Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Questions in Kent case need answers

By Mark Obbie

ADVERTISEMENTS

After a bizarre back and forth throughout the day, the Florida federal judge called in to hear the prosecution of a Texas federal judge has lifted his gag order on lawyers and witnesses in the case. Judge Robert Vinson had left the gag order in place since Monday's guilty plea by Samuel Kent, who stepped down from his judgeship when pleading guilty to obstruction of justice in a case featuring accusations that he sexually abused women who worked for him. (He admitted lying about the incidents, and that he forced himself on subordinates.) Local and national news organizations admirably challenged the gag after the guilty plea. As I blogged here, Vinson's initial stance decision smacked of favoritism for a defendant whose case deserves to be aired completely. Since then, reports the Houston Chronicle's Mary Flood, Kent's media-savvy defense lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, made a remarkable request: Leave the gag order in place to inhibit attacks on Kent in the news (including from impeachment-minded members of Congress enraged that Kent struck a pension-preserving deal) that the former judge wouldn't feel free to counter. In other words, protect his reputation. Flood, on her blog, rightly called that "an amazing request from an admitted felon." She also took Vinson to task:

Vinson has run a remarkably secret case. He's held more than 20 sealed hearings, issued sealed orders and had unannounced and close telephone conferences with the lawyers in this case.He gave no justification for continuing the gag order Monday after it was clear there will be no jury, there will be no trial, there will only be Vinson himself sentencing Kent.

After days of this, Vinson lifted the order, noting that he probably could sentence Kent without getting the vapors from all this tawdry publicity. Now that the muzzles are off, we the citizens deserve to know: Why did the government cut this deal? Was Kent treated unduly leniently in plea bargaining, and in the lengthy investigation? Or was it the other way around? Did court administrators do their jobs? What do his accusers say about all of this? And what's in those sealed pleadings and transcripts? Short of identifying a sexual assault victim who wishes to remain anonymous, everything now should come out.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on February 26, 2009 (boomark / email).