Embattled U.S. District Judge Sam Kent is an easy target these days (all previous posts here). Along those lines, Chronicle legal columnist and blogger Mary Flood makes the following statement in this blog post on the Chronicle’s latest story about the allegations against Judge Kent:

The law sees the judge as innocent until proven guilty of these allegations, though so far he faces no criminal or civil lawsuits over the matter anyway. But it is important to note that his fellow judges removed him from work (albeit with pay) for the last four months of the year and reprimanded him for sexual harassment (emphasis added).

Flood’s above assertion may be correct, but we do not know that at this time. The Judicial Council’s order certainly says no such thing. The order states that a judicial complaint alleging sexual harassment was filed against Judge Kent and that a special investigatory committee reviewed the allegations and expanded the investigation to review other allegations of “inappropriate behavior” toward other federal employees. The order goes on to state that, after completing the investigation, the investigative committee recommended a reprimand and other “remedial courses of action.” The Judicial Council accepted the committee’s recommendation of reprimanding Judge Kent and concluded the proceeding “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 ofthe Galveston/Houston docket and other measures.” The Judicial Council’s order also admonished Judge Kent “that his actions . . . 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.”
Thus, here’s what we know. A judicial complaint alleging sexual harassment was filed against Judge Kent. An investigation ensued and was expanded beyond the allegations contained in the initial complaint to other “inappropriate behavior.” Judge Kent presumably defended himself in regard to the allegations, but he is precluded by applicable rules relating to such investigations from discussing the matter publicly. The Judicial Council reprimanded and admonished Judge Kent, but the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the council based its reprimand have not — and probably will never will be — made public.
Thus, at this point, stating that Judge Kent was “reprimanded for sexual harassment” is speculation. He may have been, but the reason could also have been inappropriate behavior not related to sexual harassment, such as a drinking problem or simply acting badly toward subordinates. Further legal proceedings appear to be likely, so I’m inclined to wait to see what information develops in a forum where he can defend himself before jumping to conclusions in the matter of Judge Kent.

The Houston Chronicle continued its investigative series into the matter of Galveston U.S. District Judge Sam Kent with this Lisa Olsen/Sunday edition article that provides the most detailed account to date of courtroom deputy Cathy McBroom’s sexual harrassment allegations against Judge Kent (previous posts here). The Chron’s account is based primarily on the Chronicle’s interviews with a close friend — Charlene Clark, a San Antonio schoolteacher — with whom McBroom apparently confided after the alleged incident with Judge Kent, Ms. McBroom’s mother and another former courtroom deputy of Judge Kent, Felicia Williams.
Under the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sanctions order relating to the matter, Judge Kent is barred from commenting on the matters relating to the investigation and his attorney — Maria Wyckoff Boyce of Baker & Botts — has refused all requests for interviews and referred all questions to the Fifth Circuit. Judge Edith H. Jones, chief judge for the Fifth Circuit, has also refused comment on the investigation.
According to the Chronicle’s account of McBroom’s friend, the following is what McBroom told her occurred:

McBroom was summoned to the judge’s chambers on Friday, March 23, at about 3 p.m.
Her hands were full of legal papers when the judge ó a former high school athlete who is more than 6 inches taller and at least 100 pounds heavier ó asked for a hug.
She told him she didn’t think that was appropriate, but reluctantly approached.
The judge grabbed Mc-Broom, pulled up her blouse and her bra and put his mouth on her breast. Then, Kent forced her head down toward his crotch.
As McBroom struggled, Kent kept telling the married mother of three what he wanted to do to her in words too graphic to publish. The papers fell to the floor. The pet bulldog Kent kept in his chambers began to bark.
The incident was interrupted by the sound of footsteps from another staff member in the corridor, and the judge loosened his grip. As she left, the judge said McBroom was a good case manager and then made suggestions about engaging in a sexual act.
McBroom ran out crying. [. . .]
Between 2003 and 2007, McBroom experienced about 15 to 20 other incidents of alleged harassment, five involving improper touching, according to Clark and another source.
“He talked incredibly crudely when he was under the influence,” Clark said. “He described sex acts. . . “

Olsen reports that McBroom, Ms. Williams (the other former case manager) and at least three other women later gave statements to Fifth Circuit investigators regarding Judge Kent’s alleged abuse of employees. According to Olsen, women with knowledge of Judge Kent’s actions contend that the first incidents of alleged harassment and unwanted physical contacts with female court employees began about ten years ago. Williams, who is now retired, also spoke with Olsen regarding her experience with Judge Kent:

Williams, who had worked for Kent from 1993 to 2002, said her firing came days after she apparently offended the judge with a comment she’d made about his arriving late for a hearing, though she says she was given no official reason at the time.
Williams told the Chronicle that over the years she frequently had seen Kent appear inebriated at work after long lunches with lawyer friends, was regularly asked for “hugs” and subjected to lewd remarks.
The judge said he could “service me when my husband was being treated for prostate cancer,” Williams said. “He told me sexual dirty jokes, and (I) was expected to listen to his rude comments regarding other people.”
Williams said she never told co-workers or even her husband about most of the comments out of loyalty to the judge ó and out of fear that he would retaliate.
“I need to relay how Cathy and I felt threatened due to (Kent’s) power and authority and were always concerned about our positions and knew we could be dismissed at a moment’s notice,” Williams said. “Since (I) no longer work for him, I feel more comfortable talking but will always feel the emotional pain.”
Williams later worked at the federal courthouse in Houston until her retirement in 2006 with 33 years of U.S. government service.

McBroom filed an internal judicial conduct complaint against Kent on May 21st. On Sept. 28th, the Judicial Council’s formal reprimand was issued and, about a month later, Judge Kent was reassigned to Houston. Judge Kent remains on a leave of absence until January, 2008.
With these latest revelations, my bet is that the matter of Judge Kent is headed to the House Judiciary Committee after the first of the new year.

In the ongoing saga of Galveston-based U.S. District Judge Sam Kent (previous posts here), the Executive Session of Judges of the Southern District of Texas issued a couple of administrative orders (here and here) transferring the duty station of Judge Kent from Galveston to Houston and delegating the handling of the Galveston docket to other U.S. District Judges of the Southern District. A related Chronicle article is here.
The order transferring Judge Kent’s duty station to Houston does not say when, if ever, Kent would be reassigned to Galveston. David Bradley, chief deputy clerk for the Southern District, told the Chronicle that Judge Kent will remain in Houston until a new order is issued to return him to Galveston. One of the above orders does put Judge Kent back into the case assignment rotation as he will receive 20% of the civil cases filed in the Houston Division. However, Judge Kent will not be assigned any criminal cases through Dec. 31, probably because he remains on leave until January, 8, 2008.

Folks are finding it pretty easy these days to pile on Galveston U.S. District Judge Sam Kent over the recent reprimand that he received from the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit (previous posts here). As regular readers of this blog know, I’m wary of the mobs and simple morality plays that tend to form around such matters, so I was pleased to learn that Bill Dyer had decided to pass along some thoughts on Judge Kent’s case.

I perceive to have been a serious campaign of distortion in other publicity about Judge Kent by people who do, or at least should, know better. They say Congress ought to commence an impeachment investigation ó but they’re not telling you something very important that you ought to know in forming your own opinion on that subject.

Check out the entire insightful post.

The criminal trial of former Texas Southern University president Priscilla Slade (previous posts here) ended in a mistrial Friday afternoon after four days of jury deliberations could not break a deadlocked jury that was essentially evenly split. The trial had lasted a little over a month and a half.
The mistrial was a remarkable achievement for Slade defense attorneys Mike DeGeurin and Paul Nugent, who probably concluded that a hung jury was their best shot at avoiding a conviction of their client after they decided not to allow Ms. Slade to testify in her own defense.
The mistrial increases the likelihood that the venue of the retrial will be changed from Harris County. The defense will hoping for a venue change to a location such as Austin or the Rio Grande Valley, but definitely not New Braunfels or San Angelo. Prosecutors and defense counsel are scheduled to appear before District Judge Brock Thomas on Friday to determine details of the retrial.
Meanwhile, the chronic problem of what to do about TSU continues unaddressed. So it goes.

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.