Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has raised the specter of judicial corruption in asking an appeals court to reconsider an opinion in a money-laundering case against two associates of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

“The dark shadow of corruption of our system of justice looms over this case,” Earle wrote in a brief. “Every lawyer has a duty to raise questions of corruption that go to the heart of our judicial system, and it is in the discharge of that duty that the State pursues this effort.”

Without naming names, Earle aimed his remarks Monday at a panel of three Republican judges who last month upheld the constitutionality of a law used to indict DeLay and associates Jim Ellis and John Colyandro on money-laundering charges dating from 2002 legislative elections.

In that ruling in the cases against Ellis and Colyandro, the judicial panel volunteered that the state’s money-laundering statute in 2002 did not cover checks. That prompted DeLay’s lawyers to declare victory because the three men are accused of laundering $190,000 in corporate donations, which are generally banned from state campaigns, into legal political donations — all by check.

A fourth justice on the court, Democrat Diane Henson, objected to her colleagues’ handling of the case. She criticized the three-judge panel for sitting on the constitutional questions for two years and then going beyond the question before them in the pretrial challenge. She also disagreed with their interpretation, saying the money-laundering law included checks.

Henson urged that all six of the court’s justices rehear the constitutional challenge, a suggestion the panel turned down.

Earle, a Democrat, adopted Henson’s complaints in his brief. But his strong language implying corruption caught defense attorneys off-guard, the Austin American-Statesman reported in Tuesday’s editions.

“It is just way out of line,” said San Antonio lawyer J.D. Pauerstein, who represents Ellis. “That sounds like it was written by a politician instead of a lawyer.”

University of Texas law professor George Dix suggested Earle’s language might be interpreted more than one way. He said it would be unusual to imply the judicial system is corrupt without offering specifics.