UPDATE: Contempt Of Court Case Against Dallas County DA John Creuzot Dismissed
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Attorneys for the two sides of the contempt of court case against Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot have agreed to have the case dismissed.
That motion has yet to be signed off on by the presiding judge.
The case stemmed from a TV interview Creuzot did days before the Amber Guyger murder trial began.
Judge Tammy Kemp said Cruezot violated her gag order.
Judge Kemp was removed from the contempt of court case in November.
Court documents say, “While Cruezot should have declined comment about the case in light of the order, his specific statements did not violate the restrictions in the order.”
Guyger stood on trial in October for the deadly shooting of Botham Jean in 2018.
She was convicted of his murder and sentenced to 10 years in prison. She will first be eligible for parole in five years.
Judge Kemp ordered a show cause hearing for Creuzot to explain why he was not in contempt of the gag order and why he should not be sent to jail over comments he made about the trial to a local TV station.
In the order, Kemp said the interview was a “direct violation” of the gag order she set in place to prevent Creuzot from publicly speaking about the case.
However, Creuzot’s attorney Brian Wice said Kemp issued the order “not because [Creuzot] even came close to violating her… but because [Kemp] was offended by his brief, benign and non-prejudicial comments to Fox 4 about the Amber Guyger trial. Period.”
The underlying narrative in this contempt matter — what it is and will always be about — is Respondent’s [Kemp’s] insistence on issuing a show cause order against Judge Creuzot, not because he even came close to violating her sua sponte void unconstitutional gag order, but because Respondent [Kemp] was offended by his brief, benign, and non-prejudicial comments to Fox 4-TV about the Amber Guyger trial. Period. But whether Judge Creuzot’s comments offended Respondent [Kemp] is most assuredly not the test this Court is obligated to employ in determining if he is guilty of contempt of court.