Judge who invoked God at woman’s trial had a bout of ‘delirium’

Judge who invoked God at woman’s trial had a bout of ‘delirium’ March 7, 2019
Image via YouTube

TEXAS Judge Jack Robison, above, was portrayed in the media last year as stark raving bonkers after he informed a jury that God had told him that a defendant was innocent.

But it’s just been revealed that the Comal County district court judge’s outburst at the trial of Gloria Romero Perez was:

A temporary, episodic medical condition referred to as a delirium.

Despite Robison providing letters from two medical professionals which indicated that he’s of perfectly sound mind now, the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct this week chose to issue him with a public warning.

After Perez was  found guilty of continuous sex trafficking and the sale or purchase of a child, Robison told the jury to keep on deliberating because God told him she was innocent. He reportedly said:

When God tells me I gotta do something, I gotta do it.

The Republican judge reported himself to the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct after his intervention at Perez’s trial on January 12, 2018, which unleashed almost 20 complaints against him.

Turned out that the jury was not swayed by the judge’s intervention and found Romero Perez guilty. She was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

The conviction, however, was declared a mistrial last October after a judge found that Robison’s rulings were not in accordance with the law and that he made partial comments throughout the trial. Perez is still awaiting a retrial, court records show.

In his self-report, Robison told the committee he was experiencing memory lapses at the time and was under extreme stress due to treatment for a medical condition and the death of a close friend.

In their letters, the medical professionals said that the issue appears to be resolved and that Robison is not currently experiencing the same impairment.

The public warning is a more severe form of punishment than being privately warned, according to the commission’s website, but the action falls short of suspension, which is the most serious disciplinary action the committee can vote on.

Robison denied he ever exhibited prejudice, but did recognise that his involvement with the jury was grounds for misconduct.

Robison was privately reprimanded in 2011 for “improperly jailing” a 69-year-old grandfather, Don Bandelman, for contempt of court.

The confrontation occurred when Bandelman, angered by Robison’s ruling in a child custody case involving his granddaughter, rushed into a public restroom in the Lockhart courthouse and called Robison “a fool”.

The judge ordered bailiffs to arrest the grandfather and jail him for 30 days. Bandelman was released two days later.

In its reprimand, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct found that when he jailed the older man:

Robison exceeded the scope of his authority and failed to comply with the law.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • JamieHaman

    Judges with delirium don’t belong in office. Judges who say crap like this, no matter the reason, don’t belong in office. Judges who experience “memory loss” don’t belong in office.

  • Broga

    He should be sentenced to read “The God Delusion”; “The End of Faith”; “Breaking the Spell” and “God is not Great.” Until he can pass a test to indicate he has read them he should not be a judge.

    Barry Duke should be sent to the USA, all expenses paid, Business Class Flight, high class hotel to arrange all this and set the questions.

  • Raging Bee

    Hey, at least one Christian has admitted his beliefs are delusions. That’s progress!

  • Barry Duke

    I like that idea, Broga, but I doubt I’d be allowed a visa to enter the US. I am sure my antipathy towards Trump. and the the comments I’ve made about him and his administration have not gone unnoticed by the authorities.

  • The Bofa on the Sofa

    Just like the juror who was biased against the Hindi defendant because he wouldn’t swear an oath on the bible, the moron has just wasted a bunch of time and money.

    In the end, they could do it again and the verdict is likely to come out the same, but it doesn’t matter – the defendants deserve the right to a fair trial, and these actions call that into question. Absolutely the original trial must be thrown out, and it needs to be done right. No moronic religiousness involved.

  • Jim Jones

    Never use your real name on the internet.

  • Broga

    Barry. I will comfort myself with the fantasy.