Printable Version

Rights/Reprints

The government’s second attempt to convict Kevin A. Ring, a onetime associate of the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, hit a decidedly bumpy stretch on Thursday when the presiding judge sharply criticized the prosecutor, declaring at one point that he had “crossed the line of professional responsibility.”

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said she would not grant a defense motion for a mistrial. But she instructed the jury in unusually sharp and specific language to remember that she had struck testimony to which the defense had objected.

Kevin Ring (Getty Images)

While the prosecution’s case is still alive, the admonition that Huvelle dealt the prosecutor, Nathaniel B. Edmonds, in her Washington courtroom must have caused the government some worry, particularly since the first trial of Ring ended in a mistrial a year ago and a recent Supreme Court ruling might make some corruption cases harder to prove.

Ring, who just turned 40, is accused of conspiracy, fraud and obstruction of justice in connection with a four-year scheme to lavish tickets and trips on lawmakers and government officials in return for help for his clients. Ring was once an aide to former Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) and worked with Abramoff on behalf of Indian tribes seeking to operate gambling casinos.

The testimony that drew the judge’s ire on Thursday had to do with Kathy Lopez, the wife of David Lopez, once Doolittle’s chief of staff. The witness, Neil Volz, was once a lobbyist with Ring. During Edmonds’ questioning, Miller & Chevalier’s Andrew T. Wise contended, Edmonds implied that Ring had obtained a do-nothing job for Kathy Lopez, even though he knew that that was not the case.

When Volz said he couldn’t remember certain incidents, but that he would be happy to look at whatever documentation the government had to refresh his recollection, Edmonds said, “We don’t need to take the time now.”

That line, Wise heatedly argued, implied that Edmonds had some damaging information that he did, in fact, not have. While not granting a mistrial, the judge sided with the defense.

“You have crossed the line of professional responsibility, and I will do something about it if it keeps up,” Huvelle told the prosecutor, outside the presence of the jury. Moments earlier, she described Edmonds’ apparent hint that he had more damaging material than he really had “a real cheap shot” and “gamesmanship” that she would not tolerate in her courtroom.

Nor was the judge mollified by Edmonds’ explanation that “I misspoke,” and that he would have no objection to an instruction to the jury that Ring had had no role in securing a job for Kathy Lopez. “You are too smart to make a careless error like that,” Huvelle told Edmonds.

Wise argued that the damage done by Edmonds’ remark was very hard to undo without very specific and detailed instructions from the bench: “You can’t throw a skunk in the jury box and then tell the jury to ignore it. And that’s exactly what this is.”

Finally, the judge told the jury that “the defendant had nothing to do with setting this job up,” and that “there is nothing here to suggest there was anything illegal or improper about her job.” Moreover, Huvelle told the jurors, “there is no evidence whatsoever” that the prosecution had any document that could have refreshed the witness’s recollection, as Edmonds had implied.

Nearly a score of lawmakers and others in positions of influence have been brought down in the Abramoff-related scandals involving expensive golf junkets, free tickets to sporting events and other improper perks of power. Abramoff  himself expressed remorse, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to several years in prison.

Doolittle, the former California congressman, was the beneficiary of Abramoff-run fundraising events and other expressions of generosity, prosecutors contended. But Dootlittle, who has retired from Congress, was never charged with a crime.

Ring is one of the few people caught up in the scandals to fight the charges against him. Most other defendants pleaded guilty. From the outset, Ring has maintained his innocence, insisting that the government was trying to pressure him to provide evidence against others.

As Main Justice reported in August, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Skilling v. United States, limited prosecutors’ use of the honest services law to strict cases of bribery and kickbacks, and thus could complicate things for the prosecution in the Ring case.

“We are not on a clean slate here,” Huvelle observed in August — presciently, it now seems.  “This is very complicated. This is going to be a very hard case for the jury.”

This article was edited to clarify that the defense asked Huvelle to declare a mistrial.