Page 1
CJP Publicly Admonishes LASC Judge Daviann L. Mitchell
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
|
|
|
DAVIANN MITCHELL Superior Court judge |
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daviann L. Mitchell Tuesday drew a public admonishment from the judicial disciplinary body for sneaking into the chambers of other judges, after court hours, as well as for remarks made to a criminal defendant who was charged with child molestation, and who was mulling a proposed plea bargain, indicating that he was “handsome” and would be “an attraction” in prison.
The Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) said:
“On multiple occasions in 2023, Judge Mitchell entered the chambers of Supervising Judge Denise McLaughlin-Bennett and Judge Kathleen Blanchard after court hours, without their permission. At the time, Judge McLaughlin-Bennett supervised Judge Mitchell. Judge Mitchell was serving as the court’s assistant supervising judge.
“When Judge McLaughlin-Bennett learned that someone was entering her chambers, which contained confidential documents regarding the court’s judges, she began locking her door, and later arranged to have confidential documents relocated. Judge McLaughlin-Bennett convened a meeting with the court’s judicial officers and advised them to lock their computers in the evenings….Ultimately, Supervising Judge McLaughlin-Bennett had the lock changed to the door of her chambers because of Judge Mitchell’s continuing unauthorized entries….”
Other Entries
As to Blanchard’s chambers, the CJP’s order says:
“Judge Mitchell also entered the chambers of Judge Kathleen Blanchard on multiple occasions….When Judge Mitchell entered Judge Blanchard’s chambers, the door was locked (but accessible with a chambers’ master key), and Judge Blanchard was no longer in the courthouse. Judge Mitchell attempted to access Judge Blanchard’s computer and searched through papers on and in her desk and other storage areas, including closed cabinets and her personal briefcase. The papers Judge Mitchell searched through in Judge Blanchard’s chambers were not court files or documents necessary for Judge Mitchell to perform her judicial or administrative duties.”
Acknowledging “Judge Mitchell’s expressions of remorse for her actions” and “the impact of personal and professional stressors on her mental health,” the regulatory body said the conduct “was a serious breach of the expected trust shared among judicial colleagues and entirely at odds with the behavior expected of judges.”
The order does not set forth the reason for Mitchell’s presence in her colleagues’ chambers.
Improper Comments
On June 22, 2023, Mitchell presided over the criminal case of People v. Stuart Cooper Young. The prosecutor and defense attorney informed her that they had negotiated a plea agreement under which the defendant, who had originally been charged with multiple counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts involving children, would plead no contest to the lesser offenses of child endangerment and annoying or molesting minors. With permission of the defense lawyer, Mitchell addressed the defendant directly, 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?
“And you understand that state prisoners are not welcoming to people that touch children or hurt their wives or girlfriends. There’s not a welcoming unit. They tend to put you in a different location so you’re safe to try to protect you. But you have to look at all these different factors. I would be remiss if I didn’t share that with you. So that’s another factor that you have to consider.”
The CJP commented that “Judge Mitchell’s remarks about the defendant’s physical appearance and how other prisoners would treat him in prison were discourteous and undignified” and “Judge Mitchell’s conduct constituted a failure to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, in violation of canon 3B(4), and to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of canon 2A.”
Prior Discipline
In deciding to issue the public admonishment, the commission took into account a prior disciplinary action, noting that “[i]n 2010, Judge Mitchell received an advisory letter for failing to disclose on the record her extensive involvement in dog breeding and handling in a case involving criminal abuse of dogs, commenting on the defendant’s motion to disqualify her for cause, and remanding the defendant into custody in a manner that appeared to be retaliatory.”
Mitchell had, however, made the disclosure in chambers.
Eight members of the commission, including Justice William S. Dato of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa B. Lench, voted in favor of the public admonishment. Commission member Beatriz E. Tapia was recused, and Commissioner Rickey Ivie did not participate.
One public member position was vacant.
Mitchell provided public comment on the admonishment, saying:
“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.”
She continued:
“I am very appreciative of the work of the Commission and the responsibilities bestowed upon them. 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.”
The jurist is a graduate of Southwestern Law School and a former prosecutor with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. She was named as one of six “Persons of the Year” for 2024 by the METNEWS and honored at a ceremony at the California Club on Jan. 31.
Mitchell initially declined the honor, explaining, in confidence, that disciplinary action was impending. She agreed to be an honoree after receiving an assurance that the information did not alter the newspaper’s high esteem for her.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company