Skip to content 
The phrase “Texas Two-Step” might conjure up images of cowboy boots and honky-tonk dance floors, but in the legal world, it takes on a much darker meaning. Over the years, this term has come to describe a controversial legal maneuver used by individuals and corporations to dodge responsibility, stall legal proceedings, or manipulate outcomes in their favor. It’s a metaphor for a tactical sidestep, and in the realm of criminal defense, it can be both cunning and dangerous.
In Texas, where the legal system faces a constant balancing act between protecting the rights of the accused and delivering justice to victims, this so-called two-step strategy has taken on many forms. From procedural delays to jurisdictional loopholes, the ‘Texas Two-Step’ defense is all about dancing around accountability. But how does it work, who uses it, and what can be done to close the gaps that allow it to thrive? This article breaks down the mechanics of this legal sidestep, the controversies surrounding its use, and what it reveals about the broader justice system in Texas.
What Is the ‘Texas Two-Step’ in Legal Terms?
Originally coined in civil litigation—particularly bankruptcy cases—the phrase “Texas Two-Step” referred to a legal tactic where a company would split into two entities, dumping liabilities into one while preserving assets in the other, then sending the liability-heavy shell into bankruptcy to limit exposure to lawsuits. This tactic, though not exclusive to Texas, found a friendly legal environment in the state thanks to its lenient corporate laws and court precedents.
But as with many creative legal interpretations, the strategy has evolved and crept into other areas of the law—including criminal defense. In the criminal context, the Texas Two-Step involves a combination of legal loopholes, procedural manipulation, and tactical stalling to disrupt the momentum of prosecution or delay the inevitable. It’s not a recognized legal doctrine, but rather a catch-all for a collection of methods designed to sidestep justice without technically breaking the law.
How Criminal Defendants Exploit the Two-Step
When defendants—or more often, their legal teams—employ the Texas Two-Step in criminal matters, the tactics often fall under three broad categories: procedural maneuvering, venue gamesmanship, and strategic delay.
Procedural Maneuvering
This step involves challenging the way charges were filed, questioning the legality of searches and seizures, or exploiting weak procedural filings to have charges dismissed or delayed. While these actions are entirely within a defendant’s rights, they can be abused as stalling mechanisms. Some defense teams will file repetitive motions, seek multiple continuances, or challenge the admissibility of crucial evidence, not necessarily because they believe in the merit of their argument, but because they aim to wear down the prosecution, buy time, or frustrate witnesses and victims.
Venue and Jurisdiction Tactics
Texas’s vast size and varying judicial environments from one county to the next create opportunities for defendants to try changing venues to more favorable jurisdictions. Some counties are more lenient in sentencing, some juries more sympathetic, and some prosecutors more willing to negotiate. Defendants might argue that they cannot receive a fair trial in a particular county due to media attention or public bias, even when that may not be entirely true. By shifting the case elsewhere, they can hope for a more advantageous outcome.
Strategic Delays and Witness Fatigue
The third step in this not-so-danceable routine is simply running out the clock. Defense attorneys may intentionally slow the pace of proceedings in hopes that witnesses will lose interest, move away, or forget critical details. They may also hope for changes in the legal landscape—such as new laws or court rulings—that could retroactively benefit their client. Sometimes, cases drag on long enough that prosecutors retire or rotate out, forcing new teams to start over or abandon the case altogether.
Who Uses the ‘Texas Two-Step’?
While corporations were the original stars of the Two-Step, this tactic has become a go-to move for a wide range of criminal defendants—from white-collar criminals to violent offenders. High-profile cases involving political figures, business executives, and celebrities often include elements of this defense, as their lawyers pull every possible lever to reshape the narrative or delay proceedings.
In lower-profile cases, particularly those involving financial crimes, domestic abuse, or sexual assault, defendants sometimes rely on procedural disruption as a means of avoiding trial or intimidating victims into dropping charges. By dragging out the process, they capitalize on exhaustion and emotional strain.
The Court’s Role in Enabling or Halting the Two-Step
Texas courts are not blind to these tactics, and many judges actively try to prevent abuse of the system. However, the legal system places a high value on a defendant’s right to a fair trial, which includes the right to file motions, request continuances, and challenge evidence. The problem arises when the system is too lenient or when judges hesitate to deny requests for fear of appeals or accusations of bias. Texas court dockets often face backlogs that stretch delays into years, even when no one intentionally causes them. This structural bottleneck often gives an unintentional advantage to the Two-Step, making it harder for prosecutors and victims to maintain momentum and clarity throughout the trial process.
Public Perception and the Trust Gap
One of the most damaging aspects of the Texas Two-Step is what it does to public trust. When powerful or well-connected defendants dance around justice, they reinforce the belief that the legal system is rigged or uneven. This perception undermines confidence in the rule of law and discourages victims from coming forward. It also casts doubt on the legitimacy of legal outcomes, even when they are technically lawful. In short, it creates a credibility crisis, especially in a state that prides itself on tough, swift justice.
Legislative Attempts to Close the Gaps
Recognizing the growing abuse of procedural tactics, some Texas lawmakers have pushed for reforms that would limit frivolous motions, set stricter timelines, and increase oversight on venue changes.
For example, proposals have included:
- Limiting the number of continuances a defendant can request without new evidence
- Requiring faster timelines for pretrial hearings
- Increasing penalties for knowingly filing baseless motions
- Creating uniform standards for evaluating venue change requests
Defense advocates often resist these reforms, but they reflect a growing awareness that delays in justice can ultimately deny it.
Why the Two-Step Matters Beyond the Courtroom
This issue is not just about legal fairness. It affects victims’ rights, prosecutorial resources, and public safety. In criminal cases, delays can allow repeat offenders to remain free for extended periods, potentially committing more crimes in the process.
It also places a heavy emotional and financial toll on victims and their families, who may wait years for resolution or closure. Prosecutors, too, face burnout from handling cases that drag on indefinitely, reducing their effectiveness and diminishing morale in the judicial system.
The Ethical Line: Defense Rights vs. Manipulation
It’s crucial to distinguish between legitimate defense strategy and abuse of the system. Every accused person has the right to due process. Defense attorneys are also obligated to advocate vigorously for their clients. The issue arises when that advocacy crosses into manipulation—using the system’s complexity as a weapon, rather than as a safeguard.
Attorneys who intentionally delay justice or mislead courts walk a dangerous ethical line. Courts and bar associations have mechanisms to address such misconduct, but enforcement is inconsistent, and many questionable practices fall into a gray area that’s difficult to penalize.
Can the System Be Fixed?
Completely eliminating the Texas Two-Step may be unrealistic, but it can be contained. The first step is awareness—recognizing the patterns and educating the public, courts, and attorneys on where procedural rights end and manipulation begins. Better judicial training, stricter enforcement of timelines, and transparent tracking of delay tactics can all contribute to a more balanced courtroom. Technology, such as digital dockets and real-time case tracking, can also help monitor and flag cases where delays become excessive.
Ultimately, reforming the system will require the cooperation of judges, legislators, prosecutors, and the defense bar. It means creating a legal culture that values efficiency without sacrificing fairness and ensuring that no one—regardless of wealth or influence—can game the system without consequence.
In Conclusion
The “Texas Two-Step” may have started as a corporate bankruptcy maneuver, but its rhythm has seeped into the heart of the criminal justice system. While every defendant deserves a robust defense and a fair trial, exploiting procedural gaps to dodge justice threatens the very foundation of legal integrity. In Texas, where the dance between freedom and accountability plays out daily in courtrooms across the state, it’s time to change the tune. Justice doesn’t need fancy footwork—it needs transparency, efficiency, and the courage to call out the tactics that undermine its purpose.
