Judicial Sanctions: Understanding the Recent Actions Against Dallas County Judge Amber Givens

Dallas County Judge Amber Givens was again sanctioned by the state’s judicial authority for jailing a man and revoking another’s bond despite being recused from their cases, according to the disciplinary document made public Monday.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct said Givens lacked the authority to intervene in both cases, the admonishment issued June 23 reads. This is the second sanction against Givens, who was reprimanded by the oversight body for allegedly ordering her court coordinator to impersonate her during an online hearing.

Understanding the Sanctions

An admonishment is the lightest public sanction issued by the commission, while a reprimand is the most severe. These sanctions are part of the regulatory measures in place to ensure that judges conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the integrity of the judicial system.

Givens’ lawyer, Russell Wilson, reiterated a previous statement to The Dallas Morning News when reached Monday: She “disagrees with the commission’s conclusions” and has called the complaints a “politically motivated attack.”

The Cases in Question

Attorneys filed a motion to remove Givens from a man’s drug case in July 2022, and a presiding judge was assigned in December that year. The man participated in Givens’ “Empowerment Program,” a rehabilitative program about how to successfully complete probation, according to Givens’ campaign website.

In fall 2023 — roughly nine months after a new judge was appointed — court staff informed Givens the man disrupted a program meeting, and the judge ordered him to appear before her, the admonishment says. Givens ultimately ordered him to serve 60 days in the Dallas County jail.

The man spent six days in jail before the presiding judge ordered he be released.

Another Case of Judicial Overreach

Givens voluntarily recused herself from an evading arrest case in August 2022. Again, the case was reassigned to a presiding judge.

According to the admonishment, Givens believed a July 6, 2023, hearing was in her court, but it was before the presiding judge, and the accused man was not required to appear. When neither the man nor his lawyers showed up to Givens’ court, she held the man’s bond as insufficient.

Technical Issues or Judicial Error?

In testimony before the state judicial commission, Givens blamed the county’s courts software system because the online docket did not reflect that she was recused from the cases, the admonishment says.

Prior Disciplinary Actions

Givens — whose term ends in 2026 — was disciplined last month over allegations by Dallas’ defense lawyer group that a court coordinator illegally acted as the judge during a virtual bail hearing in 2021.

Givens’ conduct “is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her judicial duties and cast public discredit upon the judiciary,” the reprimand issued June 23 reads.

Conclusion

The sanctions against Judge Givens highlight the importance of judicial accountability and the need for judges to adhere to the principles of fairness and impartiality. The cases in question underscore the potential consequences of judicial overreach and the importance of respecting the boundaries of judicial authority.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is an admonishment in the context of judicial sanctions?

An admonishment is the lightest public sanction issued by the judicial commission, indicating that a judge’s conduct was improper but not severe enough to warrant more serious disciplinary action.

Why was Judge Givens sanctioned?

Judge Givens was sanctioned for intervening in cases from which she had been recused, demonstrating a lack of respect for the boundaries of her judicial authority and the principles of fairness and impartiality.

What are the implications of these sanctions for Judge Givens and the judicial system?

The sanctions against Judge Givens serve as a reminder of the importance of judicial accountability and the need for judges to conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the integrity of the judicial system. They also highlight the potential consequences of judicial overreach and the importance of respecting the boundaries of judicial authority.