Earlier this year, in upholding the conviction of prominent former lobbyist Kevin Ring, a federal appeals court in Washington called the distinction between legal lobbying and criminal conduct "subtle." The court went on to say that the line "spells the difference between honest politics and criminal corruption."
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that heard Ring's case was unanimous in its late January ruling in the high-profile prosecution, which flowed from the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal in Washington. Still, the judges said "this case is nothing if not close."
Ring's lawyers at Miller & Chevalier on Monday asked the full D.C. Circuit to review the panel decision, arguing that the ruling conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and decisions in other federal appellate courts. Ring's petition is here.
Miller white-collar defense partners Timothy O'Toole and Andrew Wise said the panel opinion incorrectly resolved two issues of "exceptional importance"—the role of campaign contributions in an honest services case and whether such a prosecution requires proof of a bribery agreement.