Judge Samuel B. Kent | 05/12/2009 8:10 am

Judge Sentenced for Lie, but Not Actions

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Samuel B. Kent, a federal judge from Galveston, Texas, will spend 33 months in prison for lying to a panel reviewing sexual harassment charges against him.

Kent’s secretary and case manager both claimed that Kent, who was appointed in 1990 by President George Bush, fondled and groped them against their will. At the time of the accusations, Kent insisted that the contact was consensual, but then, just as his trial was to start, he admitted he had lied and said that his alcoholism played a role in his actions.

Now, thanks to that admission, Kent will be sent to prison where, we hope, he’ll clean up his act. The intriguing thing is, though, that he’s going to prison for his initial lie, not the harassment itself.

University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur D. Hellman insists the lie is worse than the act, telling The New York Times, “For a federal judge to admit to obstruction of justice is just sort of mind-blowing. He’s betrayed his oath in the most fundamental way.” Do you agree?

7 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

“For a federal judge to admit to obstruction of justice is just sort of mind-blowing. He’s betrayed his oath in the most fundamental way.” Do you agree? Hell yes I do.

By f p on 05/12/2009 8:13 am

e-mail alert

Me too!

By S G on 05/12/2009 8:26 am

e-mail alert

That piece of sheet makes $174,000 a year. Not only should he have been given more prison time, but he also should be impeached. It’s always interesting when the judiciary system has to assess its own.

By Maggie W on 05/12/2009 8:17 am

e-mail alert

" The intriguing thing is, though, that he’s going to prison for his initial lie, not the harassment itself."

Does this mean that he will not be punished at all for the harassment?

By Jeannot Kensinger on 05/12/2009 8:47 am

e-mail alert

It’s the obvious question, Jeannot, but my first thought when I read this was there is a civil suit in his future.

I’m not sure how that state deals with this type of thing. In my state, he would be disciplined by the Bar Association (not the one he apparently used to go to everyday, the Legal Bar), probably lose his ability to practice law (perhaps forever).

Because he has admitted to lying, he will most likely settle out of court on a civil suit between those involved and then declare bankrutcy in order to avoid paying out the judgement.

By nanchan u on 05/12/2009 9:10 am

e-mail alert

I hate to pull the sexism card out but….what would have happened in this case had he NOT confessed?

He most definitely betrayed his oath and I am glad to see that he was man enough to confess AND to know he is going to do time. Whether it was for the lie or his actions, he will now be forced to live in a manner that I am sure he feels is beneath him, and that in itself is punishment enough.

By Belinda Joy on 05/12/2009 10:48 am

e-mail alert

"University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur D. Hellman insists the lie is worse than the act."

He’s saying that telling a lie is worse than molesting women. What a jerk. Would he be saying that if it was his daughter who was groped by the Judge? How desperately insensitive. Hellman obviously has no use for senstivity.

By Andrea Brandon on 05/12/2009 7:48 pm