Share This Page

Lobbyist's trial evidence under judges' review

| Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012, 9:42 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Federal appeals court judges reviewing the conviction of former lobbyist Kevin Ring in the Abramoff scandal questioned on Thursday whether evidence of campaign contributions should have been allowed at his trial.

Ring, who worked under Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, was sentenced to 20 months in prison for giving meals and event tickets to public officials with an intent to corrupt them.

The trial judge, Ellen Huvelle, allowed evidence of legal campaign contributions, which prosecutors said showed how Ring gained access to public officials. But Huvelle also told jurors that they could not consider the contributions as part of the “illegal stream of benefits” Ring was charged with providing officials.

Judge David S. Tatel, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said the campaign contributions were of some value in making the case. But he also questioned whether that was outweighed by the prejudicial or confusing effect to jurors.

Justice Department lawyer John-Alex Romano said Huvelle “took great pains” to prevent that in her instructions to jurors. The judge's instructions noted that there is nothing illegal about lobbyists contributing to politicians' campaigns.

Judge Thomas B. Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, asked Romano, “Wasn't there some evidence the jury was confused?”

Romano said the jurors had sent a note asking the judge to distinguish between legal and illegal contributions — not campaign contributions.

Tatel responded that “the question is whether the jury could have inferred illegal conduct” from testimony about activity protected by the First Amendment — campaign contributions.

Tatel also questioned whether the government could have made its case against Ring without the campaign contributions.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.