Prosecutors in the judicial misconduct case against former Dallas County District Court Judge Amber Givens on Friday asked a Special Court of Review to penalize Givens with the harshest sanction available for her alleged actions and behavior on the bench.
The request came in a 22-page brief filed Friday by lawyers from the attorney general’s office. Givens’ lawyers have until April 10 to file a response.
Givens’ lead attorney, Chip Babcock, declined to comment late Friday because he hadn’t had a chance to review the filing.
Givens stepped down from the 282nd District Court in December to run for Dallas County district attorney. She defeated incumbent John Creuzot in the March 3 Democratic primary and will head into the November general election unopposed.
Breaking News
Related
Among the most serious charges Givens faces is an allegation that she allowed a staff member to stand in for her during an August 2021 virtual bond hearing, which the prosecutors argued they proved during a trial held last month before a three-judge panel in Austin.
Two Dallas County prosecutors and two probation officers who took part in the virtual hearing told the panel they never saw Givens on the screen or heard her speak. The voice they heard coming from Givens’ participant window on the screen was the very distinct voice of her court coordinator, Arceola Warfield, they testified.
Givens and one of her former bailiffs told the panel she was having technical difficulties that day and participated in the hearing by phone.
Prosecutors’ argument
Assistant Attorneys General Bradley Wurster and John Grey argued in their court filing that testimony from the bailiff, which was presented through a videotaped deposition, was not consistent with the judge’s. Givens told the panel she participated for about a minute, and only said she was granting bond and that Warfield would read the terms. Her attorney provided phone records to back up her statement.
But bailiff Kenneth Brame testified he heard more. He said Givens told the participants she was having technical difficulties and that the parties agreed to go forward. He also said Givens talked about the bond amount and her decision to have the defendant wear an electronic monitor.
Related
“Multiple reliable and credible witnesses, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers testified that Judge Givens was never present during the [bond] hearing or informed the witnesses otherwise,” Wurster and Grey wrote. “These witnesses testified that they had no technical issues and were not made aware that Judge Givens had any.”
The prosecutors also questioned why Warfield was not called as a witness by Givens’ lawyers, as well as why she “evaded” their efforts to subpoena her.
“Interestingly, Judge Givens did not list Warfield as a witness nor call Warfield to the stand, nor did she attempt to secure her attendance at the trial,” the prosecutors wrote. “The [Special Court of Review] should make a reasonable inference that Warfield’s testimony would have been unfavorable to Judge Givens, considering witnesses in SCR proceedings have a qualified immunity from prosecution and can be ordered to answer incriminating questions over the assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege. Warfield’s testimony would have clarified many of the unanswered questions in this matter.”
Looking back
The case against Givens began in 2021 after leaders of the Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association filed two complaints against her with the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. In addition to the allegations involving the bond hearing, they accused her of harshly treating lawyers and defendants appearing before her on multiple occasions.
Another investigation was initiated the following year by the commission after Givens was accused of presiding over two criminal cases after she’d been recused, jailing a man in one case and revoking bond from another.
Last July, the commission issued a public reprimand, the harshest sanction available, and a public admonition against Givens. She appealed, which led to last month’s trial.
The Special Court of Review asked the lawyers for both sides to file arguments in the case afterward, with Friday being the first deadline. Givens’ lawyers must respond by April 10, and then prosecutors have until April 24 to submit their final arguments. The panel, which consists of appellate court justices from various parts of the state, is expected to issue a decision sometime after that.