Feb. 6, 2016 SIGN IN | REGISTER

Ring Case to Test Corruption Law

The fate of former Capitol Hill aides caught in the influence-peddling scandal centered on ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff may hang on the trial of their peer Kevin Ring, whose case is among the first to test the effect of a Supreme Court decision that restricted the scope of a key public corruption statute.

Ring is scheduled to begin his second trial in October — a federal judge declared a mistrial in October 2009 after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict — making it among the first corruption cases since the Supreme Court decision in late June.

Federal prosecutors had previously employed the “honest services” statute in a broad range of public corruption cases, including Ring’s indictment and numerous plea deals in connection with the Abramoff investigation. The honest services law provided prosecutors more legal flexibility than the rigid requirements of other crimes, such as bribery.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the federal statute now applies only in cases involving bribery or kickback schemes, meaning prosecutors may now have to prove bribery to pursue an honest services fraud charge.

That ruling has sparked questions over whether the government will still be able to prosecute honest services cases, and Ring’s prosecution appears to be the test case.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle, who is overseeing several of the Abramoff-related cases, said at a hearing Thursday involving former House aide Mark Zachares: “Honest services wasn’t thrown out. For better or worse, it still exists.”

But Huvelle has moved back the sentencing dates to October for Zachares and November for another defendant, Michael Scanlon, who each plead to charges tied to the Abramoff investigation. At last week’s hearing, Huvelle indicated she set the new dates with an eye to Ring’s trial.

In the meantime, Huvelle will hear arguments on motions in the Ring case next week, including the former House aide’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.

“Mr. Ring submits that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, that evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support a prosecution under the honest services statute, as that statute has been limited by the Skilling decision,” Ring’s defense attorneys, Andrew Wise and Timothy O’Toole, wrote in a motion filed July 19, referring to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Skilling v. United States.

“The days in which the honest services fraud statute could be contorted to reach ‘bribery-esque,’ ‘bribery-lite’ or any other arguably dishonest conduct are now over,” the defense motion argued.

Ring, a one-time aide to ex-Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and ex-Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), is accused of providing tickets to sporting events and other gifts to Congressional staff in exchange for assistance for Abramoff’s clients. He has denied wrongdoing.

But federal prosecutors have indicated the Justice Department intends to push ahead with existing charges in Ring’s case and others.

At a hearing earlier this month, federal prosecutor Peter Koski said the DOJ does not plan to drop any of the eight charges that it has filed against Ring, including six counts of honest services fraud.

Federal prosecutor Richard Pilger echoed that stance at a hearing in Zachares’ case Thursday, stating: “Under the reasoning in Skilling, the charge is alive.”

comments powered by Disqus




Want Roll Call on your doorstep?