Courtroom reporter is ordered to fulfill deadline or go to jail, along with her tools, till work is finished

Trials & Litigation

Courtroom reporter is ordered to fulfill deadline or go to jail, along with her tools, till work is finished

A courtroom reporter in Texas who blamed her missed deadlines on a Holland & Knight lawyer’s “fixed calling” no less than twice per day faces a brand new deadline with penalties.

The Twelfth Courtroom of Appeals found court reporter Beverly Dixon in contempt Monday after she sought 4 extensions, the primary two of which had been granted. She missed the final deadline set for Sept. 22.

Law360 has the story.

After the Oct. 24 show-cause listening to, the appeals courtroom fined Dixon $500 and ordered her to file the primary two volumes of the trial document by Oct. 25 and the ultimate two volumes by Oct. 31.

If Dixon misses the Oct. 31 deadline, she must deliver her tools to the Smith County Jail and work on finishing her work from 8 a.m. to five p.m. on weekdays, the appeals courtroom mentioned. A deputy will supervise her work, and he or she must eat her lunch “on the premises.”

Dixon must proceed reporting to jail till the finished courtroom document is accepted and filed.

The appeals courtroom additionally ordered a grievance be filed in opposition to Dixon with the Texas Judicial Department Certification Fee in reference to the case and 6 others involving incomplete data.

Dixon had testified in April that she stuffed in instead courtroom reporter in 5 Smith County circumstances Dec. 3, 2021, and her notes from the whole day had disappeared, in line with past coverage by KLTV.

Holland & Knight lawyer Stephen C. Rasch talked about the April KLTV story when he opposed Dixon’s third extension request in an Aug. 18 letter. He mentioned his shopper, the Lazy W Conservation District, is worried that Dixon had additionally misplaced data in its case.

After the appeals courtroom requested Dixon to reply to Rasch’s objection, she mentioned she was “at a loss” as to how you can reply.

“First, they known as me no less than twice a day,” she wrote in an Aug. 29 letter. “I advised them it will take longer with their fixed calling. Then they advised me that I lacked professionalism. Mr. Rasch was the primary one doing all that.”

Rasch countered that Dixon’s allegations concerning the calls had been “fiction,” and he had known as her solely as soon as, on June 9, and there was no dialogue about her professionalism.

“I might additionally level out that none of Ms. Dixon’s three requests for extension of time acknowledged or advised that her delay was in some way because of fielding cellphone calls from my legislation agency,” he wrote.