UPDATE: Former Dallas County District Judge Amber Givens is denying serious misconduct allegations during her trial, which concluded today at the Texas Supreme Court in Austin. Givens’ testimony comes amid accusations that she allowed a staff member to impersonate her during a crucial court proceeding in August 2021.
The allegations against Givens, which include claims of disrespect towards attorneys and unauthorized actions in two criminal cases after her recusal, were presented to a three-judge panel during this urgent trial. Givens, who resigned from her position in December to run against incumbent John Creuzot for Dallas County District Attorney, faces the potential of significant repercussions if the panel upholds sanctions from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
During her testimony, Givens detailed her challenges on August 3, 2021, stating she experienced car trouble and opted to work remotely, as permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic. When she could not access the virtual court session, she directed her court coordinator, Arceola Warfield, on how to log in from her computer. Givens claimed she communicated bond conditions through Warfield, including requiring the defendant to wear an ankle monitor.
The prosecution, led by two attorneys from the Attorney General’s Office, challenged Givens’ account. They presented testimony from two prosecutors and two probation officers, who asserted they never heard Givens’ voice during the hearing and were alarmed enough to report the incident to their supervisors.
Givens vehemently denied the allegations, calling them “disturbing.” She asserted, “I would have never asked Warfield to pretend to be me… I’m going to put my degree on the line? My license on the line? For a bond hearing? No.”
As the trial wrapped up, Givens’ attorney, Chip Babcock, presented phone records supporting her claims. A former bailiff testified via video deposition that he indeed heard Givens’ voice over the phone during the bond hearing. However, the absence of Warfield as a witness raised questions about the defense’s credibility.
The panel has yet to deliver a ruling, and a decision could take weeks. The justices can either reinstate the sanctions, which include a public reprimand—the harshest penalty available—or dismiss the allegations entirely. If upheld, Givens would be barred from serving as a visiting judge, a common post-retirement role for former judges.
The implications of this trial extend beyond Givens’ career; they could significantly impact her upcoming election campaign. With no Republican challengers, the primary winner on March 3 is likely to secure the role in the November general election. Givens is facing a tough battle against Creuzot, who also testified during the trial, providing insights into email communications that further complicate the case.
As the legal community watches closely, this trial underscores the ongoing scrutiny judges face in maintaining ethical standards. The proceedings have already sparked discussions about judicial accountability and the integrity of court operations in Texas.
Stay tuned for updates as this story develops.