In a sweeping reversal of disciplinary action imposed last year, a Special Court of Review has dismissed all public reprimands and public admonitions issued against Dallas County District Judge Amber Givens.

The three-justice panel concluded that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct failed to prove any of its charges against Givens by a preponderance of the evidence. The July 16 opinion followed a two-day trial at which 14 witnesses testified and hundreds of documents, along with video evidence, were considered. As a result, none of the public sanctions reported by The Hawk’s Eye in July 2025 remain in effect.

The panel did not individually declare that every disputed incident never occurred. Instead, it determined that, when the evidence was considered as a whole, the Commission failed to carry its legal burden on each charge.

Every Disciplinary Charge Dismissed

The Special Court of Review dismissed the Commission’s reprimands involving allegations that Givens allowed her court coordinator to preside over a virtual bond hearing, mistreated attorneys, demonstrated bias against members of the Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and mishandled recusal motions. It also dismissed allegations arising from Givens’ decision to record a telephone conversation with Regional Presiding Judge Ray Wheless without his knowledge. Those allegations had formed the basis of two public reprimands issued by the Commission on June 23, 2025.

The court also dismissed two public admonitions involving individuals Givens ordered jailed or arrested after she had been recused from their cases. The Commission previously found that Givens lacked authority to act in those matters and violated the individuals’ due-process rights. Givens maintained that shortcomings in Dallas County’s case-management system prevented her from knowing that the recusals had been properly entered.

In total, the Commission’s charging document accused Givens of violating several provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and the Texas Constitution. The allegations included failing to follow the law, failing to hear and decide assigned matters, failing to treat people with patience and dignity, exhibiting bias or prejudice and engaging in conduct that brought public discredit upon the judiciary. The review court dismissed every charge.

Two-Day Trial Replaced Commission’s Earlier Findings

Givens exercised her statutory right to request review of the sanctions, prompting the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court to appoint a Special Court of Review. Unlike a traditional appeal that generally examines whether a lower body committed an error, the proceeding was a trial de novo. That required the panel to consider the controversy from the beginning and decide the charges based on the evidence presented during the new trial.

Chief Justice Scott Golemon of the Ninth Court of Appeals presided over the panel. Justice Gisela Triana of the Third Court of Appeals and Justice Lee Harris of the Tenth Court of Appeals also participated by appointment. The trial was held on February 24 and 25, 2026.

Witnesses called during the proceeding included attorneys who practiced before Givens, probation officers, court personnel, Judge Wheless, Judge Michael Snipes, Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot and a representative of the Commission. Givens also testified and was subjected to cross-examination and questions from the panel. Her defense presented additional testimony through video depositions.

Panel Points to Software Problems and Conflicting Testimony

In its six-page opinion, the panel described Givens as “certainly a polarizing individual,” but determined that characterization was not enough to establish judicial misconduct. The justices pointed to evidence showing that software used by the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office made it difficult for a judge to determine whether a recusal motion had been filed or granted. The court also acknowledged the unusual challenges trial courts faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The panel noted that testimony about specific incidents contained several inconsistencies, some of which it considered understandable because of the amount of time that had passed. After reviewing the testimony, documents and video evidence collectively, the court found that the Commission had not proven the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. That civil standard required the Commission to show that each alleged violation was more likely than not to have occurred as charged.

The opinion did not provide a separate, detailed credibility determination or factual analysis for each disputed incident. Instead, the panel issued a collective determination covering Charges I, II, IV, V and VI; the Commission had not filed a Charge III. It concluded that none of the charges met the required evidentiary threshold.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---