Obstruction Charge Against Judge Kent Raises Constitutional Issue
Much has been said about the unprecedented sexual abuse case against U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent concerning his alleged treatment of two female court workers.
But the obstruction charge included in the most recent federal indictment of the sitting federal judge is also unprecedented—and raises troubling constitutional issues because it is based on Kent’s testimony in an internal investigation by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a law professor tells Texas Lawyer in a lengthy article about the situation.
“The concern here is with DOJ looking into the internal investigative procedure of the judiciary. I’m aware of no precedent for that,” says professor Arthur Hellman of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. “And that’s what raises the separation-of-powers concerns.”
As detailed in earlier ABAJournal.com posts, Kent was indicted earlier this month on additional charges after his initial indictment in August 2008. He has repeatedly said he is innocent, and pleaded “absolutely, unequivocally not guilty” in his initial arraignment. (Less has been said since then because of a gag order imposed by the judge in the case.)
Kent is expected to go to trial in February, a month later than initially scheduled, on all of the charges against him, the Houston Chronicle reports.
At that point, a great deal more is likely to said, since Kent is expected to defend himself by putting the conduct of his two accusers at issue, the Chronicle reports in another article.
In a related matter, the 5th Circuit earlier reprimanded Kent and suspended him for four months for alleged sexual harassment after the internal investigation.
