Richmond, Texas — A Fort Bend County judge faced formal reprimand last month when the State Commission on Judicial Conduct chastised him for improper courtroom behavior during a 2003 case. The commission mandated that Judge Steve Rogers of the 268th District Court undertake additional legal training following his actions, which included the use of profanity in exchanges with attorneys during a trial.
The sanctions stem from an incident in July 2003, during the jury trial of a woman accused of methamphetamine possession. Records reveal that attorneys Annie Scott and Michael Elliot, representing the defendant, had an unusual request for their client to wear her jail uniform during the trial. Typically, defendants in Texas criminal trials are dressed in civilian attire, irrespective of their custody status.
During a conference at the bench, which was out of the jury’s hearing range, Rogers confronted the attorneys about their request. The judge forcefully rejected the idea, asserting control over the proceedings and making it clear that such actions would not be permitted in his courtroom.
The situation escalated when the defendant was brought before Rogers and expressed her wish to appear in jail clothes. Rogers ordered Scott and Elliot to purchase civilian clothes for their client from a nearby Walmart, concluding the hearing with a dramatic outburst and slamming his hand on the bench.
In the aftermath, attorney Scott requested Rogers’ recusal from the case, claiming bias. Although Rogers denied this motion, he delegated the subsequent proceedings to a visiting judge, maintaining responsibility for the administrative aspects like signing the defense attorneys’ pay vouchers.
Months later, Elliot encountered an issue when he was barred from entering Rogers’ courtroom by a bailiff who informed him he was banned and could not represent any cases there, leading to the transfer of his ongoing cases to other judges.
In his defense, Rogers articulated that his decisions were meant to safeguard the defendant’s rights, suggesting that appearing in jail attire could prejudice the jury or pave the way for potential appeals on the grounds of counsel inefficacy or procedural errors. He blamed the attorneys for not informing him properly about the legal precedent for such attire in court.
The commission concluded that Rogers failed to adhere to legal standards and maintain judicial competence, sentencing him to six additional hours of legal education. The judge, elected in 2022 by a narrow margin, holds a law degree from Regent University and had practiced civil law for about 20 years prior to his judgeship. His response to the commission’s findings was distributed through a political consultant and social media, in which he apologized for his language, assured his commitment to judicial duties, and criticized inaccuracies in the commission’s report.
Rogers emphasized his adherence to constitutional rights and his judiciary role in processing significant cases including sexual assault and murder trials, pledging continued dedication to upholding the law and constitutional rights.
This article is automatically generated by Open AI. Information including people, facts, circumstances, and narrative details may be inaccurate. Contact [email protected] for corrections, retractions, or removal requests.