< The Journal's curious case of myopia | Main | Greed in perspective >
February 24, 2009
Judge Kent cops a plea
As most local lawyers expected, U.S. District Judge Sam Kent entered into a plea bargain on the courthouse steps today. The deal derailed what would have been an extremely ugly trial on sexual abuse and obstruction of justice charges, and ended Judge Kent's 18-year career as a federal judge. Here is the factual basis for the plea deal and also the plea agreement. Earlier posts on the case against Judge Kent are here.
As noted, Judge Kent's plea deal was not a surprise, although the courthouse steps nature of it was. It looks as if defense attorney Dick DeGuerin -- one of Houston's best criminal defense attorneys for this type of case -- pushed the case to the brink in an attempt to gain the best possible deal, which it appears he did.
In the factual basis for the plea, Judge Kent admitted only to lying to the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council about unwanted sexual advances that he made toward a subordinate. That leaves out any admissions regarding the serious sexual abuse charges that the prosecution dismissed as a part of the plea deal. Those non-admissions have to be considered a victory for the defense in a case such as this.
Moreover, Judge Kent's retirement will likely avoid impeachment. If so, then Judge Kent he will be able to collect his federal pension.
However, those victories probably won't prevent Judge Kent from being sentenced to do some serious prison time. The prosecution agreed only not to recommend any more than a three-year sentence in regard to the maximum 20-year sentence that Judge Kent could receive on the obstruction charge, and visiting U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has a reputation of handing down relatively harsh sentences. I'm no expert on sentencing, but my initial sense is that Judge Kent is looking at between a 3-5 year sentence.
That's probably lighter than the sentence that Judge Kent would have assessed to a defendant convicted of the same charge in a similar case in his court.
But it's not going to be a picnic, either.
Posted by Tom at February 24, 2009 12:01 AM
Comments
I think you misread the factual basis for the plea. The judge DID admit to the unwanted sexual contact in paragraphs 4 and 5.
Posted by: huaryou ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blog.kir.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 24, 2009 11:21 PM
Huaryou, there is a big difference legally between making admissions relating to lying about unwanted sexual advances, on one hand, and admitting to serious sexual abuse charges, on the other.
Posted by: Tom K. at February 25, 2009 9:17 AM
I agree there is a difference between admissions about unwanted sexual advances and sexual abuse. But read it again. It doesn't say "sexual advances." It says "non-consensual sexual contact" "Abusive sexual contact" is one of the sex crime counts brought. I'm pretty sure non-consensual sexual contact would qualify under the statute.
Posted by: huaryou at February 25, 2009 9:50 PM
Huaryou, I agree that it should qualify under the statute. Just not sure that it does.
Posted by: Tom K. at February 26, 2009 6:53 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)