Federal judge Samuel B. Kent has been indicted for sexual assault. After being charged, he issued a statement through his lawyer, Dick DeGuerin. His lawyer said, "[Judge Kent] did have a relationship with this woman, worked for him for six years never complained about their relationship, which was completely consensual."
It now seems that Judge Kent has backed away from that defense: "DeGuerin said on the sidewalk outside the courthouse that Kent and McBroom did not have a sexual relationship but 'they did have a flirty, close relationship' and there are many witnesses to show that."
Things are not looking good for Judge Kent. I'm sure some spin doctor might say that "flirty, close relationship" is still technically a "consensual" relationship. But in sexual assault cases, "consensual" is a term of art. It generally means that the person consented to sex.
Incidentally, Judge's "flirty" acts, according to the Indictment, include the following: "[Judge Kent] did engage in the intentional touching, both directly and through the clothing, of the groin, breast, inner thigh, and buttocks of [the complaining witness] with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, [and] degrade []." He also allegedly attempted to put the woman's mouth on his penis.
Is that what counts as flirting these days?
