Her lawyer cites bond hearing, recusal and conduct allegations as unsupported, part of yearslong campaign against Givens, who won Democratic primary for Dallas County district attorney.
By Jane Harper,Staff Writer
Former Judge Amber Givens’ attorneys on Friday asked a Special Court of Review to dismiss misconduct charges from her time on the bench, calling efforts to sanction her vindictive and unjust.
The request was made in a 23-page brief filed by Givens’ lead attorney, Chip Babcock.
“Judge Givens has provided specific evidence to demonstrate that not only has the commission failed to meet its burden, but the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that these six years of unrelenting attacks are false and without any basis,” Babcock said Friday after filing his brief.
Givens stepped down from the 282nd State 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.
The filing was submitted in response to arguments prosecutors from the attorney general’s office made last month, asking the court to penalize Givens with the harshest sanctions available.
Assistant Attorneys General Bradley Wurster and John Grey didn’t immediately respond Friday to a request for comment on Givens’ brief. Givens also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
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. She’s also accused of taking action in two criminal cases after she’d been recused – revoking bond from one man and jailing another – and harshly treating lawyers and defendants appearing before her on multiple occasions.
Babcock previously said if the panel of judges decided against her “it would trail her political career, but that’s about it.” He said considering Givens won her race by almost 20,000 votes despite years of media coverage about the misconduct accusations, she likely wouldn’t suffer politically.
Defense’s argument
In the filing, the defense attorney referred to messages sent by leaders of the Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in which they discussed their desire to target Givens, getting her off the bench and charged, or “at least investigated with a crime,” as evidence of a campaign against her.
Babcock wrote that videos submitted by the lawyers group were edited, manipulated and shouldn’t be trusted. The videos were used by the group to back up its statements that Givens had failed to treat lawyers in her court with the patience, courtesy and dignity expected of judges.
He also argued that Givens’ treatment of the attorneys did not violate judicial standards, and pointed out that two of the three lawyers involved testified at trial that they thought Givens was “fair” and a “good judge.” None of the attorneys involved filed complaints against Givens, nor were they aware until sometime later that complaints involving them had been made.
In the incident on the bond hearing, Babcock argued Givens’ cell phone records and testimony from a former bailiff in her court proved she participated in the virtual hearing by phone after having computer issues at home. The phone records showed she was on the phone with her coordinator at the time, and the bailiff said he heard her voice.
As for the two cases involving her recusal actions, Babcock said the court’s computer system indicated Givens was still the judge on the case. He also pointed to testimony from a retired judge assigned to handle cases Givens had been recused from in which he said he was “confident” she didn’t know she had been removed from the cases when she acted in them.
Looking back
The case against Givens began in 2021 after leaders of the lawyers group filed two complaints against her with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Those complaints included the allegations about the bond hearing, and her treatment of lawyers and defendants appearing before her.
The investigation into the recusal allegations was initiated the next year by the commission after news reports about them. Last July, the commission issued a public reprimand, the harshest sanction available, and a public admonition against Givens. She appealed, which led to a two-day trial in late February before a Special Court of Review.
The review court asked both sides to provide arguments in the case, and set three deadlines. Prosecutors met the first one March 20, and the defense met its deadline Friday. The last submission date is April 24 when prosecutors must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.
The three-member review court is expected to issue a decision sometime after that. The only consequence to Givens’ future career would be if a public reprimand is issued, which would prevent her from serving as a visiting judge.
Senior Staff Writer
Jane Harper is a Senior Staff Writer for the Dallas Morning News.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login