You might remember Judge Samuel Kent as the federal district judge in Texas under investigation for all sorts of nasty stuff. Grits for Breakfast has a good post detailing what's happening in the Kent case:
Allegations that Kent forced himself on a Galveston courthouse employee - and the inability of the federal judiciary to punish Kent's behavior - have left an increasingly sizable stain on the reputation of the federal judiciary. An account from a columnist at the New Orleans Times Picayune placed the blame for Judge Kent squarely at the doorstep of the 5th Circuit, showing how its Judicial Council, which hears complaints against sitting jurists, downplayed and tried to cover up what amount to allegations of forcible rape...
If Kent committed the alleged acts then he deserves prosecution, without question. But he should have been removed as a judge long before now. Even so, Judge Kent is still sitting on the federal bench today post-indictment, eligible to hear cases. Kent's actions were even more egregious, arguably, than former Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Verla Sue Holland, who slept with the District Attorney while he tried cases before her as a district judge, then concealed her adulterous misconduct in a death penalty appeal.
A post at CrimProf from Brooks Holland puts the Kent case into the broader context of investigations into members of the federal judiciary:
U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent is the first federal judge to be indicted for alleged federal sex crimes, but he's only the latest in a string of jurists to face misconduct allegations in 2008, for behavior such as frequenting a topless club or lying under oath.
Nationwide, four other federal judges are being investigated for, among other things, taking cash from lawyers, using an escort service, posting nude photos on a personal Web site and abusing power in court.
The flurry of federal disciplinary activity appears unprecedented under the modern review system, established by Congress in 1980, according to experts and official court statistics.
``As far as I know, we've never had anything like this,'' said Arthur Hellman, a federal judicial disciplinary expert and professor at the University of Pittsburgh law school.
Kent, who sat on the Galveston bench for 17 years before being transferred to Houston last year, is the only federal judge to confront an ongoing public criminal investigation.
He's been indicted but pleaded not guilty to charges he improperly touched a female court employee and attempted to force her to perform oral sex.
He faces a trial on Jan. 26 before U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Pensacola, who was specially assigned to oversee the case.
I think the Kent case illustrates a major problem with the design of the federal judiciary. There is very little supervision of certain types of conduct by judges. This isn't unique to the judiciary, but it is something that the Chief Justice should take greater action to fix. Otherwise, the reputation of the judiciary, which is historically in high standing, may erode like it has for the other branches of the federal government.
Recent Comments