‘Don’t F– With Me in My Court:’ Texas Judge in Hot Water

A Fort Bend County criminal district court judge who acknowledged he only had two months of criminal law experience when he took the bench has been publicly admonished by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and ordered to take additional education.

The commission cited four violations of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and a violation of the state constitution in the order signed Dec. 18 against 268th District Court Judge Stephen “Steve” Rogers.

Rogers came under investigation regarding his treatment of two criminal defense attorneys who had a pending trial in his court in July 2023.

According to the commission’s report, Rogers scolded attorneys Annie Scott and Michael Elliott after they confirmed to him their intention of allowing their client to appear for trial in jail clothing.

Rogers said that would not happen in this court, and he ordered the attorneys to buy appropriate civilian clothing at Walmart. The defense attorneys asked that the defendant be brought in to confirm her desire to appear in jail clothes, but the request was denied.

He ended the hearing, which he did not instruct the court reporter to record, by slamming his hand on the bench and yelling, “Don’t fuck with me in my court,” the report states.

The commission report notes there was courtroom video evidence of the incident, an assistant district attorney John Brewer, who was present, corroborated the exchange.

In reaction to the judge’s actions, Scott filed a motion for recusal, but Rogers did not immediately refer it to the presiding judge. Instead, the judge denied the motion and assigned the case to a visiting jurist, James Showmake.

Because Rogers did not recuse, he remained the judge responsible for signing the defense attorneys’ pay vouchers, the report notes.

Three weeks after Rogers denied the motion, the presiding judge signed an order denying the motion to recuse as moot because of the assignment.

On Sept. 25, 2023, defense counsel Elliott appeared in Rogers’ court on an unrelated matter but was immediately approached by the bailiff and was escorted out into the hall where he was informed he was “banned” from the courtroom.

When Elliott raised concerns about his cases, the court coordinator told him one case would be reset, and he was being removed as counsel of record on another second case, according to court documents.

Rogers, either in writing or in his Dec. 3 testimony before the commission, said he believed Texas law allowed him discretion to protect defendant’s rights was wearing jail clothes during a jury trial could have been “an effort to cause error if there were not a knowing and intelligent waiver, or could be setting the stage for an ineffective assistant of counsel error argument if there was a conviction.”

Rogers blamed the defense for his ignorance of the law, the commission order states, and he denied speaking in an aggressive voice, blaming the high volume instead on amplification provided by the sound system.

Rogers denied demonstrating bias or prejudice toward Elliott, adding, “Elliott seemed to be of the opinion that he was smarter than just about everyone else … (and) … could do or get away with whatever he wanted.”

While also denying a bias or prejudice toward Scott, Rogers said some might question her credibility or practice skills given the extraordinary request to have the accused stand trial in jail clothes.

Asked if he had apologized to the attorneys, Rogers said he had not, adding, “I am uncertain precisely for what I would be apologizing.”

The commission inquired about Rogers’ research habits, to which he answered he did not conduct his own legal research, relying instead on the prosecutors or defense counsel to conduct the research.

Rogers then admitted he had about two months experience in criminal law before becoming a district judge, and since then did not recall participating in any Continuing Legal Education or judicial courses focusing on criminal law.

Rogers was not yet in the office one full year when he applied to run for a seat on Houston’s Fourteenth Court of Appeals. He was defeated in the May 2024 primary.

Rogers was found by the commission to have failed to comply with the law and maintain professional competence of it when he refused to allow the defendant to wear jail clothes; failed to sign and timely file an order referring the motion to recuse to the presiding judge; transferred the defense attorneys cases; failed to be courteous toward defense attorneys; failed to perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice; made negative statements about defense attorneys in his written responses to the commission; blamed defense attorneys for his ignorance of the law; and for punishing Elliott by removing him from the court without authority.

He was ordered to an additional four hours required annual judicial education for fiscal year 2025, specifically regarding demeanor, the legal rights of criminal defenants, and recusal motions.