A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has come under scrutiny after being admonished for entering the private offices of her colleagues and examining their documents and computers. The California Commission on Judicial Performance revealed this misconduct involving Judge Daviann L. Mitchell, who has been on the bench since 2006. The incidents occurred in 2023 at the Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse in Lancaster, where Mitchell worked under Supervising Judge Denise McLaughlin-Bennett.
According to the commission’s report, Judge Mitchell repeatedly accessed the chambers of both McLaughlin-Bennett and Judge Kathleen Blanchard without their consent. This breach of trust prompted McLaughlin-Bennett to secure her office by locking the door and advising other judicial officers to lock their computers at night. Despite these precautions, Mitchell continued to enter McLaughlin-Bennett’s chambers until the supervising judge was forced to change her locks.
The commission’s findings indicate that Mitchell used a master key to enter Judge Blanchard’s office, where she attempted to access the judge’s computer and rummaged through papers on her desk. Such actions were deemed a serious violation of judicial ethics, undermining the integrity and independence expected of the judiciary.
In response to the allegations, Judge Mitchell expressed remorse, attributing her behavior to a period of significant personal and professional stress. She acknowledged that her actions did not reflect her true character and pledged to uphold the highest standards of conduct in her judicial role moving forward.
The commission’s admonishment also highlighted other inappropriate comments made by Mitchell during court proceedings, including remarks about a defendant’s physical appearance in a sensitive case involving sex crimes against children. This was not the first time Mitchell faced disciplinary action; she had previously been admonished in 2010 for failing to disclose her involvement in dog breeding while presiding over a related criminal case.
The case raises important questions about the standards of conduct expected from judges and the mechanisms in place to address judicial misconduct. The California Commission on Judicial Performance is tasked with investigating such complaints and ensuring that judges adhere to ethical guidelines, preserving public trust in the judicial system.