HARRIS COUNTY, TX – Dr. Candice Matthews issued a public statement raising concerns about judicial accountability involving Tamika Craft.
Dr. Matthews stated that her team obtained and reviewed official court documents from the Harris County Clerk’s records that reflect Judge Craft filed or was associated with pleadings under a name different from her publicly recognized judicial name.
According to Dr. Matthews, judicial officers are bound by the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to uphold transparency, accuracy, and integrity in all official acts. She stated that court filings are legal instruments and that names used in pleadings are legally significant.
Dr. Matthews said that when a judge appears in court records under a different name than the one under which she holds judicial office, the public is entitled to a clear and immediate explanation.
In her statement, Dr. Matthews raised concerns regarding whether proper disclosure of any name change was made in accordance with legal requirements, whether litigants were fully informed of the identity of the presiding judicial officer, whether court records reflect complete transparency, and whether the situation creates any procedural or ethical implications.
Dr. Matthews stated that she is formally requesting clarification and review by the appropriate oversight authorities to determine whether the conduct complies with the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and applicable laws.
She concluded that the people of Harris County deserve a judiciary that operates with full transparency and without the appearance of impropriety.
As part of her statement, Dr. Matthews cited provisions of the Texas Constitution. She referenced Article II, Section 1, regarding separation of powers, which divides state government into three distinct departments and provides that no person in one department shall exercise powers properly attached to another. She stated that judges belong to the judicial branch and that public debate of accusations in the media, particularly about cases, can raise separation of powers concerns and impact judicial neutrality.
She also cited Article V, Section 1-a, which establishes the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct and provides that judges may be disciplined for willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of judicial duties or that casts public discredit upon the judiciary. Dr. Matthews stated that this constitutional provision gives authority to enforce the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and allows for disciplinary proceedings when conduct undermines confidence in the judiciary.
Additionally, she referenced Article V, Section 1, which vests judicial power in the courts of the state. Dr. Matthews stated that judicial authority is exercised through orders, judgments, written opinions, and official proceedings.
Dr. Matthews further referenced Canon 3B(10) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that a judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding. She stated that this provision is one of the reasons judges typically do not respond to media scrutiny regarding cases.
Dr. Matthews stated that, taken together, these constitutional provisions and judicial conduct rules form the basis for expectations of judicial independence and restrictions on public commentary.
Discover more from Houston Stringer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.