A Texas judge sharply condemned three men after a fistfight broke out just outside his courtroom moments after a jury returned a guilty verdict in a murder case, telling them they had behaved like “cavemen” inside a courthouse that was supposed to resolve conflict through law rather than violence.
Courtroom footage shared by The Court Docket Network shows Judge John Stevens addressing the three men after the altercation, which happened during the lunch break in the murder trial of 24-year-old Stephen Angelle.
Angelle had just been found guilty of murdering 22-year-old Jacobi Rubin in a December 2021 shooting in Port Arthur when the courtroom emptied and relatives from the two sides became involved in a confrontation near the doorway.
Stevens said he personally saw the disturbance begin and later reviewed courthouse surveillance footage, which showed the men punching and flailing at one another while chairs outside the courtroom were damaged.
Fight Breaks Out As Court Recesses
Stevens explained that the jury had returned its guilty verdict shortly before the court broke for lunch.
As jurors, lawyers and spectators began leaving, he noticed movement near the doorway and quickly realized a physical confrontation was taking place.
“I could see one or two bodies,” Stevens said, adding that it was obvious people were fighting while the court was still technically in session.
After reviewing the video, Stevens said he saw three people involved in what he described as a “free-for-all fist fight.”
The judge did not treat the incident as a minor hallway argument.
Instead, he framed it as a direct insult to the purpose of the courthouse itself, where a murder case had just been resolved through a jury verdict after attorneys, witnesses and jurors followed formal legal procedures.
“We’re Not Cavemen”
Stevens told the men that a courthouse is supposed to represent justice, order and respect.
“This is a court of justice, a courthouse of justice, of honor,” he said.
He then contrasted the legal process with what had just happened outside his courtroom.
“We’re not cavemen,” Stevens told them, before adding that the three had behaved as if they were “back in the caves again.”
The judge said the court system exists precisely so disputes are not settled through force.
He pointed out that the jury had its role, the attorneys had theirs and the court had followed the rules of criminal procedure and evidence to reach a lawful result.
“We use the rule of law, not fist fighting in front of the public,” Stevens said.
That was more than just courtroom rhetoric. The timing of the fight made the contrast unusually sharp: a jury had just spent hours considering evidence in a murder case, only for members of the public to begin settling their own anger with punches feet away from the courtroom.
Judge Says All Three Will Face Contempt
Stevens said he understood that none of the people involved wanted to press criminal charges against one another.
That did not end the matter.
“I’m pressing the charges,” he told them.
More specifically, Stevens said all three would face contempt of court because the fight happened at the doorway of his courtroom while proceedings were still ongoing.
He warned that contempt could carry jail time and corrected himself during the hearing to say the punishment could reach six months.
The judge also made it clear that he was considering the broader message sent by the incident.
“Don’t think I won’t set an example,” Stevens said.
According to the background surrounding the case, all three men were taken into custody on constructive contempt allegations after the fight, with hearings to follow.
The phrase “constructive contempt” generally refers to conduct connected to the court but not necessarily committed directly in front of the judge, which fits Stevens’ description of having seen the fight begin and then reviewing video of what happened outside the doorway.
Murder Case Had Already Been Highly Emotional
The underlying case involved the 2021 shooting death of Jacobi Rubin.
Stephen Angelle, then 24, was convicted of murder after prosecutors argued that video and other evidence showed he was responsible for Rubin’s death.
Rubin, 22, was shot during an exchange of gunfire in Port Arthur and later died at a hospital.
Angelle had also been shot and ended up in a hospital bed near Rubin.
The jury returned the guilty verdict after a little more than an hour of deliberations.
Later that day, jurors sentenced Angelle to 75 years in prison after deliberating for only 19 minutes on punishment.
The emotional stakes around the case were therefore extremely high, but Stevens made clear that grief, anger or loyalty to either side did not excuse what happened in the hallway.
That distinction is important because emotionally charged criminal cases routinely bring grieving and angry families into the same building, and court security depends heavily on everyone understanding that the legal process is the only acceptable arena for resolving those disputes.
Stevens Warns Against Turning Court Into A Street Fight
The judge repeatedly returned to the idea that a courthouse cannot function if people simply attack one another after hearing results they dislike.
“Can you imagine if this is what we did normally?” he asked.
“We don’t really need a building. We just meet and punch it out.”
Stevens called the behavior “foolish” and said it ran against the idea that adults should deal with conflict in a civilized and disciplined way.
He also compared the fight to children fighting on a schoolyard, saying the men had failed to show the maturity expected inside a courthouse.
There is a practical reason judges react so strongly to conduct like this.
A courtroom has to remain a place where witnesses, jurors, lawyers and families can appear without fearing that a verdict will trigger violence in the hallway.
Once people begin fighting at the courtroom door, the issue becomes larger than the original dispute because it threatens the safety and authority of the entire proceeding.
Judge Says An Example Will Be Made
Stevens ended his remarks by making clear that he did not intend to brush the incident aside just because no participant wanted to pursue charges against the others.
He said the court had video, the conduct had taken place directly outside his courtroom, and all three men would have to answer for it.
“And it’ll be made an example out of,” Stevens said.
The message was straightforward: whatever anger existed after the murder verdict, the courthouse was not the place to settle it physically.
For Stevens, the contrast between the jury process inside the room and the brawl outside it could not have been clearer.
One side of the door represented rules, evidence and due process.
The other, for a few chaotic moments, looked exactly like the kind of behavior the judge said the justice system is supposed to replace.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
