This blog first posted about Galveston’s federal judge Samuel Kent back in October, when Judge Kent made history as the first federal judge — EVER — to be indicted for sex crimes. Tidbits from that first post:

Judge Kent has been indicted (formally charged) with three crimes: (1) two counts of abusive sexual contact and (2) one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse. His trial was initially set for the first week of November, in a Houston federal courtroom — now that Ike’s done its damage, the trial has just been moved back to January 2009….

Judge Kent’s former case manager has said that the judge groped her, and tried to force her into a sexual act. The Department of Justice investigated, and these formal charges are the result of that investigation….

His attorney, Dick DeGuerin, isn’t denying that something happen between the judge and the employee; instead, DeGuerin has explained that what happened between them was consensual. “To charge Judge Kent of conduct of which he is absolutely innocent based on this kind of flimsy evidence is inexcusable and we will fight it to the bitter end,” DeGuerin said (quoting the Wall Street Journal).

Then, in January 2009, this blog updated this story, with news that new charges had been added to Judge Kent’s indictment while Judge Kent was still setting on the bench, pending trial:

So, right now, over in the Houston federal courthouse, you’ve got District Judge Samuel Kent working away after being transferred to Houston from his longtime bench in Galveston after becoming this infamous, indicted judge. And, down the hall, you’ve got the very same District Judge Samuel Kent facing trial later this month for these various sex crimes….

And, if that weren’t bizarre enough for you — last Friday, Judge Kent got three new charges added to his indictment which brought in a second female court employee alleging that Judge Kent had performed acts that amount to aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact. Also added, an obstruction of justice charge.

It’s reported that his attorney, Dick DeGuerin, says that these new charges aren’t true but he can’t say more than that, because there is a gag order in place….

By adding this new spin to the indictment, Judge Kent not only has to defend against what two women are saying he did, but he’s got to face off against investigators and the like, who are going to tell a jury that Kent lied to them about things, thwarting their efforts.

As Martha [Stewart] can tell you, under an obstruction charge, you don’t have to be guilty of the crime being investigated to be guilty of obstruction. And you still face a significant punishment: on obstruction alone, Judge Kent could face 20 years imprisonment – and that’s before you begin to consider the ramifications to his legal career….

Charging obstruction is a scary thing — regardless of how horrid the alleged conduct might be, having grand juries tack these charges onto indictments is getting to be pretty Big Brother-y for some: you’ve got the constitutional right not to incriminate yourself, but absent taking the 5th how much leeway does a defendant having these days in dealing with the legal authorities?

Creating criminal liability where there wasn’t any beforehand is a danger to justice, and something we all need to be watching, as many scholars are warning against prosecutors’ “creative interpretation” of the obstruction statutes.

Now, there’s more news. Today, Judge Kent will be sentenced in federal court, after entering into a plea agreement.

Seems that last winter, right as jury selection was beginning for his trial, Judge Kent agreed to a plea bargain and avoided a public trial which promised to contain some very scandalous evidence. (See the January post for details.)

At the time of the plea, Judge Kent admitted sexual contact with the two female complaintants occurred, and was against their will. He also informed the court that he intended to retire based upon a disability (at 59, if he resigns he gets no pension – he’d have to be 65 or older for that), and that he was under the care of both a psychologist and psychiatrist at the time of the plea, as well as being on medication for depression and anxiety.

So, it looks like the deal that was made boils down to this: admit to the guilt regarding the sexual contact, and keep your pension.

Let’s see if the visiting Florida judge goes along with it.

And, let’s see if we ever hear anything more on those obstruction of justice charges — were they merely a prosecutorial tool used to force a plea in a case that would otherwise be one person’s word against the others? Those details should come to light at some point.

Sources:

Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6417925.html

Yesterday, Chip Babcock officially responded to the 24 legal ethicists from across the country — who got together earlier this month and sent their written “declaration” to the Texas Commission of Judicial Conduct, declaring that in their august opinion, Chief Justice Sharon Keller should be removed from her position on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

What did Chip Babcock say?

He was surprised. He thought they would have looked at both sides of the story, but he thinks they’ve only looked at the allegations and the media reports on Justice Keller. He thinks they didn’t look at Justice Keller’s response. And, finally, he thinks they’re doing it for the publicity.

Right. Mike Tigar and Company are such media hounds.

First, here’s what the Declaration says.

1. They aren’t finders of fact, but they believe that her omissions from full financial disclosure are one basis for her removal.

These omissions aren’t a contested issue here. Keller’s attorney, Ed Shack, isn’t denying they exist. Instead, Shack has come forward to argue that Justice Keller didn’t know her father had placed real estate holdings in her name and the omissions are really just a “clerical error.”

2. They aren’t finders of fact, but they beleive that Justice Keller’s ‘lack of impartiality and failure to recuse herself” in the Michael Richard case is another basis for her removal. (Read about the Richard case in our earlier post.)

Who are these legal ethicists?

They are 24 legal scholars from across the country, well-respected among the legal community. Many are law professors. They include Mike Tigar from Duke University (Tigar used to be at UT-Law) and Lawrence Fox, Harvard Law School Lecturer and Former Chair of the ABA Committee of Ethics and Professional Responsibility. (For the full listing of signatories with their credentials, check out the pdf of the Declaration, shown below.)

What are the real estate holdings that were omitted?

According to the Dallas Morning News (link shown below), they included the following holdings:

1. Seven (7) residential and commercial properties totalling in value (according to the county appraisal district records) at approximately $1.9 million. They include 2 houses that together add up to over $1,000,000 in the Keller Family Compound located across from the Dallas Arboretum. Justice Keller is listed as sole owner of these two homes under the name of “Sharon Batjer,” her married name (she divorced Batjer over twenty years ago, in 1982).

2. Two (2) holding that total in value to approximately $823,000. One is a vacant commercial lot in Euless. The other is a commercial property that adjoins Keller’s Drive-In on East Northwest Highway, a landmark in the hamburger restaurant chain which has been operated since 1965 by the judge’s father, Jack Keller.

3. Three (3) pieces of real estate with a total value estimated at $114,000, which are held in the name of Justice Keller’s 27-year-old son, that’s right — 27 — who is going to law school right now. Justice Keller is claiming this adult son as her dependent.

That’s some clerical error.

Sources:

The Declaration
http://standdown.typepad.com/KELLER-CumminsFiling-TCJC.pdf

Dallas Morning News
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/04/ethicists-weigh-in-on-keller-c.html

Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/033009dnprokellerasets.3df3149.html

Austin American Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/25/0325keller.html?cxntlid=inform_sr