“God Tells Me I Gotta”: Texas Judge Tells A Jury To Acquit Defendant After A Communication From God

300px-god2-sistine_chapelJudge Jack Robison appears to be channeling a higher authority recently in Comal County, Texas.   Robison interrupted jurors during deliberations to inform the panel that God told him to acquit Gloria Romero-Perez of trafficking a teenage girl for sex.  It appears that divine judgment did not track well with the jury, which proceeded to find Perez guilty as charged.

Perez was accused of paying $6,000 (£4,300) to smuggle ta 15-year-old girl to the US from Honduras.  She then received money from an older man who had sex with the girl and had a child by her.

Obviously, if this account is true, Robison needs to be stripped from the bench.  He was reelected as a Republican to the 207th District Court without opposition.  His current term expires on December 31, 2018.
He received is B.A. from Missouri State University and his J.D. from St. Mary’s University of San Antonio.  He was reprimanded in 2011 for jailing a grandfather who called him a fool for his ruling on the custody of the man’s granddaughter.

68 thoughts on ““God Tells Me I Gotta”: Texas Judge Tells A Jury To Acquit Defendant After A Communication From God”

  1. He’s a republican, god told him. What more information do you need? Obey.

    Now while this may sound tongue and cheek, Unfortunately it is all too real of an argument. Believe me. I have ex in-law relatives via my daughter that think this exact way. Here is how I describe this ex family in law of ours. First authority is god, then man, then the male children of said man, then the dogs, cats, horses, sheep, or other animals the man might own. Then the wild animals that might frequent his castle. Then dirt that lets him grow food for his wonderful family. Then women.

    I have no doubt this so called judge is just such a man, er A hole.

  2. This could have been a gross miscarriage of justice. Thank God the jury preceded with the case and did not let the judge influence them.

    Aren’t rogue judges another example of the system policing its own, mentioned in the Clapper article? How often are abusive judges actually removed? How could an attorney file a complaint when he would very likely end up trying another case in front of that judge in the future?

    Such interference is egregious. If the judge is not removed, or suffer some serious consequence, then the judicial system has a problem.

    1. Also, this kind of sex trafficking is exactly why we need to seal off our borders. The most infamous human misery trail of tears leads from Tenencingo, the trafficking capital of the world.

      As a victim of a terrible crime, including sexual slavery, the girl should be protected. She is also one of those cases were humanitarian exceptions should be made, and she should be offered a place here if she wants it. We are partly to blame for having a porous border and other enticements to open, illegal immigration that created the infrastructure for this crime to occur.

  3. I guess we now know Trump’s pick for the next SC vacancy.

    God? Texas? Voices in the head? The judge is certainly Pence-approved.

    1. Comparing Gorsuch to the turd of a judge/subject of this story?

      Nobody would ever accuse someone like Dave suffering from TDS of “over reach.”

      /sarc off

      Persons suffering from TDS view Trump as the Grinch Who Stole Christmas.

  4. They say that The Supreme Being is practically perfect in every possible way. From whence it supposedly follows that God cannot tell a lie; and that God cannot be compelled to swear an oath or affirmation without the bench committing black-letter blasphemy in the bargain. [See: Book of Job in re “Who art thou to question The Lord thy God”] IOW, God’s testimony is always “unsworn testimony,” by definition. From which it most definitely follows that the good, God-fearing jurors in this most unholy case were absolutely correct on both the mundane laws and The Divine Writ totally to disregard the Judge’s instructions to them.

    BTW, Don’t the jurors swear an oath as well?

  5. God spulled backwards is Dog.
    His dog told him to acquit. If he don’t admit, then you must acquit. So sayeth The DOG!

  6. Being directed by God has a long history in the judiciary of the Americas. It would have been better if he had just called the trial, rather than state his reason.

          1. WWAS – Gentlemen pay their debts and I don’t deal in bitcoins. So, if I lose I will make arrangements to get $10 to you. If you lose, you will make arrangements to get $100 to me.


            1. The terms are set, PCS. Post your hash or forget it!

              BTW, who will monitor this lurid tangent of humanity so as to declare a winner?

              I propose someone unrelated to you, please don’t be offended.

              1. WWAS – Bitcoin was not part of the bet. The original bet was open-ended and I took it. You can be a gentleman and deal with gambling as a gentleman or you can welsh on your bet. Your choice.

                1. Maybe you shouldn’t take open ended bets.

                  Post your mailing address in the case that I lose, and a phone number for tracking purposes, and if I win your money is no good to me, send it to Nick.

                  Who will mediate?

                    1. Will you buy a sense of humor if you win?

                      Again, for the third time, who will follow this turgid tale so as to declare a winner?

                      Email Nick, let him know he’ll get a cut.

                      Lighten up, PCS

                    2. WWAS – I am well known for my sense of humor, although it is very dry. However, since I have been sick my sense of humor is the last to recover.

                    3. anonymous is the best at tracking down hard-to-find information–assuming that it would ever be a matter of public record. Mind you, I’m not authorized to nominate anyone. I’m only authorized to the shirk the duty on my own account. Besides, I’m opposed to gambling with anything other than pennies and other people’s patience.

  7. Interesting how everybody jumps to a conclusion and thinks their conclusion must be correct with no factual basis whatsoever. Turley and many others, for example, conclude that Judge Jack Robison “must” be stripped “from the bench” merely because he believes that he has received divine guidance on the actions that he believes that the jury should take.

    How do any of us know that Robison didn’t receive divine guidance?

    When a witness is sworn in, does not the witness answer “yes” to a question along the lines of “Do you swear by Almighty God that the evidence you shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” When the witness swears in, the witness is effectively stating affirmatively that he or she is in direct communication with the divine and is receiving guidance on what actually happened in the particular case. So that’s “normal,” but this judge is “crazy?”

    Although I would personally prefer that judges not insert their factual conclusions into a case where a jury is the trier of fact, the law, unfortunately, does allow judges to attempt to usurp the role of the trier of fact in cases. The fact that this judge did attempt to usurp the role and to claim a “higher authority” is perfectly consistent with existing law.

    So don’t blame the judge. Blame the law that allows judges to tell the jury such things as “the facts of this case lead me to conclude that the defendant is (guilty/innocent) and that is the correct decision you should reach in my opinion, but you are free to disagree with me.” That law is the problem, not what this judge did.

    1. “Turley and many others, for example, conclude that Judge Jack Robison “must” be stripped “from the bench” merely because he believes that he has received divine guidance on the actions that he believes that the jury should take.”

      Umm, yes that’s correct; though, I do note your qualifier of ‘merely’.

      “How do any of us know that Robison didn’t receive divine guidance?”

      Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?

    2. “When the witness swears in, the witness is effectively stating affirmatively that he or she is in direct communication with the divine and is receiving guidance on what actually happened in the particular case.”

      Not at all; it’s more of an Old Testament smite threat; along the lines of ‘tell the truth or god will smite you.’ The witness isn’t affirming communication or guidance with the divine.

      1. WWAS, your interpretation is based on your own beliefs, not what the words mean. According to one text, to swear under oath is “a solemn appeal to a deity, or to some revered person or thing, to witness one’s determination to speak the truth, to keep a promise, etc.” This description is far more consistent with my explication than your own view pulled out of thin air.

        1. Your new definition, “a solemn appeal to a deity, or to some revered person or thing, to witness one’s determination to speak the truth, to keep a promise, etc.” is more in line with normal expectations.

          Your original definition, however, was, “…the witness is effectively stating affirmatively that he or she is in direct communication with the divine and is receiving guidance…”

          Do you see the difference between the two? Have you figured out which one you ‘merely’ mean yet?

    3. Blame the law that allows judges to tell the jury such things as “the facts of this case lead me to conclude that the defendant is (guilty/innocent) and that is the correct decision you should reach in my opinion, but you are free to disagree with me.”

      Isn’t the judge’s duty to instruct based on the points of law and the jury decides based on the facts relevant to the law? Applicable law does not include the Bible, correct? It might be consistent with what is written in the Bible but where it is inconsistent, the Bible or instructions from God are not relevant…correct?

      1. Yes, Olly, the reasons why a judge may tell a jury something like what I’ve said above are not relevant or required, but the law doesn’t prevent the judge from voicing his conclusion of guilt or innocence based on the judge’s own personal assessment of the facts of the case, as long as the judge also instructs the jurors that they are the trier of fact and that they don’t have to agree with his conclusion–something I assume this judge properly did, since they decided to go against the judge’s personal conclusion.

        (That last part is important because if the judge had told the jury that God told him that the defendant was guilty, rather than innocent, but failed to mention that the jury doesn’t have to agree with him, and the jury found the defendant guilty, the defense would have sound grounds for appealing that verdict because, inter alia, the judge’s insertion of his opinion in this circumstance could be considered misleading regarding who is the trier of fact in this case.)

        Fortunately, most judges do not insert their opinion of guilt or innocence into a case, and better judges even tell the jury that their opinions don’t matter even if they had opinions because the jury is the sole trier of fact. A good judge reminds the jury that they decide the outcome of the case, not the judge.

        But there are some judges that still insert their opinions, like this judge did, because the law permits them to do so. I see no valid reason for permitting judges to attempt to usurp the role of the jury as the trier of fact, even in cases where a jury is having difficulty reaching a decision. I think it’s wrong because I consider it an improper use of the judge’s authority and it’s prejudicial. But the law does let judges do this. And as a consequence, some judges are going to give irrelevant reasons as well like this judge did.

  8. Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
    In what parallel universe does this judge exist. Surely the local chief judge could stand the man down pending a sanity hearing.

  9. The burgeoning crimes of high office demand a strengthened and accelerated impeachment process to accommodate those of the judicial branch alone.

    “…courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    Alexander Hamilton –

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    The legislative and executive branches are controlled by the vote. The judicial is controlled by impeachment. It’s failure to “…declare all acts contrary to the MANIFEST TENOR of the Constitution void” requires the vigorous imposition of the control of impeachment.

    Article 2, Section 4

    “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    The French rolled out the guillotines.

    Let’s get this party started.

    1. “The French rolled out the guillotines. Let’s get this party started.”

      And they ended up with Napoleon, didn’t they?

      1. Damn, those Swedes rock, don’t they.

        It’s too bad they turned the lyrics into such a personal catharsis.

      2. I just saw something in the video above that troubles me, and I’m hoping that maybe Ralph or George can investigate and then offer their opinion.

        The blonde female singer gives two Trump ‘thumbs up’ at 1:52; and at 2:18 she give a single Trump ‘thumbs up.’

        What does this mean — after all the video is called Waterloo, and George seems to know a lot about this as he likes the idea of a guillotine and parties. But, maybe Ralph can provide a more balanced perspective, assuaging my fears with ‘merely’ a word.

        Is there meaning in that the ‘thumbs up’ went from two to one in a song called ‘Waterloo’, and, if so, how did this band know this in 1974?

        1. I have no idea what it means–except that, according to the movie, “A Shot in the Dark,” guillotines work just as well on thumbs as on cigars. Meanwhile, if Lord Wellington was anything like Don Juan di Mar-a-Lago, and if only one were willing to lend more credence to Erich Fromm’s theory of genetic memory than that with its Author could ever endow it, then the blonde ABBA singer (let’s call her Elba) could be a descendant of Lord Wellington (notice the boots) fully possessed of the genetic foreknowledge (located in the pineal gland)of Trump’s inability to be reelected to a second term of office due to his impending sexual reassignment surgery for the sake of beating Crooked H twice with just one election.

          P. S. Historians will e’er add an asterisk to the moniker “First Woman* POTUS.”

        2. WWAS – some of these 70s pop bands were prescient. ELO predicted the coming of of a sinister female candidate in 1975!

  10. What an amazing story, one that I would have readily believed for it to have taken place in Islamist dominant Cairo, Karachi, or Islamabad but here in Texas is most disheartening and that the Judge it’s remarkably to have passed through the University system completely and utterly unscathed, how can it be? Mr. Turley, you are absolutely right the Judge must be stripped from the bench, for it would go toward restoring the publi8c confidence in our Judicial system.

    1. Really? Can you post a link where Pence told a deliberating jury to acquit someone of a felony such as selling a child into prostitution/rape and forced pregnancy?

      I suspect you like Flake’s comparing Trump to Stalin, who committed genocide of about 30 million innocents. (BTW, Flake lied last week-no surprise. He said Trump condemned the news industry when he actually condemned “fake news.” Flake’s sum total purpose till he leaves office is insuring his future job and salary at FNN/fake news network.)

      Thanks for gross and ridiculous over reach only insuring Trump’s winning in 2020, if he runs.

        1. EIBC, merely invoking The New York Slimes and its Leftist obsessions does not support any comparison of Trump to Stalin in any shape, way, or form, and is ludicrous on its face. The Slimes may claim that the phrase “enemy of the People” is a Stalinesque one, but to literate people, a far more meaningful “historical resonance” to the phrase would be Henrik Ibsen’s classic 1882 play, “An Enemy of the People,” written when Stalin was about 4 years old.

          In the play “An Enemy of the People,” the protagonist has an important truth that he wants to reveal to the public. The press at first claims that it wants to champion the truth, but then later reverses itself and attacks the protagonist truth teller as “an enemy of the people.” Get it? The press wants to silence the truth teller. This is, of course, a vast simplification of the themes of the play, but the idea I expressed here effectively summarizes the political dimension of the play.

          The conflict I’ve described in the play bears far more resemblance to Trump’s statement about the press being the enemy of the people than The New York Slimes’ exercise in Leftist red herrings. Trump, like the protagonist in “An Enemy of the People” wants to tell the truth. He wants to do the right thing. The press knows that he’s telling the truth and that he wants to do the right thing. But instead of supporting Trump and in aiding in his quest to tell the truth and do the right thing, they attack him as an enemy of the people. The press calls Trump a racist and a vile and despicable person.

          Trump is fighting back and telling the truth again by asserting that it is the PRESS that is actually the real enemy of the people, just like the press turned out to be in Ibsen’s play. The press in “An Enemy of the People” didn’t want the truth to be revealed and it attacked the truth teller. The same thing is happening today. The press doesn’t want the truth to be told and it attacks the truth teller. The press is effectively calling Trump an enemy of the people, but Trump is calling them out and revealing the truth, that the press are liars and fakes. And the truth is that the press today is the enemy of the people. You would do well to read Henrik Ibsen. There is far more truth in his profound fiction than can ever be found in The New York Slimes.

          1. Trump the “truth teller?” Have you ever listened to him? On any day of the week? Mexico paying for that wall yet? Oh, he was “uninformed.” All Flake said was that Trump used the same words as Stalin, which he did. I have to go laugh at, “truth teller” some more. Coal miner jobs coming back? Hows that big Infrastructure bill coming? The only thing he has accomplished is to make the rich richer and to tear things down. “Truth teller!” What world do you live in Ralph?

            1. EIBC, you like to jump around and deflect from addressing the specific issue I’ve described. You do this, of course, because you know that my analysis is correct and you have no rational argument against it, so you throw some other Leftist crap into the mix in the hope that other Leftists reading your response will focus on your off-point regurgitation of the Leftist talking-points and, thus, will be favorably disposed to your non-response “response.”

              So, to return to the real point at hand, RINO Flake did not simply say that President Trump used the same words as Stalin. He used language to suggest that Trump was behaving like Stalin. RINO Flake said, “We are in an era in which the AUTHORITARIAN IMPULSE is reasserting itself, to challenge free people and free societies, everywhere. . . [2018] must be the year in which the truth takes a stand against power.” The Left has consistently attempt to falsely paint President Trump as a Hitler, a Stalin, or some other dictator. RINO Flake was simply doing the same thing, though he later tried to walk back his statements, disingenuously claiming that he wasn’t comparing President Trump to Stalin when that was exactly what he was doing.

              My point is that the phrase “an enemy of the people” was not hijacked by Stalin or other Leftists. It existed long before Stalin used it. Leftists always like to twist words, abuse words and phrases, and reverse their meanings to suit their Orwellian purposes, like when they falsely call President Trump a “racist.”

              The great writer Henrik Ibsen’s use of the phrase in his enduring classic play, “An Enemy of the People,” best captures the President’s intent, where the press falsely pointed to the truth teller as the enemy of the people, thereby making the press the true enemy of the people.

              As for your attempt to deflect the issue by focusing on who the truth teller is, you immediately jump to attacking President Trump because you know that the press has lied repeatedly about the President. The press in no way, shape, or form can be called a truth teller. The very opposite is true. The members of the press have proven themselves to be presstitutes for the Left.

              On the other hand, President Trump has been telling the truth, sometimes to his detriment. The “some African nations and Haiti are sh!tholes” story by the press is a good example. First, there is no evidence that the President even made the statement that was attributed to him. We only have Dick Durban’s word for that, and Durban has already proven himself a liar when President Obama himself had to correct one of his falsehoods. If the press were not an enemy of the people, they would be including the phrase “alleged by Durban” whenever they bring it up. Second, even assuming, arguendo, that President Trump did make that statement, it was a true statement because those places were not places that President Trump or anyone else would want to live in. Those nations are run by vile, corrupt Leftist governments and they are, consequently, terrible places in which to live. Has Cory Booker, Anderson Cooper, or Don Lemon vacationed there? No, they have not. Have they done anything to help the people of those nations? No, they have not. Third, President Trump has personally done more to help the people of Haiti through his generous donations than the Clintons ever did. The Clintons have done the opposite. The Clintons stole money from the Haitians, a fact which the press does not want to point out.

              So, who is the truth teller and who is the real enemy of the people?

              Is the truth teller the President who has promised to make America great again, and who has already done much to move America in that direction by improving the American economy, reducing unemployment, including bringing the black unemployment rate to the lowest it’s ever been during the last 50 years, and by not giving in to America’s enemies, as previous presidents have done to America’s detriment?

              Or is the truth teller the mainstream media, which has lied repeatedly about Donald Trump before he was elected president and which has continued to lied about him at every opportunity:


              President Trump is correct: the press is, indeed, an enemy of the people. Like I said, if you want truth, you’d be far better off reading Henrik Ibsen’s fiction than following the mainstream media’s fictions.

                1. EIBC, thanks for at least essentially admitting that most of your best thoughts come after you’re spent a lot of time in the same place that Leston Lawrence stores his gold.

            2. Enigma, lovin’ her DNC klan for killing about 47% of black children, male and female, before they are born, and sellin’ body parts for good profits too!

              Hey enigma, tell the audience exactly what differentiates you as a human being from a zygote, which comprises all 46 chromosomes specific only to members of the human species?

            3. Geezis Soetoro bin Bama:
              “I’ll end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”
              “No boots on the ground in Syria” followed later, after Geezis ordered boots to the ground, by “those are not boots”
              “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance”

              Oh, and one of Enigma’s favorites, Geezis Soetoro’s extra-judicial “Secret Presidential Kill List,” from which Geezis selected to drone assassinate 2 lucky American citizen Muslims, Anwar Al-Awlaki and his age 16 son by the same name. (Later, that humble and adorable nicotine addict Geezis apologized for the error of junior’s assassination, which overwhelmed the local Arab Muslims with so much love for Geezis and America, that they dropped their arms and swore a lifetime of peace.)

              Enigma, how were your donations last year to NARAL, AKA BGI/Black Genocide Institute, who support the assassination of 45% of pre-birth American black babies?

          2. Cheers Ralph re “And the truth is that the press today is the enemy of the people” MSM owned by corps – if anchors tell the truth they are fired.

      1. Your right JJ, Trump only condemned the fake news.

        Do you know how I can catch Flake on the Fake News Network, the one he will be working for?

        Do you have a link, or is it FNN.com? Do they broadcast on FM (fake mutherf***ers) radio? Do you have a streaming link for FNN?

        It’s important to differentiate between fake and real; Ralph is excellent at it.

        So, if you can, let me know how to listen or watch FNN so as to keep my guard up. We all need help with this — even Zuk thinks so, and he knows a lot more than me.

        Thanks for your help.

        1. The MSM equals fake news, one in the same.

          Let’s confirm the MSM/DNC hypocrisy: Trump must be impeached for his speech, while the MSM are to be given sainthood for broadcasting lies like it’s news.

          Only idiot DNC progressives forget the MSM said HRC had 97% likelihood of winning, and they all literally LOL when asked if Trump had a chance, including Jesus Soetoro bin Bama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahkMA6JPOHU

          Who’s laughing now you idiots?

        2. It is literally impossible to measure, to quantify the stupidity and ignorance of progressives like those that post here. Apparently, not one progressive in the entire nation has read, or even heard of The Art of War, in which the #1 rule is, “Never underestimate one’s opponent.”

          1. Joseph Jones – I thought the no. 1 rule was Don’t fight a land war in Asia. 😉

Comments are closed.