A state district judge in Comal County said God told him to intervene in jury deliberations to sway jurors to return a not guilty verdict in the trial of a Buda woman accused of trafficking a teen girl for sex.

Judge Jack Robison apologized to jurors for the interruption, but defended his actions by telling them “when God tells me I gotta do something, I gotta do it,” according to the Herald-Zeitung in New Braunfels.

The jury went against the judge’s wishes, finding Gloria Romero-Perez guilty of continuous trafficking of a person and later sentenced her to 25 years in prison. They found her not guilty of a separate charge of sale or purchase of a child.

Robison, who also presides in Hays and Caldwell counties, did not respond to a message left with his court coordinator, Steve Thomas, who said the case is still pending. Robison is scheduled to return to the bench in Comal County on Jan. 31.

The Herald-Zeitung reported that Robison recused himself before the trial’s sentencing phase and was replaced by Judge Gary Steele. The defendant’s attorney asked for a mistrial, but was denied.

Robison’s actions could trigger an investigation from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has disciplined Robison in the past.

In 2011, the commission slapped Robison with a private reprimand for improperly jailing a Caldwell County grandfather who had called him a fool for a ruling Robison made in a child custody case involving the man’s granddaughter.

The reprimand, the commission’s harshest form of rebuke, said Robison “exceeded the scope of his authority and failed to comply with the law” by jailing the man for contempt of court without a hearing or advance notice of the charge.

The act of intervening in a jury’s deliberations is not addressed in the state’s list of judicial canons, which serves as an ethical code for judges. However, it states judges shall “comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Eric Vinson, executive director for the commission, said he would not be able to confirm or deny if a complaint had been filed against Robison.

Link

Seems like a wonderful cause for appeal if the defendant is found guilty.

Nice going, judge.

Candidate for the 9th?

Judges were a mistake.

Wow. God doesn't know how the judicial proceeding works? God couldn't talk to the jurors Himself???

And of all things, someone accused of child trafficking???

quote:

Robison’s actions could trigger an investigation from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has disciplined Robison in the past.

Could trigger? If such actions don't trigger an investigation by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, I'm not sure what would.

He needs to be removed from the bench.

He's out of order.
You're out of order!
You're out of order!
The whole trial is out of order!
They're out of order!

So God talked to him? Hell, that'd make him a prophet. He should start his own religion.

Sounds to me like either the judge's cheese done slid off his cracker; or he had used the services of the accused, and they told him to find them not guilty or be outted.

Either way, I'll bet the investigation will find out soon enough.

Two questions:
1. Did God have to place his hand on the bible and be sworn in first, or was it just implied?
2. Is God open for cross examination?

quote:

Originally posted by mrbill345:
Candidate for the 9th?

Nope, no one on the 9th believes in God.

Does Texas not have a way for the judge to issue a directed verdict of acquittal (known as JNOV in some areas)? In Michigan if a judge really wanted to do that he could just wait until the jury rendered their verdict, and then find the defendant not guilty in spite of the jury's verdict.

This article makes it seem like there is not a way to do that in Texas. Which is good in this case.

If you say that you talk to G*d, it's called prayer.

If you say that G*d talks to you, it's called delusion.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Two questions:
1. Did God have to place his hand on the bible and be sworn in first, or was it just implied?
2. Is God open for cross examination?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

So help me me

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:
Does Texas not have a way for the judge to issue a directed verdict of acquittal (known as JNOV in some areas)? In Michigan if a judge really wanted to do that he could just wait until the jury rendered their verdict, and then find the defendant not guilty in spite of the jury's verdict.

This article makes it seem like there is not a way to do that in Texas. Which is good in this case.

Yes, JNOV would be possible. But I don't think our rules allow him to do it on his own, so the defense attorney would have had to make a motion for JNOV based on "God's will." It sounds like he did move for a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, which is probably what should have happened.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
If you say that you talk to G*d, it's called prayer.

If you say that G*d talks to you, it's called delusion.

tac

That’s because it is delusion

Doesn't matter if it's God, that's textbook hearsay.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
Doesn't matter if it's God, that's textbook hearsay.

I think the residual exception might apply.

quote:

Originally posted by Dallas239:

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
Doesn't matter if it's God, that's textbook hearsay.

I think the residual exception might apply.

I doubt the requirements were met:

(b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if, before the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement and its particulars, including the declarant’s name and address, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it.

quote:

Originally posted by Surefire:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
If you say that you talk to G*d, it's called prayer.

If you say that G*d talks to you, it's called delusion.

tac

That’s because it is delusion

This forum has many religious people in it, while this particular judge may not be the best example of stable conduct, I would hesitate to take a shot at everyone, everywhere who has theistic inclinations.