Judge’s Indictment Raises Questions About Discipline Process
A Texas federal judge’s indictment on charges of abusive sexual contact and aggravated sexual abuse raises questions about the discipline process, according to a columnist for the Houston Chronicle.
U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent was charged yesterday based on accusations by his assistant, Cathy McBroom, that the judge had made unwanted advances and touched her inappropriately. Columnist Rick Casey questions why a federal panel investigating the charges labeled the alleged conduct sexual harassment.
“If McBroom was to be believed, it was assault,” Casey writes. “If she wasn’t, Kent shouldn’t have been punished.”
The Judicial Council of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded Kent in October, placing him on leave for four months and barring him from hearing criminal and sexual harassment suits.
The indictment (PDF posted by the Houston Chronicle) claims the judge touched McBroom’s breast, buttocks, inner thigh and groin “both directly and through the clothing,” and also pushed her head toward his groin. Kent’s lawyer says he is innocent of the charges.
Casey found several flaws in the ethics investigation. He says the special investigating committee was headed by Chief Judge Edith Jones, who has shown “remarkable hostility” to sexual harassment complaints. The committee investigator worked for a law firm that regularly had cases in Kent’s court. And the committee failed to interview several key witnesses, he claims.
“The council took the easy way out,” Casey says. “It accepted a nonsensical plea bargain.”
