Supreme Court Intervenes After Misconduct by Judge Janelle Haverkamp
In a stunning development that has sent shockwaves through North Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to review a decades old murder conviction after finding serious concerns about the conduct of former prosecutor and now sitting district judge, Janelle Haverkamp. (the Only District Judge for Cooke County)
This extraordinary move comes amid growing public discussion about misconduct and constitutional violations within the North Texas judicial system, raising urgent questions about how many cases may have been affected.
A Conviction Under Fire The case at the center of the controversy dates back to 1997, when Michael Jerome Newberry was convicted of murder in Cooke County. At the time, Haverkamp was a prosecutor handling the case.
For nearly 30 years, the public was made to believe the conviction was straightforward. Newly uncovered evidence tells a very different story one that the jury never heard.
Evidence Hidden for Decades
According to court findings, key evidence was intentionally withheld, including:
Police and grand jury statements from the alleged accomplice
Information showing the accomplice had possession of the murder weapon
His violent criminal history, including a drive‑by shooting
Statements that could have undermined the State’s entire case
None of this was disclosed to the defense. All of it was in the hands of the prosecutor Janelle Haverkamp.
A Judge Sounds the Alarm
In 2025, visiting Judge Lee Gabriel reviewed the case and issued a 43‑page ruling that shook the legal community.
Her conclusion: Haverkamp intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence, violating Newberry’s constitutional rights. She further stated that the hidden evidence could have changed the jury’s verdict.
This is the definition of a Brady violation one of the most serious forms of prosecutorial misconduct.
The State of Texas Admits the Truth
In early 2026, Cooke County District Attorney John Warren filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court that stunned observers.
In that filing, the State admitted it “no longer has confidence in the verdict.” Warren confirmed that Haverkamp withheld evidence and stated that if a new trial were granted, the State would dismiss the charges.
When a district attorney publicly acknowledges misconduct by a sitting judge, the implications are enormous.
Supreme Court Takes Action
In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court took the rare step of vacating the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ denial of relief. The Court ordered Texas to reconsider the case, signaling that the issues were too serious to ignore.
This level of intervention is almost unheard of in state criminal cases.
Part of a Larger Pattern in North Texas
This case is not an isolated incident. Across North Texas, residents have been raising concerns about:
Withheld evidence
Wrongful convictions
Prosecutorial misconduct
Judges ignoring constitutional obligations
Lack of transparency and oversight
The Newberry case and Haverkamp’s role in it fits into a broader pattern that communities have been warning about for years.
Why This Matters Now
Janelle Haverkamp is currently the only district judge in Cooke County. Every criminal and civil case passes through her courtroom.
Earlier this year, Haverkamp made headlines across North Texas when she became embroiled in a series of disputes and accusations being Recused from nearly 400 cases.
In April 2025, Presiding Judge David Evans ordered Haverkamp recused (removed) from 397 cases due to concerns about her conduct and impartiality.
Earlier this year, Haverkamp was already facing scrutiny for her conduct. But the situation escalated dramatically when she allegedly called a local defense attorney from Ireland, where she was vacationing, and accused him of “engaging in a conspiracy against her.”
According to court filings, the attorney "Lee Tatum" reported that Haverkamp told him she did not trust him and believed he was working against her. Legal experts say this type of contact is strictly forbidden and destroys the appearance of neutrality every judge is required to maintain.
Administrative Judge David Evans agreed. He removed Haverkamp from three of Tatum’s cases.
Former Judge Scott Becker told WFAA that such behavior is “a problem” because it shows she is no longer a neutral decision‑maker.
This incident, combined with earlier disputes and accusations, has deepened concerns about Haverkamp’s fitness to serve on the bench.
Accused of bias and retaliation
Multiple filings accused Haverkamp of showing bias against attorneys, including a high‑profile dispute where she allegedly claimed an attorney was “conspiring against her.”
When a judge has a documented history of withholding evidence and violating constitutional rights, the public has every right to demand:
Accountability
Oversight
Case reviews
And transparency
This is not about politics. This is about justice, public trust, and the safety of every family in Cooke County and across North Texas.