[House Report 111-159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 75
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-159
======================================================================
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SAMUEL B. KENT
_______
June 17, 2009.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H. Res. 520]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
resolution (H. Res. 520) impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the resolution be agreed to.
I. THE RESOLUTION
H. RES. 520
Impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high
crimes and misdemeanors.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 9, 2009
Mr. Conyers (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Schiff,
Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr.
Delahunt, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Pierluisi, and
Mr. Gonzalez) submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high
crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Samuel B. Kent, a judge of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, is impeached
for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following
articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name of
itself and all of the people of the United States of America,
against Samuel B. Kent, a judge of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, in maintenance and
support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and
misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I
Incident to his position as a United States district court
judge, Samuel B. Kent has engaged in conduct with respect to
employees associated with the court that is incompatible with
the trust and confidence placed in him as a judge, as follows:
(1) Judge Kent is a United States District Judge in
the Southern District of Texas. From 1990 to 2008, he
was assigned to the Galveston Division of the Southern
District, and his chambers and courtroom were located
in the United States Post Office and Courthouse in
Galveston, Texas.
(2) Cathy McBroom was an employee of the Office of
the Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas,
and served as a Deputy Clerk in the Galveston Division
assigned to Judge Kent's courtroom.
(3) On one or more occasions between 2003 and 2007,
Judge Kent sexually assaulted Cathy McBroom, by
touching her private areas directly and through her
clothing against her will and by attempting to cause
her to engage in a sexual act with him.
Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes
and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
ARTICLE II
Incident to his position as a United States district court
judge, Samuel B. Kent has engaged in conduct with respect to
employees associated with the court that is incompatible with
the trust and confidence placed in him as a judge, as follows:
(1) Judge Kent is a United States District Judge in
the Southern District of Texas. From 1990 to 2008, he
was assigned to the Galveston Division of the Southern
District, and his chambers and courtroom were located
in the United States Post Office and Courthouse in
Galveston, Texas.
(2) Donna Wilkerson was an employee of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.
(3) On one or more occasions between 2001 and 2007,
Judge Kent sexually assaulted Donna Wilkerson, by
touching her in her private areas against her will and
by attempting to cause her to engage in a sexual act
with him.
Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes
and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
ARTICLE III
Samuel B. Kent corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded
an official proceeding as follows:
(1) On or about May 21, 2007, Cathy McBroom filed a
judicial misconduct complaint with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In response,
the Fifth Circuit appointed a Special Investigative
Committee (hereinafter in this article referred to as
``the Committee'') to investigate Cathy McBroom's
complaint.
(2) On or about June 8, 2007, at Judge Kent's request
and upon notice from the Committee, Judge Kent appeared
before the Committee.
(3) As part of its investigation, the Committee
sought to learn from Judge Kent and others whether he
had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Cathy
McBroom and individuals other than Cathy McBroom.
(4) On or about June 8, 2007, Judge Kent made false
statements to the Committee regarding his unwanted
sexual contact with Donna Wilkerson as follows:
L (A) Judge Kent falsely stated to the Committee
that the extent of his unwanted sexual contact with
Donna Wilkerson was one kiss, when in fact and as he
knew he had engaged in repeated sexual contact with
Donna Wilkerson without her permission.
L (B) Judge Kent falsely stated to the Committee
that when told by Donna Wilkerson his advances were
unwelcome no further contact occurred, when in fact and
as he knew, Judge Kent continued such advances even
after she asked him to stop.
(5) Judge Kent was indicted and pled guilty and was
sentenced to imprisonment for the felony of obstruction
of justice in violation of section 1512(c)(2) of title
18, United States Code, on the basis of false
statements made to the Committee. The sentencing judge
described his conduct as ``a stain on the justice
system itself''.
Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes
and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
ARTICLE IV
Judge Samuel B. Kent made material false and misleading
statements about the nature and extent of his non-consensual
sexual contact with Cathy McBroom and Donna Wilkerson to agents
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on or about November 30,
2007, and to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
representatives of the Department of Justice on or about August
11, 2008.
Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes
and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
II. INTRODUCTION
The Committee on the Judiciary, acting through and with the
assistance of its duly appointed Impeachment Task Force, has
conducted an inquiry into the conduct of Samuel B. Kent, United
States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. In
particular, the Committee has considered whether Judge Kent
committed sexual misconduct against two women--Cathy McBroom
and Donna Wilkerson--who worked in the courthouse where he
presided. The Committee also has considered whether Judge Kent
made false statements to his fellow judges who were
investigating allegations of sexual misconduct made by one of
the two women, and whether he made further false statements to
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on one
occasion, and to FBI and Department of Justice personnel on
another occasion.
After a careful study of the evidence, the Committee finds
that Judge Kent did commit sexual misconduct against both Ms.
McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson, conduct that included unwanted
touchings and sexual assaults. The Committee also finds the
Judge Kent made false statements to judges investigating this
conduct, and made false statements to the FBI agents and
Department of Justice prosecutors.
Judge Kent's conduct is wholly unacceptable for a Federal
judge and has brought disrepute upon the Federal judiciary.
These acts reflect Judge Kent's abuse of his Office and his
betrayal of the trust bestowed upon him by the people of the
United States. Indeed, Judge Kent, whose duty it was to uphold
and enforce the laws, instead thwarted and undermined the laws.
It was his duty to use his position to dispatch justice
impartially, but he instead abused the power of his position.
As discussed below, Judge Kent has pled guilty to a felony,
obstruction of justice, and has been convicted and sentenced to
Federal prison. The Committee does not base its recommendation
solely on the fact of the guilty plea and conviction, however.
Rather, the Committee finds the facts underlying the guilty
plea and the evidence regarding his sexual misconduct to
overwhelmingly demonstrate that he is unfit to hold office. The
Committee therefore recommends that Judge Samuel B. Kent be
impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the
United States Senate.
III. A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF IMPEACHMENT
A. Pertinent Constitutional Provisions
The following are the pertinent provisions in the United
States Constitution that relate to impeachment:
Article I, Sec. 2, clause 5:
L The House of Representatives . . . shall have
the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I, Sec. 3, clauses 6 and 7:
L The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall
be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the
United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
preside: And no person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
L Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not
extend further than to removal from Office, and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor,
Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according
to Law.
Article II, Sec. 2, clause 1:
L The President . . . shall have Power to grant
Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United
States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II, Sec. 4:
L The President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
In this regard, it has long been recognized that Federal
judges are ``civil Officers'' within the meaning of Article II,
Section 4.\1\ Finally, as to the life tenure of Federal judges,
the Constitution provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A commentator wrote in 1825:
All executive and judicial officers, from the president
downwards, from the judges of the supreme court to those of
the most inferior tribunals, are included in this
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
description.
W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Philip H. Nicklin ed., (1829), 213 (The Law Exchange reprint (2003)).
Another prominent commentator, Joseph Story, wrote:
All officers of the United States . . . who hold their
appointments under the national government, whether their
duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or in the
lowest departments of the government, with the exception of
officers in the army and navy, are properly civil officers
within the meaning of the constitution, and liable to
impeachment.
2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States
Sec. 790 at 258 (1833) (citing Rawle) (quoted in Statement of Professor
Arthur D. Hellman, Hearing on the Possible Impeachment of Samuel B.
Kent of the Southern District of Texas, House Committee on the
Judiciary Impeachment Task Force (June 3, 2009), at 17).
Article III, Sec. 1:
L The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
. . . .
B. The Meaning of ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors''
Thirteen Federal judges have been impeached in our Nation's
history. The precedents from these prior judicial impeachments
as to the meaning of the phrase ``high crimes and
misdemeanors'' is highly instructive. The Committee takes note
of these precedents in informing its recommendations to the
House.
The House Report accompanying the 1989 Resolution to
Impeach United States District Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr.,
summarized the British precedents for impeachment, the events
at the Constitutional convention leading to the adoption of the
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' formulation for impeachable
conduct, and the interpretation of that term in the 12 judicial
impeachments that had occurred prior to 1989. In its summary of
the historical meaning of the term, the Report noted:
The House and Senate have both interpreted the phrase
broadly, finding that impeachable offenses need not be
limited to criminal conduct. Congress has repeatedly
defined ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' to be
serious violation of the public trust, not necessarily
indictable offenses under criminal laws. Of course, in
some circumstances the conduct at issue, such as that
of Judge Nixon, constituted conduct warranting both
punishment under the criminal law and impeachment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\H.R. Rep. No. 101-36, ``Impeachment of Walter L. Nixon, Jr.,
Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H. Res. 87,''
101st Cong., 1st Sess., (1989) [hereinafter ``Nixon Impeachment
Report''] at 5 (1989) (footnote omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Report concluded:
Thus, from an historical perspective the question of
what conduct by a Federal judge constitutes an
impeachable offense has evolved to the position where
the focus is now on public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary. When a judge's
conduct calls into questions his or her integrity or
impartiality, Congress must consider whether
impeachment and removal of the judge from office is
necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial
branch and uphold the public trust.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id. at 12.
The Impeachment Report that accompanied the Resolution to
Impeach United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings stated
that the phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' ``refers to
misconduct that damages the state and the operations of
governmental institutions, and is not limited to criminal
misconduct.''\4\ That Report stressed that impeachment is
``non-criminal,'' designed not to impose criminal penalties,
but instead simply to remove the offender from office,\5\ and
that it is ``the ultimate means of preserving our
constitutional form of government from the depredations of
those in high office who abuse or violate the public
trust.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\H.R. Rep. No. 100-810, ``Impeachment of Alcee L. Hastings,
Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H. Res. 499,''
100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988), at 6.
\5\Id.
\6\Id. at 7. The last three impeachments--those of Judge Walter L.
Nixon, Jr., Judge Alcee Hastings, and Judge Harry Claiborne--followed
Federal criminal proceedings, and the impeachment articles were to a
great extent patterned after the Federal criminal charges. Similarly,
the grounds for the Committee's recommendation of impeachment of Judge
Samuel B. Kent also involve conduct for which he was indicted (and, in
connection with one Article, pled guilty). However, the principles that
underpin the propriety of impeachment do not require that the conduct
at issue be criminal in nature, or that there have been a criminal
prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. BACKGROUND OF INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT
OF JUDGE KENT
A. Judge Samuel B. Kent
Samuel B. Kent was and remains a United States District
Judge. He was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990,
and served nearly his entire judicial career in the Galveston
Division of the Southern District of Texas. He was the sole
judge in the Galveston courthouse, and wielded substantial
power over the employees who worked there.
B. Facts Leading to Judge Kent's Conviction
On May 21, 2007, Cathy McBroom filed a judicial misconduct
complaint with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, alleging sexual misconduct on the part of Judge Samuel
B. Kent. In particular, she alleged that he sexually assaulted
her in March of that year. In response, the Judicial Council of
the Fifth Circuit appointed a Special Investigative Committee
to investigate Ms. McBroom's complaint.
On June 8, 2007, Judge Kent, pursuant to his request, was
interviewed by the Special Investigative Committee. The Special
Investigative Committee sought to learn from Judge Kent whether
he had engaged in unwanted sexual contact with Ms. McBroom or
with others.
One person whose name came up in this interview was that of
Donna Wilkerson, Judge Kent's secretary. As to Ms. Wilkerson,
Judge Kent falsely stated that the extent of his non-consensual
contact with her was one kiss, when in fact he had engaged in
repeated non-consensual sexual contact with Ms. Wilkerson. He
also stated to the Special Investigative Committee that once
told by Ms. Wilkerson that his advances were unwelcome, no
further contact occurred, when in fact he continued his non-
consensual sexual contact with Ms. Wilkerson.
On September 28, 2007, in an order signed by Chief Judge
Edith H. Jones, the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit
suspended Judge Kent with pay for 4 months and transferred him
to Houston.\7\ The Order did not disclose the underlying
findings of fact or conclusions of law by the Special
Investigative Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Order of Reprimand and Reasons, In re: Complaint of Judicial
Misconduct against United States District Judge Samuel B. Kent under
the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Docket No. 07-05-351-
0086, Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit, Sept. 28, 2007, available
at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/news/news/
Judicial%20Council%20Order.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice commenced a criminal
investigation relating to Judge Kent's conduct, and on August
28, 2008, a Federal grand jury returned a three-count
indictment charging Judge Kent with two counts of abusive
sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2244(b), and one
count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18
U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a)(1). The abusive sexual contact counts
charged him with ``intentional touching, both directly and
through the clothing, of the groin, breast, inner thigh, and
buttocks of [Ms. McBroom].'' The attempted aggravated sexual
abuse count charged him with attempting to force Ms. McBroom's
head towards his penis.
After various pre-trial proceedings, the grand jury issued
a superseding indictment on January 6, 2009.\8\ That indictment
re-alleged the three counts involving Ms. McBroom. It also
added two counts relating to Ms. Wilkerson. Count four of the
superseding indictment charged aggravated sexual abuse, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a)(1), namely, that ``[o]n one
or more occasions between January 7, 2004 and at least January
2005, any one and all of which [would constitute the
offense],'' Judge Kent ``did engage in [aggravated sexual abuse
of Ms. Wilkerson] by a hand and finger by force. . . .'' The
superseding indictment also charged ``abusive sexual contact''
in count five, namely, that Judge Kent engaged in the
``intentional touching, directly and through the clothing, of
[specified parts of Ms. Wilkerson's body].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Superseding Indictment, United States v. Kent, Crim. No.
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Div., Jan. 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the superseding indictment charged ``obstruction
of justice'' in Count Six, stemming from Judge Kent's June 2007
lies to the Fifth Circuit concerning his conduct relating to
Ms. Wilkerson.
C. Additional Facts Related to Judge Kent's Conduct During the
Investigation
At sentencing, the prosecutor represented that Judge Kent's
obstruction conduct was not limited to the single set of false
statements made to the Fifth Circuit. The prosecutor set forth
three other incidents of obstructive conduct or false denials.
First, at some point Judge Kent told Ms. Wilkerson that he
had falsely denied his repeated attacks on her--and by so
doing, according to the prosecutors, ``sent a clear and
unambiguous statement that she must repeat that lie too. . . .
She, in fact, drew from his statements that she was supposed to
testify falsely before the grand jury, as well.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Transcript of Sentencing, United States v. Kent, CIM. No.
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Div.), May 11, 2009
[hereinafter ``Transcript of Sentencing''], at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the prosecutor described two other occasions
where Judge Kent made false statements in the course of the
investigation:
[O]n two separate occasions, the defendant asked for
and was granted a meeting with, first, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, law enforcement agents. And
that was in December 2007. . . . He reached out to the
FBI and asked to sit down with them.
During the voluntary interview, he was interviewed
regarding his conduct, and he repeated the same false
statements that he later told to the Special
Investigative Committee, both about [Ms. McBroom] and
about [Ms. Wilkerson].
Then, [prior to the initial indictment in August
2008], defendant through his attorney asked for a
meeting at Main Justice Headquarters, and there in the
Assistant Attorney General's conference room, he sat
down with his attorney and met with, among others, the
trial team, the FBI agents, the [C]hief of the Public
Integrity Section and the Acting Assistant Attorney
General. And during the interview portion of that
meeting, he again repeated the same lies.
He said that he had been honest with the FBI in
December 2007. He said that any attempt to characterize
the conduct between him and [Ms. McBroom] as
nonconsensual was absolutely nonsense. And that's in
stark contrast, Your Honor, to the factual basis for
his plea during which he admitted engaging in repeated
nonconsensual sexual contact with [Ms. McBroom] without
her permission.
Then as to [Ms. Wilkerson], the defendant falsely
stated that he had kissed her on two separate occasions
when, in fact, it was over a much longer period of time
and it was much more serious conduct. Again, as the
defendant admitted in his factual basis.
* * *
[H]is false statements both to the FBI and to the DOJ
trial team and his implication that [Ms. Wilkerson]
should testify falsely before the grand jury did
significantly obstruct and impede the official
investigation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id. at 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The Plea Proceeding
On February 23, 2009, Judge Kent pleaded guilty to Count
Six of the superseding indictment, obstruction of justice,
pursuant to a plea agreement. As part of the plea agreement,
the Government agreed to dismiss the remaining five counts at
sentencing. In addition, the Government promised that it would
not seek a sentence in excess of 36 months incarceration.
In connection with the plea, the defendant signed a
``Factual Basis for Plea'' that was filed with the court and
set forth the conduct that constituted the offense. That
factual statement represented, among other facts:
4. LIn August 2003 and March 2007, the defendant
engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms.
McBroom] without her permission.
5. LFrom 2004 through at least 2005, the defendant
engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms.
Wilkerson] without her permission.
* * *
10. L[On June 8, 2007], [t]he defendant falsely
testified regarding his unwanted sexual contact with
[Ms. Wilkerson] by stating to the [Fifth Circuit
Special Investigative] Committee that the extent of his
non-consensual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] was one
kiss, when in fact and as he knew the defendant had
engaged in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with
[Ms. Wilkerson] without her permission.
11. LThe defendant also falsely testified regarding his
unwanted sexual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] by stating
to the Committee that when told by [Ms. Wilkerson] that
his advances were unwelcome, no further contact
occurred, when in fact and as he knew the defendant
continued his non-consensual contacts even after she
asked him to stop.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\``Factual Basis for Plea,'' United States v. Kent, Crim. No.
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Div., [Feb. 23,
2009]) [hereinafter ``Factual Basis for Plea''], at 2-3.
At the plea proceeding, Judge C. Roger Vinson placed Judge
Kent under oath, and inquired of him as to whether the
representations in the ``Factual Basis for Plea'' were
accurate:
THE COURT [JUDGE VINSON]: I have a factual basis that
has been filed in this case, which has three numbered
pages and appears to have been signed by you and your
attorney Mr. DeGuerin and Mr. Ainsworth on behalf of
the Public Integrity Section of the Department of
Justice. That is your signature on this agreement?
THE DEFENDANT [JUDGE KENT]: Yes,
THE COURT: And have you carefully read and gone over
this factual basis for the plea with Mr. DeGuerin?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are those facts true and correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Transcript of Plea Hearing, United States v. Kent, Crim. No.
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., Houston Div.), Feb. 23, 2009
at 12.
Thereafter, Judge Vinson questioned Judge Kent as to his
understanding of the rights Judge Kent would be giving up by
pleading guilty, Judge Kent's understanding of the terms of the
plea agreement, and Judge Kent's mental competence to enter the
plea. Judge Kent then pleaded guilty to Count Six of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superseding Indictment:
THE COURT: I find that the facts which the government
is prepared to prove with evidence at trial and which
are set out in the factual basis for this plea and
which you have admitted under oath are true [and] are
sufficient to sustain a plea of guilty to Count 6 of
the superseding indictment.
I find that you're fully aware of the possible
sentence or punishment that may be imposed under the
law for this offense and you're aware of the operation
and effect of the sentencing guidelines and how those
guidelines may possibly affect your sentence.
And, most importantly, I find that you have made your
decision to plead guilty to this charge freely and
knowingly and voluntarily and you have made that
decision with the advice of counsel, an attorney with
whom you've indicated your full satisfaction.
So, let me ask you now, Mr. Kent: How do you plead to
Count 6 of the superseding indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Id. at 17-18.
Sentencing was set for May 11, 2009.
E. The Sentencing
The May 11 sentencing proceeding commenced with a lengthy
colloquy concerning the calculation of the Federal sentencing
guidelines. Thereafter, the two victims each addressed the
court.
First, Ms. McBroom spoke. She stated, in part:
When I think of the events leading up to his
conviction, I'm consumed with emotion. Even though I
have been able to move on in both my personal life and
my career, I will forever be scarred by what happened
to me in Galveston.
* * *
The abuse began after Judge Kent returned to work
intoxicated. He attacked me in a small room that was
not 10 feet from the command center where the court
security officers worked. He tried to undress me and
force himself upon me while I begged him to stop. He
told me he didn't care if the officers could hear him
because he knew everyone was afraid of him. I later
found out just how true that was. He had the power to
end careers and affect everyone's livelihood. That
incident left me emotionally wrecked and humiliated. It
was so difficult to face my coworkers when I knew they
had seen what happened to me.
* * *
[E]ach time an assault occurred, he would later
promise to leave me alone and behave professionally,
and I so wanted to believe that.
What I didn't know was that behind the scenes he was
telling a much different story. Now that the truth has
been exposed, I know so much more about his evil and
deliberate manipulation, and I'm utterly disgusted. He
was telling his staff members that I was the one
pursuing him. He even told his secretary that I would
do anything to have her job. . . . After the criminal
investigation began, he even bragged about his gift of
manipulation, which he thought would save him from
conviction. People were asking him to just resign, and
he would tell them if he had just 15 minutes with a
jury, he would be exonerated.
There were times that other employees warned me that
judge was intoxicated, and that he was asking for me.
And during those times, I would refuse to answer my
phone or I would hide in an empty office.
* * *
The last assault I had was more terrifying and
threatening than ever before. After forcing himself
upon me and asking me to do unspeakable things, he told
me that pleasuring him was something I owed him. That
was it for me. He had finally won. He had broken me and
forced me out. I could handle no more of his abuse.
Keep in mind that I had already reported his behavior
to my manager. She knew about the assaults from the
very beginning. . . . She was also very afraid of him.
She had experienced his inappropriate behavior herself.
* * *
Even though my children have been supportive and mature
from the beginning, I cringe when I think of how they
must have felt when they read in the paper Judge Kent's
claims that their mother was enthusiastically
consensual. . . .
This judge has hurt so many people in so many ways.
Every employee in Galveston has been afraid of his
power and control. . . .\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Transcript of Sentencing, United States v. Kent, Crim. No.
4:08CR0596-RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tx., Houston Div.), May 11, 2009
[hereinafter ``Sentencing Transcript''] at 48-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Wilkerson spoke next:
For the last 7 years, I was sexually and
psychologically abused and manipulated. Sexual abuse
began on the fifth day, the fifth day of my career
working with Sam Kent. I knew Sam Kent better than
anyone and sadly no one really knows Sam Kent or the
truth of his life and how he has conducted himself. . .
.
I would like to tell you about the real Sam Kent. Sam
Kent has spent his life manipulating people and abusing
his relationships with people. Certainly this has been
my experience the time I have known him. He has also
spent this time lying to everyone. He will never
acknowledge what he has done to the people around him.
He continues to try to manipulate the system and make
excuses for his aberrant behavior. Some of his lies
have now been uncovered by his own admission, yet
because of his narcissism and inability to admit fault
and accept fault, except in an instant--or an instance
such as today when he thinks it will gain him some
mercy, or the day he pled guilty, he turns to even more
lies by publishing ridiculous statements in the
newspaper and blaming everyone and everything but
himself.
* * *
He continues his manipulative behavior in seeking a
mental disability when just 2 years ago he fought hard
to make his accusers and the investigators know that he
was fully capable of keeping his bench.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id. at 52-54. Judge Kent sought to retire on a medical
disability. On May 27, 2009, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones of the Fifth
Circuit denied this request.
Thereafter, Judge Kent's attorney addressed the court. He
requested that Judge Kent be sentenced to a medical facility,
and that the court order drug and alcohol counseling. He
further noted that ``although [Judge Kent] says that he is not
an alcoholic, [he] is an alcoholic.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Id. at 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Judge Kent addressed the court on his own behalf. He
said he was a ``completely broken man, but in some ways a
better person. . . .''\17\ He apologized to his staff--though
he did not mention the two women directly--and to ``my wife and
family and to my marriage, all of whom and which I have likely
irretrievably lost.''\18\ He apologized ``to all who seek
redress in the Federal system for tarnishing its image and
because never again can I vouchsafe their interest[.]''\19\ He
continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Id. at 59.
\18\Id. at 59.
\19\Id. at 59-60.
I have had the benefit of 26 months of absolute
sobriety, a wonderful pretrial officer, a sensitive and
thoughtful presentencing officer, terrific attorneys
and excellent medical help. Through their assistance, I
have come to see what a flawed, selfish, thoughtless
and indulgent person I have been, and I have already
begun to try and put myself right and emerge from this
a better person.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Id. at 60.
The prosecutor spoke and after summarizing Judge Kent's
conduct requested a 36-month sentence, consistent with the plea
agreement.
Finally, Judge Vinson imposed the sentence:
The consequence to you of your wrongful conduct is
not only the loss of a job which many feel is the best
job in the world, but also punishment under the law.
And as you well know, the law is no respecter of
persons, and everyone stands equal in this Court. And
former judges are no exception.
Your wrongful conduct is a huge black X on your own
record. It's a smear on the legal profession, and, of
course, it's a stain on the justice system itself. And,
importantly, it is a matter of grave concern within the
Federal courts.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Id. at 70.
Judge Vinson thereafter imposed upon Judge Kent a sentence
of 33 months incarceration to be followed by 3 years of
supervised release, a $1,000 fine, and restitution to Ms.
McBroom of $3,300 and to Ms. Wilkerson of $3,250. Judge Kent
was permitted to remain on release and required to surrender
voluntarily to the prison designated by the Bureau of Prisons
no later than 12:00 noon on June 15, 2009.
V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS
A. Establishment of the Impeachment Task Force
On May 12, 2009, one day after Judge Kent's sentencing for
obstruction of justice, the House passed House Resolution 424,
providing that ``the Committee on the Judiciary shall inquire
whether the House should impeach Samuel B. Kent, a judge of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.'' The next day, May 13, 2009, the Committee passed a
resolution amending its January 22, 2009 resolution (which had
established a Task Force to inquire into whether a different
Federal judge should be impeached) to provide that the Task
Force was to additionally conduct ``an inquiry into whether
United States District Judge Samuel B. Kent should be
impeached.''
B. Task Force Hearing of June 3, 2009
The Task Force held an evidentiary hearing on its inquiry
into whether Judge Kent should be impeached on June 3, 2009.
Testimony was received from Alan Baron, Esq., the lead Task
Force attorney, Ms. Cathy McBroom, Ms. Donna Wilkerson, and
Professor Arthur Hellman, University of Pittsburgh School of
Law. Judge Kent was also invited to appear and testify before
the Task Force. However, both Judge Kent and his lawyer
declined to appear.
1. Statement of Alan Baron
Alan Baron, Esq., the lead Task Force attorney, provided an
overview of the investigation. As part of his statement to the
Task Force, he identified and introduced into the record the
following documents:
1) LThe original Indictment dated August 28, 2008, and
the Superseding Indicment dated January 6, 2009;
2) LThe transcript of the February 23, 2009 Plea
Proceeding;
3) LThe February 23, 2009 ``Factual Basis for Plea;''
4) LThe transcript of the May 11, 2009 Sentencing
Proceeding;
5) LThe Court's Judgment (setting out Judge Kent's
sentence), signed by Senior United States District
Judge Roger Vinson, May 11, 2009;
6) LThe May 27, 2009 letter from Chief Judge Edith H.
Jones to Judge Kent c/o his attorney denying Judge
Kent's disability claim;
7) LThe June 1, 2009 letter from Judge Kent to the Task
Force declining its invitation for him to testify;
8) LThe June 2, 2009 letter of Judge Kent to President
Obama purporting to resign effective June 1, 2010.
One issue in particular that Mr. Baron highlighted was the
fact that the prosecutor at Judge Kent's sentencing proceeding
represented to the Court that Judge Kent had made false
statements to law enforcement in connection with the Federal
investigation.
In addition, Mr. Baron informed the Task Force that Judge
Kent and his attorneys had been provided the opportunity to
make submissions to the Task Force or to appear before it. The
invitation to appear personally had been declined.
2. Testimony of Cathy McBroom
Ms. McBroom submitted a lengthy written statement which she
adopted under oath as truthful.
In her written statement she described the following
encounters in specific:
[I]n August 2003, I encountered my first incident of
sexual assault by Judge Kent after he returned from a
long lunch, obviously intoxicated. After going to his
chambers to check my outbox, he greeted me in the
hallway next to the command center on the 6th floor.
Several court security officers were in the command
center at the time. Judge Kent asked me to show him the
workout room, which was about ten feet from the command
center. The security officers had set up some weight
equipment and used the room as a make-shift gym. Judge
Kent's speech was slurred, so I suspected he was drunk,
but felt I should respect his request. Once inside the
small room, he grabbed me and forced his tongue into my
mouth while trying to remove my clothing. He had one
arm around my waist and was using the other hand to
pull up my blouse and my bra, exposing my entire
breast. He also tried to force his hand down my skirt.
All the while, I tried to push him away, begging him to
stop. I tried to reason with him by telling him his
actions were inappropriate, but I became more and more
panicked, because he was not letting up. The door was
partially cracked open and I knew the guards must have
heard the struggle. I told Judge Kent that the guards
were right outside and could hear him, but he laughed
and said that he didn't care who heard him, or what
they thought. Finally, I threatened to scream. He
stopped abruptly, looked down at me with disgust, and
left the room. I sat down on the bench and cried for
several minutes before I was able to collect myself
enough to leave the room.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Statement of Cathy McBroom, Hearing on the Possible Impeachment
of Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas, House Committee on
the Judiciary Impeachment Task Force (June 3, 2009) [hereinafter
``McBroom Statement''], at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
She described another encounter as follows:
Once a security guard had warned me of Judge Kent's
drunken condition, and when I refused to answer his
calls, he came down to the 4th floor, into my office,
and sat in the chair in front of me. He started telling
me jokes and was being very loud and obnoxious.
Suddenly he stood up and started around my desk. I
stood up and backed up as far as I could, but he pinned
me between my desk and credenza, and started kissing
me, while grabbing my backside and breasts. While
trying to fight him off, I caught a glimpse of someone
in my doorway, but couldn't tell who it was. The person
left immediately without a sound. Again, after
struggling with me for a few minutes, Judge Kent gave
up and left. I felt humiliated, scared, and shaken. A
coworker came in sometime later and noticed that I had
perspiration stains on my blue silk blouse, and that I
looked disheveled. When she asked what was wrong, I
confessed to her that Judge Kent had tried to force
himself on me.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Id. at 2.
She described the March 2007 encounter that resulted in her
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
filing a formal complaint as follows:
The last and final sexual assault occurred on March
23, 2007. I was summoned to chambers to discuss an
internal administrative action that had occurred in the
clerk's office. After a brief discussion, he got up and
asked me for a hug. I told him that I would rather not,
but he indicated that he thought I owed him that much.
I finally agreed, but when I reached up to give the
hug, he grabbed my butt. I tried to pull away and told
him that I didn't consider that a hug. Judge Kent asked
if he could have just 5 minutes with me, pulled up my
sweater and my bra all at once, and quickly got his
mouth on my breast. I told him to stop and tried to
push him away. His bulldog started getting excited and
barking when he saw the struggle. I dropped some
paperwork that I had taken to chambers and the dog
started stepping on the papers, which momentarily
distracted the Judge. When I tried to leave, he grabbed
me again and reminded me that I owed this to him. He
tried to push my head towards his crotch and told me to
``[commit oral sex].'' I resisted and he grabbed my
hand and forced me to rub his crotch. Suddenly he heard
someone enter the outer reception area and he became
irritated. He went to investigate and I was able to
break free. As I was leaving his office he said ``you
know, Cathy, I keep you around because you are a great
case manager and do great work. That doesn't change the
fact that I want to spend about 6 hours [performing
oral sex on you].'' I just turned and left the office.
By the time I reached the elevators, I was in tears. A
court security officer asked me if the judge had tried
to hit on me and I just shook my head ``yes.''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Id. at 3.
She generally described Judge Kent's efforts to gain access
to her alone, sexual references that he made when speaking to
her, and her efforts to avoid him. She also described the power
that Judge Kent had and exercised as the only Judge in the
Galveston Federal courthouse.
3. Testimony of Donna Wilkerson
Ms. Wilkerson submitted a lengthy written statement which
she adopted under oath as truthful. Ms. Wilkerson described
generally Judge Kent's conduct towards her as follows:
His sexual abuse and misconduct with me began on the
fifth day of my job. I had worked the first week at my
job with Judge Kent's secretary of 20 years. She was
retiring. On Friday of that first week, a retirement
luncheon was given for her at a local restaurant. I was
invited to and attended the luncheon, which lasted
approximately 2-3 hours where food and alcohol were
served. Mr. Kent, with others, became intoxicated,
being loud and obnoxious. During the party, pictures
were taken of several groups, including Sam Kent with
his wife, former law clerks, attorneys and his retiring
secretary. During the taking of those photos Judge Kent
joked and laughed and grabbed his wife's breasts and
buttocks in front of the room full of people. After the
party, everyone left except the few courthouse staff
and Judge Kent, who returned to the courthouse. Once
there, while his retiring secretary and others were in
the reception area of his chambers, he called me into
his office and shut the door. He sat behind his desk
and I sat in a chair in front of his desk. He told me
that he was very excited to have me coming on board to
take Ms. Henry's place, that he thought I would be an
asset to him and the operations of the court, and that
he thought I was intelligent and pretty, and other
random compliments. As he got up, appearing to be
showing me out of his office, I was walking in front of
him to the door. He reached for the door as if to open
it for me, but put one of his hands on the door and the
other one on the other side, putting me between the
door and him. He leaned in and placed a kiss on my
mouth. After that, he told me how beautiful he thought
I was and that, again, he was glad I was there. I did
not know what to do, but in my shock, I did nothing but
exit the room, thinking, ``what in the world was that
and how am I supposed to handle this?'' From that point
forward, the abuse became more frequent and more
severe. The number of these incidents, from minor to
the most severe, can be averaged at 1-2 times per month
over a year's time, for a period of approximately 5-
5\1/2\ years, from 2001-2007. However, there were
periods of time during these years that the incidents
did not occur as frequently as 1-2 times per month
because he had periods of weeks and months of not
drinking, as well as several periods of extended time
that he was out of the office. These episodes were
routinely followed by Judge Kent's returning from long
lunches wherein he was intoxicated. I have explained in
the past that the severity of the sexual abuse can be
described using a Bell Curve as an example--starting
with the most minor of incidents of hugs and kisses,
then escalating to worse incidents of touching me
inappropriately, groping me outside my clothes, then
inside my clothes (top and bottom), then attempting to
and gaining penetration of my genitals with his hand,
placing my hand on his crotch, and then topping the
curve at the most severe episode of once, and possibly
twice, pulling down my pants and performing oral sex on
me. These episodes always occurred inside of his
chambers--sometimes in his office, and sometimes in the
reception area or wherever in chambers he could corner
me. Preceding the incidents, he would always begin
speaking in a vulgar and inappropriate way to me and
telling me graphically what he wanted to do to me.
Statements of ``you have the cutest [breasts],'' ``let
me see those cute [breasts],'' ``you have the cutest
ass,'' ``I want to [commit oral sex on you],'' and
``why don't you [commit oral sex on me]'' were common
to the more severe episodes. During these episodes, I
repeatedly told him ``no,'' ``stop,'' ``stop acting
like a pig,'' ``quit,'' ``cut this out,'' ``you/we
can't be doing this,'' ``I don't want to do that/
this,'' ``behave yourself,'' and so on and so on. There
were times when he would approach me from behind while
I was sitting at my desk and working at my computer. He
would quickly come up behind me and put his hands over
my shoulders and grope me on the outside of my clothes
and down my shirt and into my bra.
* * *
During the most severe episode, he pinned me to a
chair in his office after pulling my pants and
underwear down.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Statement of Donna Wilkerson, Hearing on the Possible
Impeachment of Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas, House
Committee on the Judiciary Impeachment Task Force (June 3, 2009)
[hereinafter ``Wilkerson Statement''], at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
She also elaborated on Judge Kent's views of his own power:
During my interview for this job and several times
subsequent to my being hired, Sam Kent told me that he
was the sole person responsible for his personal
staff's hiring and firing (his personal staff consisted
of me and his two law clerks). He also told me that he
was the Government--``I am the Government''; ``I'm the
Lion King--it's good to be king,'' ``I'm the Emperor of
Galveston,'' and ``the man wearing the horned hat,
guiding the ship.'' He warned me of three things which
he said would not be tolerated and would be grounds for
my/our immediate dismissal: disloyalty to him,
``talking out of school,'' and by engaging in behavior
which would be an embarrassment to the Court.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Id. at 1.
Ms. Wilkerson claimed that she was afraid of speaking out
and losing her job, and thus had not been forthright with
investigators and law enforcement when initially questioned
about Judge Kent's conduct towards her. It was not until her
third grand jury appearance that Ms. Wilkerson described the
full extent of Judge Kent's non-consensual sexual contact with
her.
4. Testimony of Professor Arthur Hellman
Professor Hellman provided expert testimony that, in
essence, concluded that Judge Kent's conduct in making false
statements to fellow judges (and thereby obstructing justice),
as well as abusing his power as a Federal judge to sexually
assault women, constituted independent grounds to justify his
impeachment and removal from office.
First, Professor Hellman reviewed the history of the phrase
``high crimes and misdemeanors'' including the views of the
Framers, the accepted body of scholarly interpretation, and the
House impeachment precedents. He concluded that this phrase
generally described acts that constituted an abuse of power, or
otherwise generally rendered the judge unfit to hold office--
including a judge's exercise of ``arbitrary power.''\27\ As but
one example, Professor Hellman cited from an influential 19th-
century treatise in making that point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\See Statement of Professor Arthur D. Hellman, Hearing on the
Possible Impeachment of Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of
Texas, House Committee on the Judiciary Impeachment Task Force (June 3,
2009), at 13-20 (``abuse of power'' discussed at 18-19; ``arbitrary
power'' at 18).
[William] Rawle then explains why the availability of
impeachment is particularly valuable as a means of
dealing with misconduct by members of the judiciary:
L We may perceive in this scheme one useful mode
of removing from office him who is unworthy to fill it,
in cases where the people, and sometimes the president
himself would be unable to accomplish that object. A
commission granted during good behaviour can only be
revoked by this mode of proceeding.
The premise, then, is that the purpose of impeachment
is to remove from office ``him who is unworthy to fill
it.'' It follows, I think, that it is a sufficient
ground for impeachment of a civil officer--particularly
an Article III judge--that he has engaged in behavior
that makes him ``unworthy to fill'' that particular
office.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Id. at 19 (emphasis supplied by Hellman) (quoting William
Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, (2d
ed. 1829), at 218 (1970 reprint)).
Professor Hellman concluded that, as a legal matter, there
were ``two broad (and overlapping) categories of conduct that
may justify impeachment. The first is serious abuse of power.
The second is conduct that demonstrates that an official is
`unworthy to fill' the office that he holds.''\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\Id. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Hellman likewise concluded that the facts in the
record rose to the level necessary to warrant Judge Kent's
impeachment. As to Judge Kent's false statements to the Fifth
Circuit (the basis of his criminal conviction), Judge Hellman
noted: ``False testimony by a Federal judge in a judicial
misconduct proceeding falls easily within the realm of `high
crimes and misdemeanors' that warrant impeachment.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to Judge Kent's sexual misconduct towards Ms. McBroom
and Ms. Wilkerson, Professor Hellman stated that if the
evidence showed that Judge Kent abused his position in
committing the acts and otherwise exhibited conduct that
demonstrated his unfitness for office, then impeachment would
be warranted on the basis of his sexual misconduct. As
Professor Hellman stated:
If [Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson] describe their
experiences in the way they did at the sentencing
hearing, and if the House credits their testimony, the
record will make a strong case for serious abuse of
power that does warrant Judge Kent's impeachment.
* * *
The evidence would then point to the conclusion that
Judge Kent relied on his position of authority and
control in the Galveston Division of the District Court
to coerce employees of that court to engage in sexual
acts for his personal gratification--and to remain
silent rather than to report his attacks to a higher
authority. Such behavior is, in Wooddeson's words,
``official oppression'' that ``introduce[s] arbitrary
power.'' It is a high crime and misdemeanor.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Id. at 28-29 (citation omitted). Richard Wooddeson--the
individual quoted by Professor Hellman--was an English historian of the
late 18th century, a contemporary of the Framers. Professor Hellman, in
his Task Force Statement, described Wooddeson's writings as having been
relied on by the Supreme Court in other contexts associated with
Constitutional interpretation.
Professor Hellman provided the following analogy to support
his conclusion why the sexual misconduct would support
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
impeachment:
If Judge Kent had demanded that court employees give
him 10 percent of their salaries as a condition of
holding their jobs, no one would doubt that he
committed an impeachable offense. The sexual coercion
described at the sentencing hearing is no less
``obnoxious,'' and the result should be the same.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Id. at 31 (internal footnote omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Judge Kent's Letter
In his letter of June 1, 2009, Judge Kent stated, in
pertinent part:
For several years, influenced by misguided emotions
that probably stemmed from innate personality flaws
exacerbated by alcohol abuse and a series of life
tragedies (most notably the emotional horror I endured
for years in connection with my first wife, Mary Ann's
slow, excruciating death from brain cancer), I began
relating to Mrs. McBroom and Mrs. Wilkerson in
inappropriate ways. . . . In doing so, I allowed myself
to maintain unrealistic views of how they perceived me
and my actions. I sincerely regret that my actions
caused them and their families so much emotional
distress.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Letter from Judge Samuel B. Kent to Task Force Members, Re:
Statement of Judge Samuel B. Kent, Provided to The Task Force to
Consider the Possible Impeachment of Judge Samuel B. Kent (June 1,
2009), at 1. He also represented he had no pension or retirement and
needed health insurance for his medical and mental health problems. Id.
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Factual Developments Subsequent to the Hearing
1. Obtaining Information Regarding Judge Kent's False Statements to Law
Enforcement
Alan Baron, Esq., has interviewed the FBI agent who was in
attendance when Judge Kent was interviewed by the FBI on
November 30, 2007, and when Judge Kent made statements to the
FBI and Department of Justice in a meeting of August 11, 2008,
where he attempted to persuade the Department not to seek an
indictment of him. In both instances, his testimony was
inconsistent with that of Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson, and
misrepresented the nature and duration of his non-consensual
sexual contact with both women. Mr. Baron provided a copy of
his memorandum describing those interviews to the Task
Force.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\The Task Force also obtained the FBI ``302'' statements of
interviews from the two dates on which Judge Kent met with the FBI and
Department of Justice and which detail his effort to mislead
investigators during those meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Prior Statements of Donna Wilkerson
As noted in the discussion of her testimony, Ms. Wilkerson
acknowledged that she was not fully forthright with law
enforcement when first questioned about Judge Kent's conduct
towards her. She provided some explanation for this, describing
generally that Judge Kent told her what his story was (namely,
a few kisses that stopped when she told him they were
unwelcome) as a signal for how she should testify, and
otherwise manipulated her by suggesting, prior to her first
grand jury appearance, that her appearance might provoke him to
commit suicide.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\Ms. Wilkerson testified:
Before my first grand jury appearance after he returned
from administrative leave--20 minutes before my scheduled
appearance--he came to my desk and told me, ``If anyone
from Dr. Hirschfield's office [his psychiatrist] calls,
please put them through right away--you know they have me
on suicide watch again, right?'' He even instructed his law
clerk, Carey Worrell, in my presence, to research his life
insurance policy to make sure that it did not contain
``suicide exclusion'' so that if he killed himself, his
wife would still be paid the benefits. On another occasion
before my last grand jury appearance, he told Ms. Worrell
that if I ``rolled'' on him, it would be all he could take
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and he would kill himself.
Wilkerson Statement at 7.
The prosecutors at sentencing specifically referenced that
Ms. Wilkerson had not been truthful in her initial grand jury
appearances--a fact they attributed to Judge Kent's attempts to
influence her testimony. In the context of a discussion of the
applicability of the ``obstruction'' enhancement under the
Sentencing Guidelines, the prosecutor stated:
The defendant in telling [Ms. Wilkerson] that he
had--he himself had falsely denied his repeated attacks
on her, he was sending a clear and unambiguous
statement that she must repeat that lie too. . . . She,
in fact, drew from his statements that she was supposed
to testify falsely before the grand jury, as well.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\Sentencing Transcript at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly:
[I] need to point out also that [Ms. Wilkerson]
also denied that involvement continuously until the
third time she appeared before the grand jury.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Id. at 10.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Task Force obtained and
reviewed the prior grand jury testimony of Ms. Wilkerson.
D. Task Force Meeting and Introduction of Resolution
On June 9, 2009, the Task Force met and approved a proposed
resolution containing four articles of impeachment for
recommendation to the Committee. Also at this meeting, four
additional documents were submitted into the record. They were:
1) LThe Judgment of Conviction of Judge Kent;\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\That document was also made part of the record at the Task
Force Hearing of June 3, 2009.
2) LMemorandum of Interview signed by Alan Baron,
Special Impeachment Counsel to the Task Force,
summarizing an interview with FBI Special Agent David
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker;
3) LMemorandum of Interview signed by Kirsten Konar,
Esq., counsel assisting the Task Force, summarizing an
interview with Ms. Donna Wilkerson;
4) LMedical and mental health records of Judge Kent
submitted by Ms. Jackson Lee
Later that day, H. Res 520 was introduced by Chairman John
Conyers, Jr., along with Ranking Member Lamar Smith, Task Force
Chairman Adam Schiff, Task Force Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte,
and every other member of the Task Force. The resolution was
referred to the Committee.
E. Judicial Conference Certificate Transmitted to House
By way of a letter dated June 9, 2009, the Judicial
Conference of the United States transmitted to Speaker of the
House Nancy Pelosi a certificate setting forth its
``determination that consideration of impeachment of United
States District Judge Samuel B. Kent, of the Southern District
of Texas, may be warranted.''\39\ The Judicial Conference
noted, as a basis for its determination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\A copy of the transmittal letter and Certificate is attached to
this Report.
In sum, Judge Kent has stipulated, as the basis for
his plea of guilty, that
L (a) in August 2003 and March 2007, he engaged in
non-consensual sexual contact with a person ([Ms.
McBroom]) without her permission;
L (b) from 2004 through at least 2005, he engaged
in non-consensual sexual contact with a person ([Ms.
Wilkerson]) without her permission; and
L (c) in connection with a judicial misconduct
complaint against him, he testified falsely before a
Fifth Circuit special investigative committee regarding
his unwanted, non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms.
Wilkerson], by understating the extent of that contact
and by falsely stating that it had ended after [Ms.
Wilkerson] told him it was unwelcome.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\Factual Basis for Plea at 2. 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 351 et seq
sets forth the procedures for the judicial branch to refer concerns
regarding judges that might warrant impeachment to the House of
Representatives. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 355(b)(1) provides:
In general.--If the Judicial Conference concurs in the
determination of the judicial council, or makes its own
determination, that consideration of impeachment may be
warranted, it shall so certify and transmit the
determination and the record of proceedings to the House of
Representatives for whatever action the Hosue of
Representatives considers to be necessary.
F. Full Committee Markup on June 10, 2009
On June 10, 2009, the Committee on the Judiciary voted to
consider the four Articles of Impeachment set forth in House
Resolution 520. In connection with that Markup, two additional
documents were identified and made part of the record:
1) LLetter from Judge Kent's attorney, Dick DeGuerin to
the Committee on the Judiciary (June 9, 2009);
2) L``Certificate To The Speaker, United States House
of Representatives [regarding District Court Judge
Samuel B. Kent],'' from the Judicial Conference, dated
June 9, 2009.
VI. DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
Article I charges that Judge Kent ``engaged in conduct with
respect to employees associated with the court that is
incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a
judge.'' In particular, Article I charges that ``[o]n one or
more occasions between 2003 and 2007, Judge Kent sexually
assaulted Cathy McBroom, by touching her private areas directly
and through her clothing against her will and by attempting to
cause her to engage in a sexual act with him.'' Ms. McBroom
testified to facts consistent with this Article, and Judge
Kent, in his signed ``Factual Basis for Plea,'' admitted: ``In
August 2003 and March 2007, the defendant engaged in non-
consensual sexual contact with [Ms. McBroom] without her
permission.''\41\ The Article thus provides: ``Wherefore, Judge
Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and
should be removed from office.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\Factual Basis for Plea at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article II charges that Judge Kent ``engaged in conduct
with respect to employees associated with the court that is
incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a
judge,'' in particular, that ``[o]n one or more occasions
between 2001 and 2007, Judge Kent sexually assaulted Donna
Wilkerson, by touching her in her private areas against her
will and by attempting to cause her to engage in a sexual act
with him.'' Ms. Wilkerson testified to facts consistent with
this Article, and Judge Kent, in his signed ``Factual Basis for
Plea,'' admitted: ``From 2004 through at least 2005, the
defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms.
Wilkerson] without her permission.''\42\ The ``Factual Basis''
also sets forth Judge Kent's admissions that he ``had engaged
in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson]
without her permission[,]'' and that he ``continued his non-
consensual contacts even after she asked him to stop.''\43\ The
Article thus concludes: ``Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is
guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed
from office.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\Id.
\43\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article III charges that on June 8, 2007, when Judge Kent
appeared before the Special Investigative Committee appointed
by the Fifth Circuit to investigate Ms. McBroom's complaint, he
made false statements concerning his non-consensual sexual
contacts with Ms. Wilkerson. Judge Kent has admitted this
during the February 2009 plea proceeding, and specifically
admitted in the ``Factual Basis'' the substance of the false
statements, as follows:
10. L[On June 8, 2007], [t]he defendant falsely
testified regarding his unwanted sexual contact with
[Ms. Wilkerson] by stating to the [Fifth Circuit
Special Investigative] Committee that the extent of his
non-consensual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] was one
kiss, when in fact and as he knew the defendant had
engaged in repeated non-consensual sexual contact with
[Ms. Wilkerson] without her permission.
11. LThe defendant also falsely testified regarding his
unwanted sexual contact with [Ms. Wilkerson] by stating
to the Committee that when told by [Ms. Wilkerson] that
his advances were unwelcome, no further contact
occurred, when in fact and as he knew the defendant
continued his non-consensual contacts even after she
asked him to stop.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\Id.
Article III goes on to note that Judge Kent was indicted, pled
guilty, and was sentenced to imprisonment for the felony of
obstruction of justice (in violation of title 18, United States
Code, section 1512(c)(2)) arising from that conduct, and that
the sentencing judge described the conduct as ``a stain on the
justice system itself.'' The Article thus concludes:
``Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes and
misdemeanors and should be removed from office.''
Article IV charges that on or about November 30, 2007,
Judge Kent made material false and misleading statements about
the nature and extent of his non-consensual sexual contact with
Ms. McBroom and Ms. Wilkerson to agents of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and that on or about August 11, 2008, he made
similar material false and misleading statements to agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and representatives of the
Department of Justice. These statements were described by the
prosecutor at Judge Kent's sentencing, and were confirmed by a
Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent during the
Impeachment Task Force investigation. The Article thus
concludes: ``Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high
crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.''
VII. CONCLUSION
The following language from the House Report accompanying
the Judge Walter L. Nixon, Jr., articles of impeachment also
aptly sets out the core principles underlying and justifying
the Impeachment Resolution against Judge Kent:
The [House's] role is not to punish [Judge Kent], but
simply to determine whether articles of impeachment
should be brought. Under our Constitution, the American
people must look to the Congress to protect them from
persons unfit to hold high office because of serious
misconduct that has violated the public trust. Where,
as here, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that a
federal judge has committed impeachable offenses, our
duty requires us to bring articles of impeachment and
to try him before the United States Senate.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\Nixon Impeachment Report, at 33-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Committee Consideration
On June 10, 2009, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the resolution, H. Res. 520, favorably reported without
amendment by a rollcall vote of 29 to 0, a quorum being
present.
IX. Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following rollcall votes took place during the Committee's
consideration of H. Res. 520:
1. Impeachment Article 1. Approved 30 to 0.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member....................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 30 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Impeachment Article 2. Approved 28 to 0.
ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member....................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 28 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Impeachment Article 3. Approved 30 to 0.
ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member....................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 30 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Impeachment Article 4. Approved 28 to 0, with one Member
passing.
ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ Pass
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member....................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 28 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Motion to report H. Res 520 favorably. Passed 29 to 0.
ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman......................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Mr. Gutierrez................................................... X
Mr. Sherman..................................................... X
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Gonzalez.................................................... X
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Maffei...................................................... X
Mr. Smith, Ranking Member....................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Rooney...................................................... X
Mr. Harper......................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 29 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. LETTER FROM JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
REGARDING JUDGE KENT