Filing Accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of Taking Cases From Juries and Picking Winners

forensic toxicology working group members July 24, 2025 Judge Rupert Byrdsong

Article overview: A filing accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of interrupting closing argument, removing disputed issues from the jury and tilting case outcomes. The post presents the cited transcript passages and the author’s blunt criticism.

SEO structure updated July 24, 2026.

As discussed in a previous post, Judge Byrdsong makes sure the side he is rooting for wins, even when the case is not in his court, as discussed in previous posts. This includes helping his former firm get a $25 million verdict. Does he really do all of this and not get a piece of the action?

Here is another example of his antics:

Critically Harmful Interruptions During Closing Argument
At a crucial moment in Ms. Wells’ closing, the Court rebuked her for using the word “termination” to describe the harm Plaintiff suffered, claiming wrongly: “There’s no evidence of a termination. We used ‘reduction’ throughout[.] [¶] . . . [¶] But you’ve used it a couple of times. I think that’s improper.” (RT 7/25/23, 123:16-124:26; 124:27-125:7.) Yet, the Court “overruled” an objection to Plaintiff’s counsel’s use of the word “termination” during examination of Plaintiff the day before, stating “the jury understands.” (RT 7/24/23, 33:10-16.) It is undisputed Plaintiff was involuntarily removed from her job. (RT 7/11/23, 43:22-44:8.) The Court’s improper rebuke right when Ms. Wells was asking for damages seemed designed to inflict maximum harm.
Then, defense counsel chimed in to prevent Ms. Wells from recommending any amount for Plaintiff’s damages from the loss of her job. (RT 7/25/23, 125:16-18; see also RT 7/25/23, 124:27- 125:7.) Defense counsel cut off Ms. Wells, stating: “Your Honor, this is improper. You can’t have damages under multiple theories and compound them.” (RT 7/25/23, 125:16-18.) Yet, Ms. Wells argued Plaintiff was seeking emotional distress damages for two harms, i.e., hypertension and loss of her job, and that she could only recover once for each harm. (RT 7/25/23, 120:15-121:10, 123:6-10; see also 120:8-127:2.) Still, the Court “sustained” the objection. (RT 7/25/23, 125:16-19.)

Thank you LEILA AL FAIZ for standing strong against the Stasi [1].

[1] “Stasi” pronounced “Stazy” is the slang term for “Ministerium für Staatssicherheit” or “Staatssicherheit,” which was a governmental behemoth and the ruthless and despicable official state security service of the communist former East Germany. The Citizenry of East Germany, in response to Rampart-style antics of the Stasi, stormed the Stasi headquarters around the time of the Berlin wall collapse, and eliminated the Stasi.

Why taking a case from the jury demands scrutiny

The filing accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of removing disputes from juries and selecting winners. Judicial authority to rule as a matter of law is not a license to predetermine outcomes; the reasons, timing and treatment of the record must withstand exacting review.

Continue with the Judge Rupert Byrdsong source archive.