I believe Kent isn't planning on actually resigning but instead plans on taking senior status (or some form of disability status) and intends on collecting his judicial salary for the rest of his life. Presumably, the only way to prevent that would be to impeach him.

I am no defender of groping or otherwise abusing women. It is uncivilized and clearly improper. Although IANAL, I assume it is technically a form of battery. And I further stipulate that it is worse if a judge does it because he should certainly know the law.

But honestly, is there NO CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY any longer? Groping two women could have led to LIFE IN PRISON? Why not just rape and murder them? As a plea bargain he may do THREE YEARS in jail? It's not enough to destroy his professional career? Is three years subjected to intolerably bad food, sadistic guards, the constant fear of sodomy and rape REALLY appropriate for acts of GROPING?

It takes a lot for me to feel sorry for a judge, who today wields seemingly arbitrary power over the lives of so many people who have harmed no one. But this is the sort of thing that begins to make me sympathize.

Unbelievable:

He's going to prison for lying to the Fifth Circuit committee that was investigating the allegations.

I think obstruction of justice by a federal judge is extraordinarily serious. If I could pick one crime that judges should not commit, it would be obstruction of justice. It destroys the public's faith in the system.

When you say the impeachment issue is moot, do you mean that as a practical or legal matter? Couldn't Congress impeach anyways to impose the ban on holding office in the future even though the judge already resigned?

and Texas Lawyer, his conviction is for lying to Judge Jones and the others on the investigative body- exceedingly bad form, if she is the one who has to pass on his 'disability' retirement.

Federal judicial pensions are a cliff- you can't cash out of it to any degree, before you are 65 and meet the "rule of 80," or at least that's how I understand it. Kent has been a federal judge more than 18 years, but if he resigns he is entitled to nothing. (Of course, he hasn't had to contribute anything to a retirement system either.)

Well before this, Kent was known as a bully- one of the worst examples of judicial arrogance in the country. More than once, he ordered parties to "stop filing post-trial motions" simply because he was an ass, as far as I can tell. Incredibly, on one occasion the 5th Circuit said he was wrong to do so- again- but nonetheless ruled against the appellant because he hadn't filed the post-trial motions the district judge had (wrongly) ordered him not to file. Yet, had the appellant defied Kent's order, I've got a feeling things would've gone quite badly for him.

Lastly, this episode says bad things about Judge Jones's leadership. It can't say much for the quality of the 'investigation' into his conduct, led by her, that the most they could come up with a few years back was a finding of "sexual harassment" with no impeachment recommendation.

In fact, far from mere "sexual harassment" (and I take issue with Ilya's use of the term to describe Kent's conduct also), this was multiple incidents of felony sexual assault. He compounded his felonious behavior by obstructing justice. Calling this behavior "sexual harassment" is a remarkable understatement. Of course, an episode like this may be the only kind of sexual harassment case Judge Jones would ever think proven, to judge from some of her past comments.

It's a final irony that all of this lands in Judge Jones's lap once again. However this plays out it will be a stinging rebuke to the 5th Circuit's earlier resolution of this matter, which looked for all the world like an attempt to sweep this under the rug.

For if she approves the 'disability' retirement, she will end up virtually guaranteeing Kent's impeachment by outraged Congresscritters. Yet if she refuses, Kent has the option of simply not resigning- once again forcing Congress to act to prevent the humiliating spectacle of his drawing a 170k judicial salary from prison. In either scenario the details of the "sexual harassment" could become public, and if indeed there is sufficient information released to make the public think sexual assault took place, Judge Jones's judgment would once again be in doubt.

But maybe Kent, if denied his disability pension, will just resign and go away quietly.

Let's not forget that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals whitewashed Judge Kent's misconduct - merely reprimanding him for "sexual harassment."

Why was he let off so easily by Edith Jones and the other Fifth Circuit judges?

Duffy Pratt: no. Kent's guilty plea was not conditioned on his resigning or retiring. It is irrelevant to his criminal case- except to the extent that, during his May sentencing proceedings, the judge may take into account whatever actions Kent takes with respect to his judicial position, i.e. anything involving acceptance of responsibility or other guidelines factors.

But could they re-prosecute him on one of the dropped charges? Absolutely not.

Ilya:

They could have recommended impeachment, which I believe they did with Porteous in Louisiana.

Ilya, re your 1:01 post: true- but they could have recommended impeachment. If the evidence they encountered suggested he had sexually assaulted multiple women, I think they should have. Of course we don't know what evidence they collected because they've never released it publicly. The US Attorney seems to have had little trouble obtaining strong evidence of serious crimes.

Hopefully this will all come out soon. I'd like to see some meaningful reform of the judicial discipline process- this, plus the Manuel Real fumble a few years back in the 9th Circuit, illustrates that the system has some real deficiencies in that area. But as you suggest, with life-tenured judges there's only so much you can do. Perhaps a more concerted effort at transparency will be enough.

If Judge Kent's behavior on the bench was really as unethical as is claimed, if he not only improperly forbade the filing of post-trial motions but was showing favoritism to his buddy's clients, shouldn't we be disturbed that it is the sexual assault charges that led to Judge Kent's removal? Without downplaying the seriousness of sexual assault, isn't official misconduct on the part of a judge more serious? This case suggests to me that the judicial system is not doing a very good job of policing itself.

Bill Poser, you can judge for yourself how egregious the case I referenced is. (If anything, the Fifth Circuit was equally at fault in the particular case- chastising the judge, but refusing to excuse the litigant who had done nothing worse than comply with an order. It was an abuse by Kent, and a bonehead play by the court.)

But I doubt anyone thought that Kent's abuses of power over lawyers and litigants, even taken in the aggregate, merited impeachment. At least, before we learned of the allegations of sexual assault- and the possibilities, investigated but never charged, of ties between Kent and some lawyers appearing before him. He was just a measure of how much power a federal judge has to make your life miserable; the embodiment of arrogance.

Wow TerrencePhilip,

I haven't heard both sides of the story. But, if the article you have linked to is fair and accurate, Edith Jones is a reprehensible human being with no place whatsoever on the Federal bench. She certainly should not have been confirmed.

For now, I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is another side to the story.

But seriously, the idea that factory workers have to put up with sexual harassment that would be inappropriate in a law office or white collar workplace, that is a really reprehensible view. If Edith Jones really thinks that, she has some serious issues.

Unbelievable:

The ruling class in this country (politicians and lawyers/judges) get away with a lot. There is no need to feel sorry for any sob who is caught and punished.

Would an ordinary citizen get a plea deal to serve 3 yrs when a conviction would result in life in prison? Eliot Spitzer is another example of one who got away easy.

Ilya Somin: Apparently, Judge Kent is trying to retire on "disability" rather than resign. If he manages to do the former, he would be eligible for a $169,300 annual pension for the rest of his life

A couple of years ago, to buy an annuity stream something like the one that Kent would receive, a 62-year-old male would pay $16 for every $1 of annuity. So, a $170K annuity for them would have been worth about $2.12M, and that $2.12M would not have bought them the solid gold (platinum?) pension a federal judge can look forward to, one that provides for uncapped COLAs and is an obligation of the federal government itself, not a AAA-rated insurance company. (Next year, federal retirees will get little or no COLA increase because of the presently very low rate of inflation. But this year, they got a record 5.8% COLA boost.) I don't know how much less it would be today to purchase such an annuity starting at age 65 rather than 62, but with interest rates currently as low as they are, I imagine it might now be more expensive to buy an annuity starting at age 65 than it was to buy one starting at age 62 a couple of years back, when I priced them. Hence, the value of the pension that Kent may be hoping to get is probably north of $2M.

Terrence Philip: (Of course, he hasn't had to contribute anything to a retirement system either.)

Is it in fact the case that federal judges contribute nothing to the retirement system? I don't know how it works for the federal judiciary; I do know that other civilian employees of the federal government make substantial contributions to the retirement system over the course of their working careers, and what they receive later tops out at about 80% of their high-3-year average pay if they have 42(!) years of service. (The military does not contribute to any retirement system other than Social Security.)

geokstr: Some serial gropers go on to become heroes to an entire segment of the political spectrum, are granted total absolution by the feminist movement, and are lionized by the MSM for life. Let me guess - this judge must be a right-winger.

The current governor of California? The senator from Oregon before he had to resign?

I agree with Unbelievable. This post implies that the judge faced life in prison-not for his abuses of power, or his lying, but for five sex-crime charges of groping two women. It truly is unbelievable. Murdering them would have yielded a lesser charge. Robbing them at gunpoint would have yielded a far lesser charge. Shooting and paralyzing them would have yielded a far lesser charge. Insane.

I take it you don't have much experience as a prosecutor.


Criminal statutes are drafted with an extraordinary degree of broadness. To the point where that "life in prison" is a bit of a canard. It's in there because a journalist looked at the statute without really knowing what happened.


I'm willing to bet the statute stops at "Sexual Assault (or Sexual Battery in some places) is....... A person convicted of Sexual Assault shall be guilty of a class A felony"

Then a different statute says "A class A felony shall be punishable by a maximum of life in prison." Or language to that effect.

There's the same problem at the bottom end of the scale. "Theft of Property with a value of less than $500" is a class A misdemeanor. So theoretically someone stealing a $1.50 packaged sandwich from a convenience store can be given a $1000 dolar fine and a year in prison.


But neither of those actually ever happen. That's the true essence of prosecutorial discretion.

Don't federal judges discarded for cause simply get elected to Congress?

All right, I gotta ask this, germane or not: Is it "pleaded" or "pled" - or maybe both are grammatically correct?

Going by my ear only, "pled" seems right, but I see "pleaded" everywhere, so maybe some of the lawyers (or English teachers) reading this blog have an answer....

Brooks, I don't have my legal usage manual at hand, but "pleaded" is at the very least accepted. Think of kneading some dough yesterday -- "I kneaded some dough," or "I kned some dough"? Personally I prefer "pleaded" but I would be hard pressed to say "pled" was incorrect.

(As opposed to "needing some dough," like Judge Kent.)

Brooks, "pleaded" is the traditional correct way to say it, but "pled" and "plead" [as past tense] have gained ground; I'd say all three forms are acceptable. I have used all three, depending on how they sound in the sentence; when you write something like "with that, the plaintiff has pled himself out of court" it just sounds better than "pleaded," to my ear at least.

Roger Schlafly:

I'm not sure if you're being facetious. But I think it's always been a crime to falsely testify that you did not commit a crime. You're free to not speak up, but if you testify, you must do so truthfully.

Judge Kent could have asserted his Fifth Amendment rights to the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council, but instead he chose to testify falsely.

ChrisTS, nothing can be done except impeachment- as we saw in the case of Judge Walter Nixon, who was convicted and imprisoned but still refused to resign; he had to be impeached. That is why most people hope he will just resign, once his disability request is denied (as it surely will be).

Bill Dyer,

the 5th Circuit called his conduct "sexual harassment." Unless he 'persuaded' them that he was trading sex for job emoluments, quid pro quo- a highly unlikely defense- their finding of "sexual harassment" means they found he engaged in unwelcome conduct, not consensual conduct. Otherwise they would not have called it "sexual harassment;" they would have called it consensual but inappropriate relationships with subordinates.

Roger Schlafly:

Judge Kent's conviction is based on the fact that he gave false testimony and obstructed justice. I think it's disingenuous to say that it "is merely based on his failure to assert his 5A rights."

If I am convicted of stealing a Porsche, my conviction is not merely based on my failure to own a fancy sports car. Of course, if I already owned a sports car, I would likely not have stolen the Porsche. But there's the intermediate step of me actually choosing to steal the car that you must consider.

Similarly, Judge Kent chose to testify. He could have, of course, testified truthfully. But he--by his own admission--did not. That is what he was convicted for. He would not have been convicted of obstructing justice had he testified truthfully.

I also take issue with your statement that Judge Kent is not guilty of a sex crime. While Judge Kent was not convicted of those counts, in his plea agreement, he stipulated that he engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with two court employees. That sounds like a sex crime to me. The fact that the government dropped those counts in exchange for a guilty plea on another count is not vindication for Judge Kent.

Roger:

How is admitting to non-consensual sex not admitting to a sex crime? What more would you want him to say?

Roger Schlafly: I'm intrigued by the concept that you seem to apply the presumption of innocence- a rule of evidence applied in criminal court- in your daily life judgments, to such an extent that when a person admits under oath to criminal conduct, you consider them "innocent" of said conduct, so long as a conviction on that particular charge was not entered.

Roger:

Here's from the factual basis of the plea agreement, which Kent signed (Docket entry 117 in U.S. v. Kent, 08-CR-596, S.D. Tex.):

"In August 2003 and March 2007, the defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with Person A without her permission."

"From 2004 through at least 2005, the defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with Person B without her permission."

"The defendant falsely testified regarding his unwanted sexual contact with Person B by stating to the Committee that the extent of his non-consensual contact with Person B was one kiss, when in fact and as he knew the defendant had engaged in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with Person B without her permission."

"The defendant also falsely testified regarding his unwanted sexual contact with Person B by stating to the Committee that when told by Person B that his advances were unwelcome, no further contact occurred, when in fact and as he knew the defendant continued his non-consensual contacts even after she asked him to stop."

Kent admitted that this violated 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime to "corruptly ... obstruct[], infuence[], or impede[] any official proceeding, or attempt[] to do so."

Given these things that Kent has admitted to, do you now agree that Kent has done more that "admitted to some noncriminal inappropriate behavior?"

Roger, you appear to be interested in courts and judicial issues. Are you saying that--based on the things that Kent admitted in the factual basis--he should not be removed from the bench?

Texas Lawyer, if you think you're going to overcome Phyllis' boy Roger by resort to logic, you're wasting your time. And you will dizzy yourself trying.

If we're going to second-guess what the Council did in 2007, let's be accurate in describing it. And while we're linking old stuff, then, here was my post from October 2007 laying out my differences with Prof. Somin's original blogging, and here is the Judicial Council's order.

Contra TerrencePhilip (3.1.2009 5:12pm) and Prof. Somin (3.1.2009 9:54pm) above, the Council's order uses the phrase "sexual harassment" precisely once, in its first sentence, "A complaint of judicial misconduct was lodged on May 21, 2007 against the Hon. Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas, alleging sexual harassment toward an employee of the federal judicial system." Prof. Somin perhaps misremembered this description of one side's allegation as a having been one of the Council's resulting findings. It's not, and I'm sure he'll acknowledgment the correction with the same cheer and goodwill with which I make it.

We could argue — not, I think, to much ultimate purpose — about whether Judge Kent's recent guilty plea to obstruction of justice implies an admission to guilt of the original underlying charge of sexual harassment as either merely judicial misconduct or a violation of civil tort or statute or a criminal offense. The elements of those offenses don't correspond exactly to the elements of the crime to which he's pleaded guilty. But in my own opinion, from the standpoint of Judge Kent's fitness to continue as an unimpeached federal judge or be cut slack in getting a pension, the crime to which he did plead (obstruction of justice) is much worse.

Nevertheless, what the Council actually found back in 2007 was not "sexual harassment," but rather that Judge Kent's "actions described in the [Special Investigative Committee's] report violated the mandates of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and are deemed prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice." That's perfectly consistent with the Committee, its report, and the Council believing that Judge Kent had engaged in inappropriate, but consensual, sexual activity. It would, however, have been incredibly thin gruel and inadequately descriptive if they all had then genuinely believed that Judge Kent had been adequately proved by the complaintant to have engaged in either civil torts or criminal offenses like sexual assault and battery.

Find fault, if you will, with Chief Judge Jones and the other federal judges for failing to intuit that another complaintant would appear during the DOJ investigation; for failing to anticipate all the other facts and circumstances, and judgments about credibility and risks, which led to Judge Kent's guilty plea; and for failing to detect, root out, and punish Judge Kent's now-admitted obstruction of their efforts. If you want to further jump to the inference that their decision was motivated by these judges' conspiratorial desire to protect one of their own despite his guilt, I will tell you that I still don't agree with the reasonableness of that inference. But I won't tell you it's impossible to draw, especially if one already has reasons to think badly of one or more of these judges.

But let's be accurate about what they actually found and didn't find when we're discussing indisputable facts that are part of the public written record, please.

Bill Dyer,

if anyone has accused Judge King of the following:

*failing to intuit that another complaintant would appear during the DOJ investigation;

*failing to anticipate all the other facts and circumstances, and judgments about credibility and risks, which led to Judge Kent's guilty plea;

*failing to detect, root out, and punish Judge Kent's now-admitted obstruction of their efforts;

* have a "conspiratorial desire to protect one of their own despite his guilt"

well, then they are full of it. Could you point out which of the posts above make such accusations?

yeah, I meant to write Jones. I stand by my question however. If you interpret my posts as an accusation of conspiracy, or criticism for lack of clairvoyance- well that is just absurd.

Is he disbarred, or is there a formal process that also has to happen for that?