Chronicle reporters Lise Olsen and Harvey Rice follow up on their previous coverage of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reprimand of U.S. District Judge Sam Kent with this Sunday Chronicle article, which includes the following tidbits:

The episodes of alleged abuse began a decade ago and involved at least three employees, according to interviews with two women and with attorney Rusty Hardin, who represents the third.
In the most recent incident, the judge was accused of inappropriately touching a female case manager in his chambers in March. [. . .]
As the only federal district judge in Galveston, Kent is the ranking federal official in a small fiefdom. The power of his lifetime appointment is reflected by the fear of attorneys and former court employees, who generally declined comment.

The Volokh Conspiracy’s Ilya Somin, who once clerked at the Fifth Circuit and has been following the Kent matter closely, has some interesting observations about the latest Chronicle article.
The Galveston Daily News also provides this special section on the Kent matter, and the Wikipedia site on Judge Kent has also become a good source of information.

The defense rested Thursday in the criminal trial of former Texas Southern University president Priscilla Slade (previous posts here) without the defendant taking the stand in her own defense. Slade told the Chronicle that she felt “wonderful” about the conclusion of her defense, while defense counsel Mike DeGeurin explained on the courthouse steps that “the defendant never testifies if the state has not proven their case. That’s just a given rule.”
Maybe so, but as noted here and here in connection with a couple of other high profile cases, the decision not to testify in white collar criminal cases is risky. Juries in white collar cases expect to hear from the defendant, and when they don’t, they commonly hold against the defendant. That’s not it’s supposed to work, but that’s the reality. As the late Edward Bennett Williams used to advise his white collar criminal clients, “If you elect not to testify, then you better bring your toothbrush with you to the courthouse.”
The prosecution finished its rebuttal portion of its case on Thursday. The jury is off on Friday as the judge and lawyers finalize the jury instructions. Final arguments are scheduled to begin on Monday.

Well, you certainly don’t see this everyday:

The June fire that destroyed the Spring home of Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina was intentionally set, the Harris County Fire Marshal’s Office ruled Wednesday.
Investigators would not comment on a motive for the arson, which destroyed a neighboring house and damaged a third, chief investigator Dan Given said Wednesday afternoon.
“At this time, we’re not going to release any more information,” Given said.
Earlier Wednesday, the office issued a statement saying investigators ruled out an accidental cause and no charges were currently pending. [. . .]
Investigators have identified six “people of interest,” all family members or friends of the judge. Investigators have also said a canine detected an accelerant in the fire.
The three homes are in Olde Oaks subdivision in northwest Harris County. Damage for all three has been estimated at $900,000.
Officials said Wednesday that Medina family members questioned about the June 28 blaze have been cooperative. The judge’s wife, Francisca Medina, and one of their children were home the night of the fire, officials said.
Investigators have subpoenaed cell phone and financial records of family and friends.
If a charge is filed, it would be arson of a habitation, a second-degree felony that carries a punishment ranging from probation to 20 years in prison, lead investigator Nathan Green said Tuesday. [. . .]
While officials would not discuss possible motives, Green has said a “red flag” was a foreclosure filed on the property in June 2006 that apparently was resolved that December.
The Medinas’ insurance policy had lapsed because premiums weren’t paid, Green has said. Medina was surprised to learn the 5,000-square-foot house in the 3500 block of Highfalls wasn’t covered.
The Medina family moved to Austin after the fire, Green said.
They still owe nearly $2,000 in homeowners association fees, according to Pam Bailey, owner of Chaparrel Management, which manages the Olde Oaks Community Improvement Association.
Bailey said the fees are two years past due.

The house wasn’t insured and Justice Medina didn’t realize it? In an earlier Chronicle article on the fire, Justice Medina, who was appointed to the high court by Govenor Perry in 2004, said he was unaware that investigators had identified six people of interest, including family members and friends.

“I was not aware. … That’s quite startling,” Medina said, later adding that he had “no idea” if he knew anyone who might have set the house on fire.
He then said, “I’m not going to comment further.”

That latter comment is a very good idea.
October 15, 2007 Update: Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal announces that Justice Medina is not a suspect in the arson investigation:

Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina is not a suspect in a June arson that destroyed his Spring home, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal confirmed Thursday.
The revelation came during a telephone conversation in which Rosenthal alerted the judge that he was being called to testify before the grand jurors as they discuss whether to charge anyone in the June 28 blaze.
“Because in Harris County, we don’t sneak up on people. I said: ‘You are not considered a suspect,’ ” Rosenthal said late Thursday.

This earlier post wondered what was up with the apparently involuntary four month leave-of-absence of Galveston-based U.S. District Judge, Sam Kent.
Well, now we know.
The Judicial Council of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order Friday reprimanding and admonishing Judge Kent in regard to a complaint complaint of judicial misconduct lodged against the judge on in May alleging sexual harassment toward an employee of the federal judicial system. A former case manager for Judge Kent confirmed to the Texas Lawyer and then the Chronicle that she filed the complaint against the judge, but declined further comment. The former case manager now works in the clerk’s office in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas.
Nevertheless, the prospect of further litigation is definitely possible. The clerk has hired prominent Houston attorney Rusty Hardin, who is always good for a quote or two. “We have been watching, with interest, the investigation,” Hardin told the Chronicle.
Meanwhile, Judge Kent appears to be putting up a fight to the charges. He has hired prominent defense attorney Maria Wyckoff Boyce of Baker & Botts to represent him. My sense is that the brevity of the Judicial Council’s order indicates that the panel expects further litigation over the allegetions.
Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Edith Jones, who is not one to take such matters lightly, signed the order and wrote that a Special Investigatory Committee appointed to investigate the complaint expanded the original complaint and investigated other “instances of alleged inappropriate behavior toward other employees of the federal judicial system.” The committee recommended a reprimand “along with the accomplishment of other remedial courses of action.” The judicial council accepted the recommendations and concluded the proceedings “because appropriate remedial action had been and will be taken, including but not limited to the Judge’s four-month leave of absence from the bench, reallocation of the Galveston/Houston docket and other measures.” The special investigatory committee’s Report, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations, and Judge Kent’s Response to the Report, are confidential and will not be disclosed.
According to the Chronicle account, one of the more interesting allegations apparently investigated by the panel was the following:

“That Kent inappropriately favored former colleagues and other favorites in his decisions and in overseeing settlement negotiations. In 2001, Kent was ordered to transfer all cases from his court that were handled by his best friend.”

H’mm. Wonder if that had any impact on this recent settlement (see background here)?
Update: Ilya Somin provides some additional background on Judge Kent.
And this Galveston Daily News article provides some additional information on the case:

The Daily News was told the judge called his case manager to his office, where physical contact occurred.
When she resisted, he told her she owed him because he had interceded in her favor in a dispute among clerkís office employees, the paper was told.
Since Kent was suspended in August, The Daily News has conducted interviews with more than a dozen members of the legal community ó lawyers, their employees and employees of the court. Some claimed first-hand knowledge of allegations of Kentís misconduct, but none agreed to be identified.
McBroom wasnít the only female employee Kent, who is more than 6 feet tall and more than 200 pounds, is alleged to have touched inappropriately, The Daily News was told. [. . .]
Those arenít the only reports that Kent engaged in inappropriate conduct.
Other sources have told The Daily News that, at a party and in the offices of a law firm, a drunken Kent cornered women and grabbed them.