HOUSTON, TX – Screenshots appearing to show private text message exchanges between Judge Damiane Dianne Curvey and Dr. Candice Matthews are drawing attention as public discussions continue regarding court access, judicial proceedings, and questions surrounding judicial impartiality.
The messages appear to show discussions concerning courtroom access, Zoom proceedings, and Dr. Matthews’ objections to certain judicial decisions. The communications also appear to involve concerns raised by Dr. Matthews about cases before the court.
According to Dr. Matthews, the communications occurred while concerns were being raised regarding judicial conduct and a potential complaint involving another judge. Dr. Matthews states that she declined invitations to meet privately because she believed any discussion regarding a potential judicial complaint would be inappropriate and could create ethical concerns.
The screenshots have surfaced amid ongoing public debate regarding judicial transparency, recusal standards, and public confidence in the judiciary.
Dr. Matthews has previously argued that direct communications between a judge and a party or public critic can create concerns about the appearance of impartiality. Whether the communications have any legal significance is a matter for the appropriate judicial and legal authorities to determine.
“The issue is not whether we exchanged messages. The issue is whether a judge who has engaged in direct communications with an individual can later preside over matters where her impartiality may reasonably be questioned. Public trust in the judiciary requires transparency, accountability, and fairness,” Dr. Matthews said.
“The reason I refused to meet was simple: judicial complaints should stand on the facts, evidence, and the law, not private conversations behind closed doors. I believe accountability requires transparency. If a complaint is warranted, it should be addressed through the proper process, not through private meetings,” Dr. Matthews said.
Dr. Matthews further stated that the public deserves confidence that judicial conduct matters are handled openly, fairly, and without the appearance of undue influence.
