Judge Tammy Kemp gives Amber Guyger her personal Bible and a hug. Image via WFFA Video/YouTube

The Dallas judge who's facing an ethics complaint for giving a hug and Bible to convicted murderer and ex-police officer Amber Guyger may have further exposed herself to a sanction because of statements she gave to national news media to defend her actions.

While 204th Criminal District Judge Tammy Kemp's statements to the media could help her in the court of public opinion, they could have the opposite effect in the defense of her ethics complaint and even give fodder to a new complaint. This is because ethics rules bar judges from commenting publicly on pending cases. In this litigation, the window has not closed for post-trial motions or appeals.

Two judicial ethics experts said it's likely Kemp will face a sanction for her conduct after the trial, since Texas judicial canons mandate that judges always remain impartial, never show bias to a party generally and prohibit judges from showing bias based on religion.

In a widely republished article, Kemp told the Associated Press that she's never before acknowledged her Christian faith to a defendant but was spurred to do it after Guyger told the judge she didn't know how to seek God's forgiveness and didn't own a Bible.

The judge defended her actions, saying the trial was over, her statements weren't on the official record, and that she had come off the bench to hug Guyger and speak to her about Christianity.

"I didn't want her to go back to the jail and to sink into doubt and self-pity and become bitter," Kemp told the news outlet. "She still has a lot of life ahead of her following her sentence and I would hope that she could live it purposefully."

But the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit that challenges religious displays in government, filed an Oct. 3 ethics complaint against Kemp with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct the day after the trial.

Related story:

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Judge Who Gave Bible to Amber Guyger After Murder Trial

The fact that the story from Kemp's interview has spread so far is not going to help her before the judicial conduct commission, some experts say.

"It is more likely it will come before the commission. It is more likely that the commission will take that into account," said Herring & Panzer partner Chuck Herring of Austin, who authored a book on Texas attorney and judicial ethics. "In theory, it shouldn't affect whether the commission imposes a sanction or not, but if the public image of the judiciary has been affected or impacted by a judge's conduct, then I think they are more likely to pay very close attention."

Herring questioned the accuracy of Kemp's statement to the media that her conduct arose after the trial was over. He explained that a defendant can still file a motion for a new trial that would require the judge's ruling. For that reason, the judicial conduct commission might still consider the Guyger matter as a pending proceeding. If so, an ethics rule, which prohibits a judge from publicly commenting on a pending case, may come into play. Other rules expect judges to maintain their appearance of impartiality even in their extrajudicial activities.

"I feel badly for her, because she seems to be well-intentioned," Herring said. "But I think she was ill-advised to engage in that conduct."

Austin judicial ethics solo practitioner Lillian Hardwick wrote in an email that when judges receive widespread publicity for their actions, the judicial conduct commission often sanctions them using a standard in the Texas Constitution, which prohibits judges from violating ethics rules willfully or persistently, engaging in conduct inconsistent with a judge's duties, or casting public discredit on the judiciary or administration of justice.

Even when the judge doesn't specifically invite the publicity, this constitutional standard applies because the commission views the intentional, underlying conduct as the reason behind the publicity. When the judge does invite the publicity, the commission only has to decide if the conduct was inconsistent with the judge's duties.

"This instance is especially problematic as it suggests that a judge may explain his or her actions in some way other than a legal opinion," Hardwick said. "In that the judge considers her behavior OK, as the trial was over, I'm sure that she will receive an order of additional education, along with a sanction."

Kemp didn't return a call or email seeking comment before deadline.