79–008 

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

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: 

(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. 

(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 parVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:46 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX HR159

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

ticular, 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, § 2, clause 5: 

The House of Representatives . . . shall have the 

sole Power of Impeachment. 

Article I, § 3, clauses 6 and 7: 

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. 

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 InVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:46 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX HR159

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

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 § 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). 

dictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according 

to Law. 

Article II, § 2, clause 1: 

The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United 

States, except in Cases of Impeachment. 

Article II, § 4: 

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: 

Article III, § 1: 

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

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). 3 Id. at 12. 

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. 

conduct warranting both punishment under the criminal 

law and impeachment.2

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

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

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
7 

7Order 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. 8Superseding Indictment, United States v. Kent, Crim. No. 4:08CR0596–RV (U.S. Dist. Ct., 

S.D. Tex., Houston Div., Jan. 6, 2009). 

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. 

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. § 2244(b), and one count of attempted aggravated sexual 

abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 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. 

§ 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].’’ 

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

9Transcript 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. 

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

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
9 

10 Id. at 5–8. 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. 

testify falsely before the grand jury did significantly obstruct and impede the official investigation.10

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. In August 2003 and March 2007, the defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms. 

McBroom] without her permission. 

5. From 2004 through at least 2005, the defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Ms. 

Wilkerson] without her permission. 

* * * 

10. [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. The 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

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
10 

12Transcript 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. 13 Id. at 17–18. 

THE COURT: Are those facts true and correct? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.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

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
11 

14Transcript 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. 

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

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. . . . 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
12 

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. 16 Id. at 58. 17 Id. at 59. 18 Id. at 59. 19 Id. at 59–60. 20 Id. at 60. 

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

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

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: 

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

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
13 

21 Id. at 70. 

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

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) The original Indictment dated August 28, 2008, and the Superseding Indicment dated January 6, 2009; 

2) The transcript of the February 23, 2009 Plea Proceeding; 

3) The February 23, 2009 ‘‘Factual Basis for Plea;’’ 

4) The transcript of the May 11, 2009 Sentencing Proceeding; 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
14 

5) The Court’s Judgment (setting out Judge Kent’s sentence), 

signed by Senior United States District Judge Roger Vinson, May 11, 2009; 

6) The May 27, 2009 letter from Chief Judge Edith H. Jones 

to Judge Kent c/o his attorney denying Judge Kent’s disability claim; 

7) The June 1, 2009 letter from Judge Kent to the Task Force 

declining its invitation for him to testify; 

8) The 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 minVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:46 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX HR159

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
15 

22Statement 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. 23 Id. at 2. 

utes before I was able to collect myself enough to leave the 

room.22

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

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
16 

24 Id. at 3. 

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

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 5–51⁄2

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
17 

25Statement 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. 

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

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
18 

26 Id. at 1. 27See 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). 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)). 29 Id. at 21–22. 

behavior which would be an embarrassment to the 

Court.26

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: 

[William] Rawle then explains why the availability of 

impeachment is particularly valuable as a means of dealing with misconduct by members of the judiciary: 

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

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

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
19 

30 Id. at 26. 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. 32 Id. at 31 (internal footnote omitted). 

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

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

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

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 reVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:46 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX HR159

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
20 

33Letter 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. 34The 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. 35Ms. 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. 36Sentencing Transcript at 5. 

gret that my actions caused them and their families so 

much emotional distress.33

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

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

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


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
21 

37 Id. at 10. 38That document was also made part of the record at the Task Force Hearing of June 3, 2009. 39 A copy of the transmittal letter and Certificate is attached to this Report. 

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

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) The Judgment of Conviction of Judge Kent; 38

2) Memorandum of Interview signed by Alan Baron, Special 

Impeachment Counsel to the Task Force, summarizing an 

interview with FBI Special Agent David Baker; 

3) Memorandum of Interview signed by Kirsten Konar, Esq., 

counsel assisting the Task Force, summarizing an interview 

with Ms. Donna Wilkerson; 

4) Medical 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: 

In sum, Judge Kent has stipulated, as the basis for his 

plea of guilty, that 

(a) in August 2003 and March 2007, he engaged in 

non-consensual sexual contact with a person ([Ms. 

McBroom]) without her permission; 

(b) from 2004 through at least 2005, he engaged in 

non-consensual sexual contact with a person ([Ms. 

Wilkerson]) without her permission; and 

(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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
22 

40Factual Basis for Plea at 2. 28 U.S.C. §§ 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. § 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. 41Factual Basis for Plea at 2–3. 42 Id. 43 Id. 

and by falsely stating that it had ended after [Ms. 

Wilkerson] told him it was unwelcome.40

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) Letter from Judge Kent’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin to the 

Committee on the Judiciary (June 9, 2009); 

2) ‘‘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.’’ 

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 conVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:46 Jun 18, 2009 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX HR159

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
23 

44 Id. 

cludes: ‘‘Wherefore, Judge Samuel B. Kent is guilty of high crimes 

and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.’’ 

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. [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. The 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

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: 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
24 

45 Nixon Impeachment Report, at 33–34. 

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

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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
25 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
26 

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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
27 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman ..................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

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. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
28 

ROLLCALL NO. 5—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
29 

X. LETTER FROM JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

REGARDING JUDGE KENT 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSRes520-2.eps
30 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSRes520-1.eps
31 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSRes520-3.eps
32 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSRes520-4.eps
33 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSRes520-5.eps