United States v. Kevin Ring
403 U.S. App. D.C. 410
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Ring, a prominent lobbyist for Abramoff, was convicted of honest-services fraud, paying an illegal gratuity, and conspiracy.
- The government alleged Ring provided meals, tickets, and gifts to public officials to influence official acts.
- The district court instructed the jury on bribery-based honest-services bribery without requiring explicit quid pro quo acceptance.
- Ring challenged the instructions, sufficiency of evidence on the illegal-gratuity count, and admission of campaign-contribution evidence.
- Appellate review affirmed Ring’s conviction after analyzing quid pro quo elements, official-act scope, and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quid pro quo requirement in honest-services bribery | Ring argues explicit quid pro quo required (McCormick limitation). | Ring contends no explicit exchange needed outside campaigns. | Explicitness not required outside campaigns; proper mens rea required. |
| Must official agree to exchange for bribery to occur | Agreement or acceptance should be required for exchange. | Official need not accept or agree to exchange for bribery. | Official need not agree; offer suffices if intent to influence shown. |
| Intent to offer an exchange must be present | Defendant must intend to offer or solicit exchange for acts. | Intent to offer/exchange is necessary; mere conduct insufficient. | District court properly required intent to influence official acts. |
| Admission of campaign-contribution evidence under Rule 403/First Amendment | Contributions show modus operandi and influence; probative value outweighs prejudice. | Contribution evidence risks unfair prejudice and chilling First Amendment rights. | District court did not abuse discretion; balance favored admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court, 1999) (distinguishes bribery and illegal-gratuity by intent to influence)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (Supreme Court, 2010) (limits honest-services fraud to bribery and kickbacks)
- McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court, 1991) (explicit quid pro quo required in extortion context)
- United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (Supreme Court, 1972) (acceptance of bribe is the violation for payee)
- Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court, 1999) (distinguishes bribery vs. illegal gratuity by intent)
- Orenuga, 430 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quo to influence official acts; mens rea focus)
- Valdes v. United States, 475 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (official act includes actions by officials to influence determinations)
- Carson, 464 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1972) (agency-advice can be influential even without formal authority)
- Beauchamp? Beach v. United States, 19 F.2d 739 (8th Cir. 1927) (official actions in bribery context)
- Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1988) (example of official-action influence in gratuity context)