Jodi Arias will not have to file her long-awaited post-conviction relief petition next week.
A judge has granted Arias more time to prepare the petition challenging her murder conviction. The new order moves the Jodi Arias PCR deadline from September 2, 2026, to January 29, 2027.
The ruling gives Arias and her defense team nearly five additional months. Prosecutors had strongly opposed the extension.
Judge extends Jodi Arias PCR deadline
Defense attorney Christopher Stavris requested the extension in June.
He told the court that serious medical problems had disrupted the defense team’s work. One key team member needs more than three months of leave for surgery. Another team member also needs surgery and can only work in a limited role.
Two other team members face significant health problems. The defense may also need to replace another member because of continuing medical issues.
Stavris argued that those problems created extraordinary circumstances. He said the team could not complete its investigation before September 2.
The judge has now given the defense until January 29, 2027, to file Arias’ PCR petition.
Mystery evidence remains unresolved
The defense also says it still awaits information about an unidentified piece of evidence.
Court filings do not publicly describe that item. However, the defense says the issue involves the State, the Mesa Police Department or both.
Arias’ attorneys say they first requested information about the evidence nearly one year ago. They argue that they need answers before completing the PCR petition.
The filings do not explain whether the evidence still exists, what it may contain or how it could affect Arias’ claims.
Those questions remain unresolved.
Prosecutors fought the extension
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office urged the judge to keep the September deadline.
Prosecutors argued that Arias has already received years to prepare her petition. She filed her PCR notice on February 11, 2021.
The State said the September deadline gave her more than five and a half years to finish the filing. Prosecutors also argued that Arias could file the petition and request permission to amend it later.
The State took an even stronger position in its response. Prosecutors argued that missing the September deadline could support dismissal of Arias’ PCR notice.
Despite those objections, the court gave the defense more time.
What happens next in the Jodi Arias case?
Arias must now file her PCR petition by January 29, 2027.
That petition should identify the legal grounds she plans to use to challenge her conviction or sentence. It may also reveal more about the mystery evidence mentioned in recent court filings.
Arias was convicted in 2013 of murdering Travis Alexander inside his Mesa home. She is serving a natural-life sentence with no possibility of release.
The new order does not overturn her conviction or grant her a new trial. It only gives her defense team more time to file the petition seeking post-conviction relief.
For now, the biggest questions remain unanswered.
What is the unidentified evidence? What happened to it? And how does the defense believe it could affect one of Arizona’s most closely watched murder cases?
The Texas Attorney General ruled Aug. 28, 2026, that Brazoria County may withhold investigative information tied to the Rebecca “Becky” Beard case, but must release basic information.
More records in the decades-old Rebecca “Becky” Beard case will remain out of public view for now.
The Texas Attorney General issued a new ruling Aug. 28 allowing Brazoria County to withhold investigative information because authorities say it relates to an ongoing criminal case.
But the ruling comes with an important exception.
Brazoria County must release the basic information.
I have already requested it.
New ruling in the Rebecca Beard records investigation
Rebecca “Becky” Beard pictured with her daughter before Becky disappeared from Freeport, Texas, in March 1986.
Beard was 22 when she disappeared after leaving the Excalibur Club in Freeport in March 1986.
Her body has never been recovered.
Paul Taylor Jr. pleaded guilty in 1995 in connection with her death, but questions surrounding the case have continued for decades.
My investigation has included multiple public information requests seeking Brazoria County records connected to the case.
Those requests have now resulted in another Attorney General ruling.
Brazoria County says the criminal case is ongoing
The Aug. 28 decision provides an important detail about the current status of the investigation.
According to the Attorney General, Brazoria County said a law enforcement agency objected to releasing the information because it “relates to an ongoing criminal case.”
The county argued that releasing the records could interfere with that case.
The Attorney General agreed that the investigative information may be withheld under Section 552.108(a)(1) of the Texas Government Code.
However, the ruling also says the county must release basic information under Section 552.108(c).
Eight Brazoria County records requests included in ruling
The Attorney General combined eight Brazoria County reference numbers in the decision:
26-1859, 26-1865, 26-1874, 26-1933, 26-1947, 26-1950, 26-1991 and 26-2012.
The Attorney General assigned the matter request ID 26-033498.
The Aug. 28 decision is OR2026-038106.
What will Brazoria County release?
That is now the question.
The ruling does not mean Brazoria County must turn over the entire investigative file.
It does mean the county cannot withhold everything.
I have submitted a follow-up request seeking the basic information that the Attorney General says must be released.
Once those records arrive, I will review them and report what they reveal.
After 40 years, the Rebecca Beard case continues to generate new questions — and the state now confirms that authorities still consider the matter tied to an ongoing criminal case.
Read the Attorney General ruling
I have included the Aug. 28, 2026 Texas Attorney General ruling connected to these Brazoria County records requests below.
The ruling, OR2026-038106, says the county may withhold investigative information tied to the ongoing criminal case, but must release basic information.
For readers traveling to Brazoria County for court proceedings, research or other business, Hotels.com can help compare accommodations throughout the area and along the Texas Gulf Coast.
This post may contain affiliate links. I may earn a commission from qualifying bookings at no additional cost to you.
Public-records investigations often mean sorting through court filings, police reports, photographs and hundreds of pages of documents. Amazonhas portable scanners, external drives, document organizers and other tools that can help keep large research projects organized.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Texas Department of Public Safety missing person bulletin for Rebecca “Becky” Beard, who disappeared in 1986.
Brazoria County seeks to withhold Rebecca Beard records
Brazoria County prosecutors are asking the Texas Attorney General for permission to withhold records connected to the renewed investigation into the 1986 disappearance and murder of Rebecca “Becky” Beard.
The August 25 filing also reveals new details about the investigation.
Prosecutors confirmed investigators examined information involving possible additional suspects in Beard’s murder. They also confirmed investigators recently presented their findings to a Brazoria County grand jury.
The grand jury took no action.
Records request targeted 2026 investigation
I submitted a Texas Public Information Act request on August 10 seeking records related to the 2026 investigation.
The request focused on information provided by Cherie Starr, also known as “Rio.”
I requested interviews, statements, reports, recordings, photographs, maps and investigative notes connected to Starr’s information.
I also sought records concerning any location Starr identified as a possible site for Beard’s remains or other evidence.
The request included records involving a possible search, excavation or dig.
I also requested communications between the Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office, Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office, Texas Rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
Importantly, the request did not seek secret grand jury testimony, deliberations, voting records or juror identities.
Brazoria County confirms responsive records exist
The District Attorney’s Office confirmed it holds records that respond to the request.
However, prosecutors want to withhold those records in their entirety.
In its August 25 letter to the Texas Attorney General, the DA’s Office cited the law-enforcement exception under Section 552.108 of the Texas Government Code.
Prosecutors argue that Beard’s murder investigation remains open because her body has never been recovered.
They contend releasing the requested records could interfere with that continuing investigation.
Filing reveals investigation of possible additional suspects
The filing provides an important glimpse into what happened during the renewed investigation.
Prosecutors wrote that their office had recently investigated “other possible actors/defendants” in Beard’s murder.
According to the filing, investigators presented those findings to a Brazoria County grand jury.
The DA’s Office said the grand jury took no action because investigators did not develop other credible suspects.
That disclosure provides new information about the scope of the 2026 investigation.
It shows investigators did more than simply review an old case file. They examined whether other people may have played a role in Beard’s murder and brought those findings before a grand jury.
Paul Taylor was convicted, but Becky remains missing
John Paul Taylor Jr. pleaded guilty in 1995 to murdering Beard.
Beard was 22 when she disappeared in March 1986.
Her body has never been recovered.
The DA’s filing cites that fact as one reason the murder investigation remains open. Prosecutors argue law enforcement must remain able to investigate credible new leads if they emerge.
Prosecutors also claim attorney work-product protection
The District Attorney’s Office makes another argument for withholding the records.
Prosecutors say the requested investigative notes and materials contain attorney work product.
According to the filing, a DA investigator prepared the records while working at the direction of an appointed special prosecutor.
The DA argues the documents contain investigative strategy, mental impressions and legal reasoning connected to potential criminal litigation.
For those reasons, prosecutors asked the Attorney General to allow them to withhold all of the responsive records.
The Attorney General will decide
The August 25 filing is not a final ruling on my records request.
It is Brazoria County’s argument for why the records should remain confidential.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office will now review the arguments and determine whether state law allows Brazoria County to withhold the requested material.
The decision could allow the county to withhold the records, require the release of some information, or require additional responsive material to be released.
I will continue following the records dispute and the investigation into what happened to Rebecca Beard.
The public records request and Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office filing to the Texas Attorney General are attached below.
If you are traveling to Brazoria County to follow developments in the Rebecca Beard case, you can compare hotel options through Hotels.com. Look for rooms near Angleton, Lake Jackson, Freeport or the surrounding area, depending on your plans.
I may earn a commission from qualifyingHotels.com bookings made through my link, at no additional cost to you.
Court records, interviews and long hours on the road can mean a lot of waiting. A portable phone charger, reusable water bottle and lightweight bag can make the day easier. You can find travel gear and everyday reporting essentials on Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate, I may earn from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
James Elmore Jr. appears in court during a pretrial hearing ahead of his Aug. 31 manslaughter trial.
James Elmore Jr. Trial Set for Aug. 31 as Judge Signals No Continuance
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
James Elmore Jr. remains on track for an Aug. 31 trial in Galveston County.
Elmore pleaded not guilty as his case moves toward a jury. He faces several criminal cases connected to the deaths linked to the area known as the Texas Killing Fields.
Texas EquuSearch founder Tim Miller was also present in the courtroom.
Texas EquuSearch founder Tim Miller sits in the courtroom during James Elmore Jr.’s pretrial hearing ahead of the Aug. 31 trial.
During a pretrial discussion, the judge made one point especially clear. The court intends to try the case as scheduled.
“Unless there’s some medical emergency … no continuance.”
The judge told attorneys to make sure everyone understands that the case has a firm trial setting.
James Elmore Jr. Manslaughter Case Will Go First
Watch the full James Elmore Jr. pretrial hearing above, including discussion of the Aug. 31 trial date, jury selection, discovery and the other pending cases.
Elmore currently has five pending cases, according to statements made in court.
The prosecution told the judge that it plans to try the manslaughter case first on Aug. 31.
The state said it no longer plans to first try newer cases involving allegations of possession of child pornography.
The court also discussed Elmore’s other pending cases.
Prosecutors said the tampering cases could become relevant during the manslaughter trial. They argued that some of that evidence may provide context involving the victim.
If a jury finds Elmore guilty of manslaughter, prosecutors could also introduce evidence from the other pending cases during the punishment phase.
The judge explained that process in court.
If jurors find Elmore not guilty, the remaining cases would still remain pending.
Attorneys Say Discovery Is Nearly Complete
James Elmore Jr. and attorneys appear before the judge during a pretrial hearing ahead of his Aug. 31 manslaughter trial.
Both sides told the judge that no major discovery issues remain.
Prosecutors said they still need to handle several smaller matters. Those include redactions to statements and identifying specific jail calls.
The state also has images stored on a hard drive.
Defense attorneys can review those materials at the prosecutor’s office.
Elmore’s attorney told the judge that he plans to review the material while preparing for trial.
The court also discussed a discovery compliance form. Defense counsel said he would have Elmore review and sign it.
Court Could Call More Than 200 Potential Jurors
Jury selection could become one of the biggest challenges in the James Elmore Jr. trial.
The case has received extensive media coverage.
The judge and attorneys discussed calling more than 200 prospective jurors because of the attention surrounding the case.
The court could use a larger courtroom to accommodate the panel.
Attorneys also discussed whether to use a written jury questionnaire.
A questionnaire could help identify people who already know details about the case. However, it could also delay jury selection by a day.
The judge raised another concern.
Questions asked in front of the entire panel could influence other potential jurors. The court may instead question some people individually.
The goal will be to find jurors who can decide the case based only on evidence presented in court.
Judge Expects Trial to Last About One Week
James Elmore Jr. appears with attorneys during a pretrial hearing as the court prepares for his Aug. 31 trial.
The attorneys told the judge they expect the manslaughter trial to last about one week.
The court discussed beginning jury selection on the afternoon of Aug. 31.
Opening statements and testimony could begin the following day.
If the court uses a jury questionnaire, the trial could run slightly longer.
The court also expects to select alternate jurors.
Other James Elmore Cases Could Follow Quickly
James Elmore Jr. booking photo. His trial is currently scheduled to begin Aug. 31, 2026, in Galveston County.
Prosecutors are already looking beyond the Aug. 31 trial.
The state told the judge it wants to return to court quickly for another Elmore case.
An October trial setting came up during the discussion.
The court discussed Oct. 5 as a possible next docket setting. Attorneys also mentioned Oct. 12 as another possibility.
Those dates could change depending on how long the manslaughter trial lasts and how quickly attorneys receive the court record.
Judge Warns Elmore Against Speaking
James Elmore Jr. stands with his attorney during a pretrial hearing as the court prepares for his Aug. 31 manslaughter trial.
The judge also addressed Elmore directly.
He told Elmore that he did not have to speak in court. The judge warned that anything Elmore said could become evidence against him.
Instead, the judge encouraged Elmore to communicate with his attorney about anything he wants addressed before trial.
The judge said the court would hear necessary motions, even if attorneys file them shortly before trial.
Aug. 31 Trial Remains Firm
For now, the most important development is simple.
James Elmore Jr. remains scheduled for trial Aug. 31.
The prosecution says it will begin with the manslaughter case.
The court expects a large jury pool because of the publicity surrounding the case.
And the judge made clear that he does not expect to grant another delay without a serious emergency.
Tim Miller’s presence in the courtroom also underscored the attention surrounding the case as it moves closer to trial.
Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose will continue following the James Elmore Jr. case and any developments before jury selection begins.
Travelers heading to Galveston County can compare hotel options near the courthouse and surrounding area.
If you are traveling to Galveston County to follow the James Elmore Jr. trial, you can compare hotel options through Hotels.com. Look for rooms near Galveston, League City or the surrounding area, depending on your travel plans and court schedule.
Long court days can mean a lot of waiting. I recommend bringing a portable phone charger, reusable water bottle and a lightweight bag for your essentials. You can find travel gear and courtroom-day basics on Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate, I may earn from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
If you are traveling to Travis County for court, work or a Texas getaway, Hotels.com can help you compare hotels, prices and locations near Austin and surrounding areas.
I may earn a commission from qualifying Hotels.com bookings at no additional cost to you.
From portable chargers and travel gear to notebooks, camera accessories and other reporting essentials, I keep a running list of useful items on Amazon.
Karmelo Anthony’s post-trial case will move forward under a new judge after the judge who presided over his murder trial was recused.
Update: Judge removed from Karmelo Anthony case
Karmelo Anthony’s fight for a new trial took a major turn Wednesday after the judge who presided over his murder trial was removed from the post-trial proceedings.
Visiting Judge Sid Harle granted the defense request to recuse Collin County Judge John Roach Jr. Anthony’s attorneys argued that Roach’s public comments following the conviction raised questions about whether he could remain impartial while considering the motion for a new trial. Harle ruled that the legal standard for recusal had been met.
Retired District Judge Michael Chitty has now been assigned to the case. He is expected to preside over Anthony’s motion for a new trial, which remains scheduled for Thursday morning despite briefly appearing as canceled on the court’s online calendar.
Anthony has not been granted a new trial. Wednesday’s ruling only determines which judge will decide that request.
Karmelo Anthony Seeks New Trial as Judge Recusal Hearing Approaches
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
Karmelo Anthony is heading back to a Collin County courtroom just months after a jury convicted him of murder.
New court records show two major hearings scheduled for next week.
First, a judge will hear Anthony’s request to remove the judge who oversaw his murder trial.
Then, the court will take up Anthony’s request for a new trial.
The hearings come after a jury sentenced Anthony to 35 years in prison for the killing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf.
Karmelo Anthony Recusal Hearing Set for August 19
Karmelo Anthony. Collin County court records show a hearing on his motion to recuse is set for August 19, 2026, at 9 a.m.
Collin County court records show a hearing on Anthony’s motion to recuse is set for August 19, 2026, at 9 a.m.
The hearing will take place in the 494th District Courtroom at the Collin County Courthouse.
Court records list Judge Harle as the presiding judge for the hearing.
Anthony’s murder case originally went before Judge John R. Roach Jr. in the 296th District Court.
The defense now wants Roach removed from the post-trial proceedings.
The court will consider that request before it addresses Anthony’s bid for a new trial.
Motion for New Trial Hearing Set for August 20
The next major hearing is scheduled for August 20, 2026, at 9 a.m.
That hearing will focus on Anthony’s motion for a new trial.
Court records currently list the judge and courtroom as pending.
The two hearings could play a major role in what happens next.
Anthony’s attorneys want the court to overturn his conviction and give him another trial.
Anthony Convicted in Austin Metcalf Killing
Austin Metcalf is remembered by family, friends and the community as the Karmelo Anthony murder case continues through the Collin County court system.
The case began after a confrontation at a high school track meet in Frisco on April 2, 2025.
Anthony was 17 at the time.
Prosecutors accused him of fatally stabbing Austin Metcalf, 17, during the confrontation.
Anthony admitted that he stabbed Metcalf but argued that he acted in self-defense.
The case later went before a Collin County jury.
On June 9, 2026, jurors found Anthony guilty of murder.
The jury then sentenced him to 35 years in prison.
Court Records Show Case Is Under Appeal
The Collin County court system now lists Anthony’s case status as “Appealed.”
The case number is 296-83565-2025.
The online docket contains more than 300 case events.
Recent entries include an August 10 subpoena and the two upcoming hearings.
The appeal and new-trial effort mean the legal fight is far from over.
Why the Recusal Hearing Matters
The August 19 hearing comes first for a reason.
Anthony’s attorneys want another judge to handle the next stage of the case.
A ruling on that request could determine who hears the motion for a new trial.
That makes the recusal hearing an important step before the court considers whether Anthony should receive another trial.
Media Access Planned for August 19 Hearing
Collin County expects significant media and public interest in the hearings.
The county says only nine credentialed media seats will be available inside the courtroom for the August 19 hearing.
However, officials also plan to provide an overflow room with a video feed from the courtroom.
The county expects to release additional information about the August 20 hearing after the recusal hearing ends.
What Happens Next in the Karmelo Anthony Case?
The next two dates will be important.
August 19: Hearing on the motion to recuse.
August 20: Hearing on the motion for a new trial.
If the defense succeeds in its effort for a new trial, the case could return to a courtroom before another jury.
If the court rejects the request, Anthony can continue challenging his conviction through the appeals process.
Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose will continue reviewing the court record as new filings and orders become available.
Source
Collin County District Court records and the Collin County Public Information Office.
Brazoria County court records show a Feb. 1, 2027 trial date in the criminal case against former deputy Kevin Daniel Tippit. Mugshot photo credit: Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office.
Kevin Tippit trial date set in Brazoria County
Court records show prosecutors filed the case against Tippit on Aug. 6, 2026, in Brazoria County’s 239th District Court.
The docket lists several hearings before the scheduled trial:
Sept. 29, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. — Status hearing
Oct. 28, 2026 at 9 a.m. — Pretrial hearing
Jan. 21, 2027 at 9 a.m. — Announcement hearing
Feb. 1, 2027 at 9 a.m. — Trial
The court entered an Order for Pretrial Hearing and Setting Case for Trial on Aug. 12.
The February date remains the current trial setting. Court schedules can change as the case moves forward.
Former deputy released on bond
Texas Rangers arrested Tippit on Aug. 11.
Brazoria County court records show the judge set his bond at $250,000. Tippit later posted bond and was released from jail.
The court docket lists defense attorneys Guy L. Womack and Geoff L. Womack.
John Mendoza died after June police pursuit
John Gabriel Mendoza Jr., 18, was a Texas State University student who died following the June 1, 2026 shooting involving former Brazoria County deputy Kevin Daniel Tippit.
The criminal case stems from the June 1, 2026 shooting of John Gabriel Mendoza Jr.
Mendoza was 18 and attended Texas State University.
The incident began with a pursuit in Lake Jackson. The chase ended when Mendoza reached his home and pulled into the garage.
Tippit fired through the driver’s side window.
Radio traffic following the shooting captured Tippit reporting an “accidental discharge.”
Mendoza later died.
The Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office fired Tippit days after the shooting.
The Texas Rangers later investigated the case.
Grand jury indicted Kevin Tippit
Former Brazoria County Sheriff’s Deputy Kevin Daniel Tippit faces a charge of aggravated assault by a public servant in connection with the June 1, 2026 shooting of John Gabriel Mendoza Jr. Photo credit: Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office.
A Brazoria County grand jury indicted Tippit on the charge of aggravated assault by a public servant.
Court records identify the charge under Texas Penal Code 22.02(b)(2)(A) and classify it as a first-degree felony.
The case number is 106968-CR.
The next hearing is currently scheduled for Sept. 29.
Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose will continue following the case and any changes to the trial schedule.
If you’re traveling to Brazoria County for a court hearing, trial or visit, you can compare nearby hotel options through Hotels.com. Staying close to Angleton can make early court mornings a little easier.
Traveling to Brazoria County? Visitors can find hotels and vacation rentals near Angleton, Lake Jackson and the surrounding Gulf Coast area.
If you’re heading to Brazoria County, a few simple travel essentials can make the trip easier. I also share useful travel gear through my Amazon affiliate links.
Port Arthur ISD says it is reviewing a reported corporal punishment incident involving a Memorial High School student and will also revisit its corporal punishment policy.
Texas schools can still paddle students — and one Port Arthur mother’s allegations raise questions
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
A Texas mother says a football coach paddled her teenage son three times at school. Photos shared online appear to show significant bruising afterward.
The allegation may shock many parents.
However, Texas school corporal punishment remains legal in 2026.
Texas law allows public school districts to adopt policies that permit paddling and other physical punishment. Parents can prohibit the punishment, but they generally must give the district written notice.
The Port Arthur case now raises a larger question.
Where does school discipline end and physical injury begin?
Mother says football coach paddled her son
Grizzy’s Hood News reported the allegations Sunday after speaking with the student’s mother.
The mother said her son attends Memorial High School in Port Arthur.
According to the post, the teenager missed football practice Friday. His mother said she had recently suffered injuries in a serious car crash and could not provide transportation.
She said her son explained the situation to his coaches.
The mother alleges several adults later stood inside an office while her son bent over a table. She says a football coach then struck him three times.
She also alleges coaches cited other issues. Those included communication problems and wearing the wrong color football pants.
The mother says her son did not know someone planned to strike him.
A photograph published with the report shows dark discoloration and bruising on the student’s body.
Grizzy’s Hood News reported that the mother contacted police and filed a report.
The coach and Port Arthur Independent School District had not provided their accounts when the story appeared. No criminal charges had been announced.
The allegations have not yet received independent confirmation.
Texas law still allows corporal punishment in schools
This is the part that may surprise Texas parents.
State law specifically allows school districts to authorize corporal punishment.
The Texas Education Code defines corporal punishment as deliberately causing physical pain through actions such as hitting, paddling, spanking or slapping for discipline.
However, a school cannot simply decide on its own to start paddling students.
The mother’s claim that she never signed a consent form does not automatically prove the school violated Texas law.
The bigger question involves Port Arthur ISD’s own policy.
What does Port Arthur ISD allow?
Memorial High School belongs to Port Arthur Independent School District. It serves as the district’s high school.
The district directs students and parents to a Student Code of Conduct for discipline rules. Memorial’s school pages also explain that the code follows Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code. (Memorial 9th Grade Academy)
What if a parent caused the same bruising?
The case also highlights an uncomfortable comparison.
Texas allows parents to use reasonable physical force to discipline their children.
Texas Penal Code Section 9.61 says a parent, stepparent or person acting in the role of a parent may use non-deadly force when that person reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or protect the child’s welfare.
That does not give parents unlimited authority to hurt a child.
Police can investigate physical discipline when officers believe the force may have crossed the line into criminal conduct.
Bruising alone does not automatically prove a crime. The child’s age, amount of force, circumstances and extent of any injury can all matter.
The same basic question should matter when an adult at a school uses physical punishment.
How much force is too much?
Paddling remains controversial in Texas
Texas has debated ending corporal punishment in public schools for years.
A Texas Tribune investigation previously found that nearly 13,000 Texas students received corporal punishment during the 2017-18 school year. The report also found that Black students and students with disabilities received corporal punishment at disproportionate rates.
Lawmakers have introduced proposals to restrict or eliminate the practice.
Still, Texas law continues to allow school boards to authorize it.
That means a practice many parents associate with another generation can still happen inside a Texas public school today.
Port Arthur ISD responds to corporal punishment controversy
Port Arthur ISD released this statement on August 18, 2026, responding to concerns about reported corporal punishment involving a Memorial High School student.
Port Arthur ISD responded to the controversy on Aug. 18, saying the district is reviewing the reported use of corporal punishment involving a Memorial High School student.
The district said corporal punishment is currently an authorized discipline technique under its Board-approved policy and Student Code of Conduct.
Under that policy, PAISD said parents do not have to give written permission before corporal punishment can be used. Instead, a parent who does not want corporal punishment used on their child must submit a signed written statement to the campus principal prohibiting it for that school year.
PAISD said it is reviewing the reported incident to determine what happened and whether district policies and procedures were followed.
The district also acknowledged concerns surrounding corporal punishment and said the Board of Trustees will revisit the policy to determine whether changes or additional procedures are appropriate.
Superintendent Dr. Mark Porterie said the district remains committed to student safety and to ensuring discipline is administered fairly and consistently.
The district’s statement did not announce any disciplinary action against the coach or any criminal charges related to the reported incident.
Should hitting students with a paddle still have a place in Texas public schools in 2026?
If you’re traveling to Houston for court, business or a weekend visit, you can compare hotels near downtown, the Harris County Criminal Justice Center and other Houston attractions through Hotels.com.
Court records, breaking news and long reporting days mean I spend plenty of time working from my phone and laptop. I keep a few travel and reporting essentials with me, including portable chargers, phone accessories and compact gear that fits easily in my bag.
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, including Amazon and Hotels.com. I may earn a commission if you make a purchase or booking through these links, at no additional cost to you.
Jodi Arias appears in court during proceedings in her Arizona murder case.
Jodi Arias court fight erupts over mystery evidence and looming deadline
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
A new court fight in the Jodi Arias case centers on a looming deadline, health problems and an unidentified piece of evidence.
Arias faces a September 2, 2026 deadline to file her petition for post-conviction relief, or PCR petition.
Her attorney wants much more time.
Defense attorney Christopher Stavris asked the court to extend the Jodi Arias PCR deadline to January 29, 2027.
Prosecutors strongly oppose that request.
Now, newly reviewed court filings reveal another twist. Arias’ defense says it still awaits information about an item of evidence involving the State and/or Mesa Police Department.
The defense says it first asked about that evidence almost one year ago.
Jodi Arias PCR deadline sparks court battle
Stavris filed the extension request on June 16, 2026.
He told the court that several defense team members face significant health problems.
According to the filing, one key team member needs more than three months of surgical medical leave.
Another team member also needs surgical leave and can only work in a limited capacity.
The defense says two other team members face serious health problems that have slowed their work.
Another team member may need replacement because of ongoing medical issues.
Stavris argues those problems qualify as extraordinary circumstances under Arizona court rules.
He says his team cannot complete the necessary investigation before September 2.
Prosecutors say Arias has had enough time
Prosecutor Juan Martinez walks into court with a witness during Jodi Arias’s resentencing trial.
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office pushed back.
Deputy County Attorney Jordan Smith argued that Arias has already had years to prepare her petition.
Arias filed her PCR notice on February 11, 2021.
Prosecutors say the September deadline gives her more than five and a half years from that filing.
The State called the deadline realistic.
Prosecutors also argued that Arias could file her petition and seek changes later if new evidence develops.
The State took an even stronger position in its filing.
Prosecutors argued that failure to meet the September 2 deadline should support dismissal of Arias’ PCR notice.
Defense reveals unresolved evidence issue
In a June 25, 2026 filing, Jodi Arias’s defense said it was still waiting for a status update on an item of evidence first raised nearly a year earlier.
The defense responded on June 25.
That filing contains one of the most interesting details in the latest court battle.
Stavris says Arias still waits for a status update involving an item of evidence.
The filing does not publicly identify the evidence.
The defense says it first asked about the item almost a year ago.
Stavris also says the State and Mesa Police Department have communicated about the evidence.
However, he says the defense still does not know its status.
The defense sent another status request several weeks before filing its reply.
According to Stavris, nobody had answered that request.
Defense says records from 2021 remain outstanding
The defense also raised another issue.
Stavris says Arias submitted a public records request through the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in 2021.
The office partially fulfilled that request.
However, the defense says some records remain outstanding.
Arias’ team submitted a narrower request in February 2026.
The defense hoped that move would speed up the process.
Stavris says prosecutors told the defense that they continue to process the request.
Those outstanding records now form part of the defense argument for more time.
Arias attorney says PCR investigation remains active
Stavris argues that post-conviction work requires more than reviewing old court transcripts.
He says PCR claims often require new investigation outside the original trial record.
That work can involve attorneys, investigators and experts.
The defense also challenged the State’s description of the affected team members.
Prosecutors referred to them as investigators.
Stavris says several of them serve as experts in specialized fields.
He argues that those experts play a critical role in developing possible PCR claims.
The defense also says it continues to conduct discovery and investigate possible claims.
Defense offers closed hearing with judge
Stavris told the court he could provide more information if the judge wants it.
However, he asked to present those details during a sealed, ex parte hearing.
That type of hearing could allow the defense to discuss sensitive investigative information without publicly revealing its strategy.
The filing does not disclose what claims Arias may eventually raise in her PCR petition.
State asks for oral argument
In a June 26, 2026 filing, prosecutors asked Judge Aryeh Schwartz to schedule oral argument on Jodi Arias’s request for more time, with any argument set for July 23 or later.
The fight did not end with the defense reply.
On June 26, prosecutors asked the judge to hold oral arguments about the requested extension.
The State said it needs time to contact next of kin who may want to address the court.
Prosecutors cited victims’ rights to a prompt and final conclusion of the case.
The State asked the court to schedule any argument for July 23, 2026 or later.
The filing says the prosecutor assigned to the matter planned to return from vacation on July 23.
Will Jodi Arias get more time?
The filings reviewed for this story show both sides digging in.
The defense wants until January 29, 2027.
The State wants the September 2 deadline to remain in place.
The defense points to serious medical problems, unfinished investigative work, outstanding records and unresolved evidence.
Prosecutors point to the amount of time Arias has already had.
The biggest unanswered question now centers on the judge.
These filings do not include a final ruling on the extension request.
That ruling could determine whether Arias must file her long-awaited PCR petition within weeks or gets several more months to prepare it.
The mystery surrounding the unidentified evidence also adds a new question to one of Arizona’s most closely watched criminal cases.
No ruling yet on Jodi Arias PCR deadline request
As of August 17, 2026, the Maricopa County Clerk of the Superior Court says there is no minute entry or court order yet ruling on Jodi Arias’s request to extend her September 2, 2026 PCR filing deadline.
A court operations specialist told Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose that she had sent everything currently in the case and did not see a minute entry or order addressing the extension request.
That means the September 2 deadline remains the current filing date unless Judge Aryeh Schwartz issues a new order.
Read the court filings: Below are the June 2026 filings in State v. Jodi Arias, including the defense motion for more time, the State’s response, the defense reply and the State’s request for oral argument.
Houston death row inmate set for November execution after $3.5 million diamond heist
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
A Houston capital murder case that began with a multimillion-dollar diamond heist nearly 30 years ago is moving toward an execution.
Harris County court records show Reinaldo Dennes now faces execution on Nov. 19, 2026, at the Huntsville Unit.
The case dates back to Jan. 24, 1996. Prosecutors said Dennes helped carry out a robbery that left Houston jeweler Janos “Johnny” Szucs dead and security guard David Copeland seriously wounded.
The thieves took more than $3.5 million in diamonds and about $200,000 in cash, according to court records.
The diamonds have never been recovered.
Harris County records show execution date
A Harris County court filing lists Nov. 19, 2026, as the execution date for Reinaldo Dennes. Source: Harris County District Clerk.
Court records show prosecutors filed a proposed execution order, death warrant and notice on June 23, 2026.
Those documents listed Nov. 19 as the proposed execution date.
However, the copies filed in June did not contain the judge’s signature.
The Harris County docket later recorded new activity on Aug. 14. Those entries included an execution order, a death warrant and an execution date of Nov. 19, 2026.
The order directs the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to carry out the execution sometime after 6 p.m. in Huntsville.
Dennes has remained eligible for execution since December 2020, according to the state’s filing.
Prosecutors say robbery involved months of planning
A Harris County court filing says more than $3.5 million in diamonds and $200,000 in cash were taken during the 1996 robbery. The filing also describes alleged planning involving a firearm silencer. Source: Harris County District Clerk
The court filing describes a detailed plan that started before the January 1996 robbery.
Prosecutors said Dennes knew Szucs through previous business dealings. Dennes also worked as a jewelry dealer in the same office building as Szucs and Copeland.
According to the filing, co-defendant Francisco Santos Rojos introduced Dennes to Antonio Ramirez.
Prosecutors said Dennes asked Ramirez to build a firearm silencer from a sketch.
Ramirez built the device and later modified it after Dennes complained that it made too much noise, according to the filing.
Court records say Dennes eventually tested the silencer inside his office.
Witness backed out before robbery
The filing says Dennes and his brother, Jose Alberto Dennes, approached Ramirez on Jan. 18, 1996.
Prosecutors said they asked Ramirez to participate in the robbery.
According to the filing, Dennes planned to obtain the surveillance tapes. Ramirez would take the diamonds. Jose Alberto Dennes would shoot the jeweler.
Ramirez realized why Dennes wanted the silencer and asked him to return it, according to the court record.
Dennes refused.
Ramirez later traveled to Ecuador and was outside the country when the robbery happened.
Neither the firearm nor the silencer was ever recovered, according to prosecutors.
Cleaning employee helped provide access
Court records also identify Estrella Martinez as a cleaning employee at the office building.
Prosecutors said Martinez had a romantic relationship with Dennes.
The filing says Martinez agreed to allow Dennes and his brother into the building through a loading dock entrance after business hours.
Dennes bought Martinez a cell phone so he could tell her when to open the door and when to distract the security guard, prosecutors said.
The filing says Dennes warned Martinez that he would have to shoot the guard if she failed to distract him.
Prosecutors said Dennes postponed the robbery for two days before moving forward on the third day.
Security guard survived shooting
Security guard David Copeland later testified about the attack.
According to the filing, Dennes approached Copeland and told him, “I have something I want to show you.”
Prosecutors said Dennes then shot Copeland in the chest.
After Copeland fell, Dennes shot him again in the back.
Copeland survived but suffered partial paralysis.
The filing says Copeland later heard sounds consistent with someone removing video recording equipment from the security booth.
Jeweler found dead with five gunshot wounds
Police later found Szucs dead inside his seventh-floor office.
Court records say he suffered five gunshot wounds.
Investigators found no signs of forced entry.
When authorities opened Szucs’ safe, they discovered the diamonds and roughly $200,000 in cash missing.
The filing also says Szucs regularly wore a five-carat pinky ring.
That ring disappeared too.
Investigators never recovered it.
Prosecutors said the stolen diamonds would equal approximately $7.2 million today when adjusted for inflation.
Ballistics evidence connected the shootings
Harris County court records say Janos Szucs was found with five gunshot wounds and that investigators linked bullets and shell casings to the same firearm. The filing also says $3.5 million in diamonds, $200,000 in cash and a five-carat pinky ring were missing. Source: Harris County District Clerk.
Investigators recovered shell casings from the building lobby, a field between Dennes’ home and the office building, and other locations.
A firearms examiner concluded that bullets recovered from Szucs, Dennes’ office and the lobby came from the same firearm, according to the filing.
The weapon was either a Taurus or Beretta 9mm handgun.
Police later searched Dennes’ office.
Officers found either a Taurus 9mm semiautomatic handgun or an owner’s manual for one, according to the court record.
Prosecutors also used landline and cell phone records to support testimony from Ramirez and Martinez.
Dennes left Texas after the killing
The filing says Dennes and his brother traveled to Florida after the crime.
They later went to the Dominican Republic for several days.
Prosecutors also said Dennes bought a new sports car shortly after the killing.
Prosecutors told jury about earlier diamond robbery plot
The court filing also describes another robbery plot from November 1995.
Prosecutors said Dennes targeted diamond courier Albert Ohayon.
Dennes allegedly knew Ohayon through previous employment and believed he would carry between $500,000 and $1 million in diamonds.
Two men recruited for the robbery entered the wrong house, according to the filing.
They invaded the home of another family instead.
The filing says the men terrorized a couple and their 9-year-old daughter for about two and a half hours before fleeing with property and the family’s vehicle.
Jury convicted Dennes of capital murder
A Harris County jury convicted Dennes of capital murder on Aug. 28, 1997.
Court records show the trial judge sentenced him to death on Sept. 4, 1997.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Dennes continued to challenge his conviction through state and federal courts.
The state’s 2026 filing says reviewing courts found no due process violations that blocked his execution.
Nearly $4 million in diamonds and cash still missing
The execution date closes one chapter in a case that has remained active for decades.
One mystery remains.
Investigators never recovered the more than $3.5 million in diamonds taken from Szucs’ safe.
They also never recovered his five-carat pinky ring.
Dennes is scheduled for execution on Nov. 19, 2026, in Huntsville.
If you’re traveling to Houston for court, business or a weekend visit, you can compare hotels near downtown, the Harris County Criminal Justice Center and other Houston attractions through Hotels.com.
Court records, breaking news and long reporting days mean I spend plenty of time working from my phone and laptop. I keep a few travel and reporting essentials with me, including portable chargers, phone accessories and compact gear that fits easily in my bag.
