Posted by Ilya Somin: More on the Judge Samuel B. Kent Case: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_30-2007_10_06.shtml#1191197716
Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey has [1]a good article on the Fifth Circuit investigation into the sexual harrassment claims against Judge Samuel B. Kent. Casey makes two important points. First, federal law requires the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to keep secret the evidence obtained in its investigation. For this reason, it is wrong to infer that the Fifth Circuit judges are keeping the information secret in order to somehow help Kent cover up his misconduct. If you want to study the details of relevant statute for yourself, it is[2] 28 U.S.C. 360. Second, there actually isn't very much that the Fifth Circuit can do to punish Kent. Article III of the Constitution prevents them from removing him from his position or docking his pay. It is unlikely that the Circuit could impose a sanction much more severe than the (unusual) public reprimand and compelled temporary leave that they have already administered. The only way to forcibly remove Kent from the bench is by means of impeachment by Congress. That is why I suggested in my last post that the House of Representatives should investigate the charges against Kent in detail, and make a determination on whether to proceed with an impeachment vote (which would be followed by a trial in the Senate, if it passes). Casey also argues that the evidence collected by investigations of judicial misconduct should be made public. There is some merit to his view. However, I would be reluctant to establish a blanket rule in favor of disclosure; some judicial employees or other witnesses might be unwilling to assist investigators if they knew their statements would automatically be made public. The public interest in disclosure has to be balanced against the need to guarantee confidentiality to some witnesses in cases where essential evidence might be impossible to obtain without it. I don't have the expertise needed to determine exactly where the line should be drawn. But perhaps there should be a presumption in favor of disclosure that nevertheless gives investigators the option of guaranteeing confidentiality in some cases. References 1. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5175407.html 2. http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=19710521778+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve _______________________________________________ Volokh mailing list [email protected] http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
