A 71-year-old Wolfforth woman was held in contempt of court and taken to the Lubbock County Detention Center after repeatedly saying she would not listen to information about child sexual abuse during jury selection.

H. Lee Brucato was one of 98 prospective jurors summoned to the 140th District Court for the trial of Jose Gonzales, who was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child younger than 14.

According to a contempt order signed by District Judge Douglas Freitag, Brucato interrupted the jury-selection proceedings several times as attorneys discussed the nature of the case and questioned prospective jurors about their ability to serve impartially.

The order said Brucato initially announced that she did not want to listen to anything involving child sexual abuse. Attorneys continued questioning the panel, but she made a similar statement again.

After speaking with the attorneys at the bench, Freitag addressed the entire group. The judge explained that jurors might hear disturbing or unpleasant evidence during a criminal trial and that disliking the subject matter was not, by itself, grounds to avoid jury service.

Brucato again said she would not listen, according to the order. The judge told her she did not have to listen but had not been excused and therefore had to remain while jury selection continued.

The court found that Brucato stood and continued making statements in front of the panel despite repeated warnings. Freitag then ordered her taken into custody for disrupting the proceedings.

The incident was first detailed by Lubbock Lights using the court’s written contempt order.

Confinement tied to the jury proceedings

Freitag ordered Brucato held until 10:30 a.m. Thursday, March 5, or until the jury proceedings ended, whichever occurred first.

The order did not mean Brucato was selected to decide the criminal case. She remained a prospective juror at the time of the confrontation. Her confinement was punishment for contempt of court rather than service as a member of the trial jury.

No attorney was identified for Brucato in the initial public reporting, and her response to the judge’s description of the incident was therefore unavailable. Lubbock County District Attorney Sunshine Stanek declined to comment at the time.

Texas law gives courts authority to punish conduct that obstructs proceedings or defies a lawful court instruction. Under Section 21.002 of the Texas Government Code, a district court may impose a fine of as much as $500, confinement in the county jail for as long as six months, or both.

The Texas State Law Library’s explanation of contempt notes that the power is intended to protect the administration of justice and may be used when someone deliberately disobeys an order or behaves in a way that disrupts court business.

Texas courts distinguish between direct contempt, which occurs in the court’s presence, and constructive contempt, involving conduct outside the court. Because a judge personally observes direct contempt, it can generally be addressed immediately. That distinction affects what notice and hearing procedures are required.

The contempt order described Brucato’s statements as occurring in the courtroom, in front of the judge and the other prospective jurors.

Disturbing evidence does not automatically excuse a juror

Prospective jurors are questioned during a process known as voir dire. Attorneys and the judge use that process to determine whether each person can consider the evidence fairly and follow the court’s instructions.

A prospective juror may explain that personal experiences, beliefs or emotional limitations would prevent impartial service. The judge may then excuse that person for cause. However, prospective jurors cannot excuse themselves simply by refusing to participate.

Texas recognizes several statutory exemptions from jury service, but being uncomfortable with the allegations in a case is not among them.

Under Section 62.106 of the Texas Government Code, exemptions are available to people who are 75 or older, certain students, primary caretakers, some parents of children younger than 12 and qualifying deployed military personnel, among others. A court may also excuse a person because of a physical or mental impairment under separate provisions.

Brucato was 71 and therefore did not qualify for the age-based exemption. The public court order did not indicate that she asserted another statutory exemption or requested an accommodation based on an impairment.

The Texas Judicial Branch’s jury-service guidance advises anyone uncertain about eligibility or an exemption to contact the court identified on the summons.

Trial ended with a life sentence

The underlying criminal trial concluded shortly after the contempt order.

Jurors convicted the 35-year-old Gonzales of repeatedly sexually abusing a child younger than 14 between September 2024 and March 2025. The jury then sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, according to KCBD’s report on the verdict.

That verdict was returned on March 4, one day before the latest possible release time listed in Brucato’s contempt order.

The episode illustrates the obligation prospective jurors assume when they report to court: They may raise legitimate concerns and request to be excused, but the judge—not the individual juror—decides whether their service has ended.