Keller may face criminal prosecution over ethics disclosure violations

Having now had an opportunity to read the Ethics Commission's ruling where they fined Presiding Judge Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals $100,000 for failing to disclose a vast web of financial entanglements. See the ruling (pdf). Several items in particular stood out.

First, part of the reason for the large fine is that Keller allegedly committed multiple misdemeanors - a baker's dozen, to be exact. And it might have been more except there's a two-year statute of limitations on what violations the TEC may consider when punishing criminal violations.

According to the ruling, "Ethics Commission rules prohibit the commission from considering an allegation barred from criminal prosecution by operation of the applicable statute of limitation. ... The criminal offense for a violation of section 572.023 of the Government Code is a Class B misdemeanor." In their "conclusions of law," the TEC found "credible evidence" Keller had violated of no fewer than 13 separate violations of that section of the statute - i.e., that she'd committed 13 misdemeanors!

There was a criminal complaint filed with the Travis County Attorney, but nobody's heard a peep out of David Escamilla's shop before now. Arguably, this ruling should kick-start the county attorney's investigation, since the clock is ticking and the statute of limitations could run out on many of the violations if he fails to act in a timely fashion.

I called Escamilla to ask about the status of the criminal complaint, which has now been sitting at his office for more than a year. Escamilla had not yet read the TEC opinion himself, declaring that he'd asked two of his prosecutors to review it and report back to him tomorrow with a recommendation how to proceed.

Escamilla and I spoke both on and off the record. On the record, he said he hadn't moved forward before now because he'd been been waiting for the Ethics Commission to complete its investigation. He said he would give "great weight" to the Ethics Commissions findings of fact and conclusions of law, which would have a "great influence" on whether his office elected to proceed with prosecution. Escamilla was particularly impressed that the TEC identified 13 different alleged Class B misdemeanor violations and said the remarkable volume of violations might also be a factor in whether to go forward.

IMO prosecutors should particularly investigate the circumstances surrounding the property purchased by her father and the boards of directors Judge Keller sat on but did not disclose. Why wouldn't her father tell her about those properties? And if Daddy listed her as a company director without her knowledge or participation in the company's affairs, doesn't that begin to look like Keller's father has been setting up dummy companies for some unknown purpose that he's been concealing from his family? It's a legitimate question if we are to believe the Presiding Judge's denials that she knew anything about the assets and corporate affiliations in her amended ethics disclosure.

My guess: By a long shot, the last shoe hasn't dropped in this saga.

In the "be careful what you ask for department," however, my guess is that if Sharon Keller resigned over these charges, Rick Perry would appoint Williamson County DA John Bradley (or his equivalent) to replace her, particularly in an election season when the Governor has spent the whole year tossing red meat to his base. The good news: Her term is up in 2012, at which time there will be a chance to rectify things at the ballot box.

RELATED (May 5): See the Dallas News editorial, "Keller's ethics fine is hefty but fair," declaring

the ethics commission report makes clear that Keller's failings go beyond the question of which family properties have her name on them. The state's highest criminal court judge did not disclose a litany of holdings, including shares of stock, nine sources of income, certificates of deposit, interest in a business entity and the much-discussed property, which was valued at $2.8 million in 2007. Keller also omitted multiple board or executive positions and honoraria that she accepted – errors that have nothing to with her octogenarian father.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram also has an editorial on the subject, titled "Keller ignores due diligence." They note that Keller's situation "seems to have spiraled out of her control. But things were within her control at the beginning of the muddle that her professional reputation has become. It was her questionable decisions that led to this point." They also note that "It's a breathtaking fine that takes a hard line on following the rules. But that's in line with Keller's own approach to enforcing the law." True that.