is here. You don't see these often for sitting federal judges. I assume that, if Judge Kent doesn't resign, a criminal conviction would be followed promptly by impeachment by the House and then conviction and removal by the Senate. An interesting question is what would happen if Judge Kent is acquitted, but there is sufficient evidence to believe he was likely guilty (the Justice Department obviously believes this to be the case), but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a criminal jury. But that's all a hypothetical at this point.
UPDATE: Sorry; I should have made this clearer — certainly the Congress has the power to remove someone who has been acquitted, and I don't see anything wrong with it, if the Representatives and the Senators think he's guilty. As commenter David Nieporent pointed out, that of course is what happened to former Judge (now Congressman) Alcee Hastings. What I was wondering was what the Congress would (not may) do if they thought the accusation wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but was still likely true — not an implausible scenario if the case ends up mostly being a swearing contest between Judge Kent and the woman he is accused of attacking.
There's also the question of what the Congress should do in such a situation; I think it should remove the judge from office — "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison" may be a sensible rule, but I don't think that "better that ten guilty judges remain in office than one innocent judge be erroneously removed" is equally sensible.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Indictment of U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Kent
- Justice Department Broadens Investigation of Federal District Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- Details of the Sexual Harrassment Accusations Against Judge Samuel B. Kent:...
- More on the Judge Samuel B. Kent Case:
- The Ethical Cloud Over Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Admonishes Judge Samuel B. Kent for Sexual Harassment of a Judiciary Employee:
And then, in a twist on the usual order of things, ran for Congress after being criminally prosecuted rather than before.
I think if the witness/victim is at all compelling at the criminal trial, it will not matter what the jury verdict is. The House will impeach; the Senate will convict; Kent will be off the bench.
The Fifth Circuit censored him, but kept the details os hif (allegedly criminal conduct) confidential. The Fifth Circuit also did not refer Judge Kent to Congress for an impeachment investigation, even though it had the power to do so.
The Department of Justice (which, for all of its flaws, would not lightly go after a sitting federal judge) considered Judge Kent's conduct criminal.
What does that say about the Fifth Circuit's handling of the matter? What does that say about judicial misconduct proceedings in general?
I think Kozinski's dissenting opinion in the Judge Real proceedings says most of what needs to be said on the matter:
13803
While many sexual assault prosecutions become nothing more than he said/she said, I would note two things: 1) You are discounting that there may be other evidence (remember the infamous dress in the Clinton scandal), which can take a variety of forms, that would substantiate portions of the accuser's story; 2) the victim may be so credible that the victim is believed, regardless of denials from the accused.
A conviction guarantees impeachment/removal. An acquittal MIGHT help Judge Kent--but it will depend on the strength of the evidence, including the victim's testimony and whether there is a sentiment that the verdict followed the evidence.
I agree with most of your post. IMHO - the key is going to be "other evidence." Without it (or some sort of confession by Kent), I think a sitting Federal Judge is going to have a built-in credibility that is going to be difficult to overcome.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Kent's attorney is taking the position the relationship was consensual.
I was thinking of Kathleen Willey, not Lewinsky.
Also, it seems to me extraordinary enough that such an assault might ever have occurred, but really amazing if the same conduct was in fact repeated five months later.
And the judge is alleged to have done it with the "intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, and arouse and gratify the sexual desire of Person A." Will the prosecution have to prove that was the intent, it won't be enough just to prove that the conduct took place without Person A's consent? "To arouse and gratify (his...) sexual desire" would not strain credulity, but "to arouse and gratify the sexual desire of Person A" seems a stretch. If the prosecution had evidence to show that the judge was an avid consumer of pornography portraying women as sexually longing for abuse, humiliation, harassment, and degradation, would they be able to get it admitted?
Did that Fifth Circuit panel not have the evidence that the grand jury panel had, or did the former not find the evidence convincing, while the latter did? If that panel did have the evidence but not find it convincing, then what are the chances of a successful criminal prosecution. If that panel had the evidence and did find it convincing, but imposed only limited disciplinary measures and allowed the judge to remain on the bench, what are we to think? Will that likely come out in the course of this?
He holds his office during good behavior, not during the period (if any) prior to which he commits a felony. Can any reasonable U.S. Representative or Senator look at his history, both before and including this incident, and conclude that his behavior has been good?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.