relies on the attorneys before him—either defense counsel or the prosecution—to conduct legal research when necessary.

While Judge Rogers acknowledged having access to basic resources such as Google and legal books, he admitted that he does not use them to familiarize himself with relevant legal principles or precedents. This lack of initiative was underscored by his admission that he had only two months of experience in criminal law before assuming the bench and had not participated in any continuing legal education courses focused on criminal law since becoming a judge.

The consequences of this approach were evident during the Vasquez case. Judge Rogers initially refused to allow Vasquez to wear jail clothing at trial, citing concerns over potential appeals based on ineffective counsel. However, his decision reflected a misunderstanding of legal precedent established in Estelle v. Williams (1976), which affirms that defendants can waive their right to appear in civilian clothing. Instead of addressing this matter within the boundaries of established law, Judge Rogers attempted to shift responsibility to the defense attorneys, blaming them for not presenting case law or filing a formal motion to support their position.

These admissions contributed to the Commission’s conclusion that Judge Rogers failed to maintain professional competence in the law, a fundamental requirement of his judicial role.

Findings of Judicial Misconduct

The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that Judge Stephen Rogers’ actions violated key principles of judicial conduct and undermined the integrity of the court. His failure to uphold defendants’ legal rights and proper judicial procedures reflected a troubling lack of competence. The Commission specifically noted that Judge Rogers’ refusal to allow Amanda Lynn Vasquez to appear in her preferred attire for trial disregarded established legal precedent. The judge’s behavior during this hearing, including his angry outburst and use of profanity, was described as unprofessional and unbecoming of his office.

Judge Rogers’ handling of the recusal motion in the Vasquez case was another significant point of contention. Instead of referring the motion to the presiding judge within the required three-day period, Judge Rogers attempted to deny it outright. This procedural failure not only violated Texas law but also suggested a lack of understanding of judicial responsibilities in such situations. His subsequent decision to transfer the case without proper authority further complicated matters and drew criticism from the Commission.

The retaliatory removal of attorney Michael Elliott from the courtroom added another layer to the findings of misconduct. While Judge Rogers initially claimed that his bailiff had acted independently in barring Elliott, he later admitted to directing the removal himself. This action, coupled with Judge Rogers’ continued negative remarks about Elliott’s conduct, reinforced concerns about bias and improper use of judicial power.

Mandated Education and Repercussions

As part of its disciplinary measures, the Commission has ordered Judge Rogers to undergo four hours of additional judicial education. This training will focus on courtroom demeanor, as well as the legal rights of criminal defendants and the proper handling of recusal motions. Judge Rogers must complete this education under the supervision of an assigned mentor within 60 days. The additional training reflects an effort to address the judge’s shortcomings and restore professional standards in his courtroom.



Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on a Galveston County lawsuit alleging excessive force.

Or you may find our publishing on a Montgomery County lawsuit filed by a prior federal agent of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *