A judge who lives in the Santa Clarita Valley has been publicly admonished by the state’s judicial oversight commission for entering her colleagues’ chambers without permission multiple times and making inappropriate remarks to a defendant.
The state Commission on Judicial Performance on Feb. 11 announced the public admonishment of Daviann Mitchell, describing her behavior as “a serious breach of the expected trust shared among judicial colleagues and entirely at odds with the behavior expected of judges.”
“The commission found that Judge Mitchell entered the chambers of other judges without permission, after court hours, and for an improper purpose; and, in a criminal case, made improper remarks to the defendant while discussing a potential plea agreement,” per the CJP.
At the time, Mitchell was a judge at the Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse in Lancaster. She is currently a judge at the Santa Clarita Courthouse.
Gregory Dresser, director-chief counsel for the CJP, described the letter as the commission’s third level of disciplinary action, above an advisory letter and then a private admonishment. The next step would be a censure, he said, and beyond that would be removal from office.
“A public admonishment is a serious level of discipline. The commission probably issues somewhere between five and 10 public admonishments per year,” he said.
The admonishment notes Mitchell expressed remorse for conduct she recognized as “entirely unacceptable” in response to the panel’s initial findings, which she later contested. “Mitchell stated she ‘lost her way’ in a period of significant personal and professional stress that negatively affected her mental health and her ability to function normally,” according to the CJP. “She described her efforts to seek the advice of mentors and court management to address the underlying personal issues with her colleagues.”
The issues with her colleagues involved allegations that on multiple occasions in 2023, Mitchell “entered the chambers of Supervising Judge Denise McLaughlin-Bennett and Judge Kathleen Blanchard after court hours, without their permission,” per the CJP’s findings.
McLaughlin-Bennett learned of the concern and convened a meeting with the court’s judicial officers and advised them to lock their computers in the evenings, according to the CJP.
“Judge Mitchell’s conduct constituted a failure to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and to personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved,” according to the CJP letter.
The second incident cited in the admonition involved an Antelope Valley case in which the defendant was presented a plea deal.
“While speaking to (the defendant), Judge Mitchell commented on the defendant’s appearance and noted that people convicted of charges like those Mr. Young faced are not treated well in prison,” according to the admonishment.
It quoted Mitchell as saying, “You’re a younger man. You’re a handsome man, and you are very well built, and you will be an attraction in state prison, and that’s thinking about being there for, potentially, up to 18 years is something you will have to think about. Is that the environment that you want to be in?”
She added that state inmates “are not welcoming to people that touch children or hurt their wives or girlfriends.”
The CJP letter states “Mitchell acknowledged that any comment on a defendant’s physical appearance may be problematic and indicated that she regretted her word choice.”
Mitchell issued the following prepared statement in response to the admonition:
“Today I received a public admonishment from the Commission on Judicial Performance. This admonishment addresses conduct that occurred during a period of extreme personal and professional stress, resulting in a perfect storm where I lost my way and engaged in behavior that does not reflect the person I know myself to be. These choices were my own for which I take full responsibility. I am committed to a future consistent with my lifelong dedication to acting with integrity and upholding the highest standards of my judicial office with compassion, kindness, and grace. I am very appreciative of the work of the commission and the responsibilities bestowed upon them.”
Mitchell’s statement concluded: “I also want to thank my attorneys Heather Rosing and Christine Rosskopf for their hard work on my case and assistance during a tremendously difficult time. Most importantly, I am humbled and eternally grateful for the support of my court family, my family and friends, and my ability to continue the work of serving the people of the state of California.”
