A state district judge has scheduled a hearing on whether to require depositions from the judge and prosecutor in the Charles Dean Hood death penalty trial, but the hearing is set for two days after his scheduled execution.

Attorneys for Mr. Hood have asked Judge Robert Dry to reconsider the order he handed down last week, asking instead that the hearing be held by Sept. 3.

Mr. Hood’s defense attorneys want to know if the judge and prosecutor were romantically involved as has been alleged by at least one former assistant district attorney, possibly affecting his right to a fair trial. Mr. Hood is set to die on Sept. 10.

In a letter to defense attorneys, Judge Dry acknowledged that the hearing would come after Mr. Hood’s date with death. But, he said, he had separated out from the case “any part of this motion that has to do with the murder conviction,” referring it to another district court. He said he would consider the petition to subpoena trial judge Verla Sue Holland and prosecutor Tom O’Connell “strictly from a civil standpoint.”

“In reality, you are exploring a civil lawsuit for the estate of Mr. Hood,” he wrote.

Judge Dry, who did not return a call for comment, noted in closing that, “I know Judge Holland and Tom O’Connell. It is likely that every local judge knows them.” He added he would consider a motion to recuse himself — which the defense declined.

Judge Holland presided over Mr. Hood’s trial for the robbery and murder of Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace 18 years ago, while former district attorney O’Connell prosecuted it. Earlier this summer, the former assistant district attorney swore in an affidavit that it was common knowledge that the two were romantically involved at the time.

Mr. Hood’s defense attorneys have tried unsuccessfully to raise the issue of the alleged relationship’s impact on Mr. Hood’s right to a fair trial in criminal courts, so they filed the request for depositions for a possible civil lawsuit earlier this month in a county court at law. The County Court judge said he didn’t have jurisdiction over the case, so it was assigned to Judge Dry.

Assistant district attorney John Rolater declined to comment Wednesday on the latest flurry of filings, citing pending litigation. But in court filings last week, he said the civil filings were simply another effort to challenge Mr. Hood’s conviction and sentence, which was inappropriate for civil court.

Mr. Hood’s original request that the proceedings be expedited because of his pending execution “renders transparent his suggestion that he is legitimately seeking to litigate a civil claim,” he wrote.

In their request for reconsideration of the hearing date, defense attorneys insisted that requests for a reprieve or clemency are civil proceedings and that the route they have chosen is appropriate.

Despite repeated rebuffs, attorney Greg Wiercioch said he remained hopeful.

“I still think there’s a possibility that he’ll give us an opportunity to talk about whether we should be entitled to these depositions before the execution date,” he said. “So I still think Judge Dry may do the right thing here.”

Mr. Hood narrowly escaped execution in June. Though defense attorneys failed to persuade a court to halt the procedure, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice refused to carry it out that night, because they ran out of time to do so before the death warrant expired at midnight.