No. 12-1462 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________________________ KEVIN A. RING, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. __________________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit __________________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI __________________________ TIMOTHY P. O’TOOLE Counsel of Record ANDREW T. WISE MILLER & CHEVALIER CHARTERED 655 15th St. NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 626-5800 E-mail: [email protected] DAVID A. MORAN 701 South State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 (734) 615-5419 E-mail: [email protected] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this criminal prosecution of a lobbyist based on a theory of “excessive hospitality,” two important ques- tions are presented: (1) Whether a defendant can be convicted of the of- fense of honest-services-fraud-by-bribery as defined in this Court’s decision in United States v. Skilling, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), in the absence of a quid pro quo bribery agreement. (2) Whether the First Amendment permits jurors to consider evidence of a lobbyist’s legal campaign contributions, permissibly made to express appre- ciation toward and provide election assistance to political officials, as probative of whether the lobby- ist engaged in corruption by putting other things of value to similar use. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .........................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................v OPINIONS BELOW...................................................1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..........................1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED........................................2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION........8 I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTI- ORARI TO CONSIDER WHETHER AN HONEST SERVICES FRAUD CONVIC- TION CAN STAND WITHOUT PROOF OF A QUID PRO QUO BRIBERY AGREEMENT ................................................. 9 A. The Court of Appeals’ Decision Threatens to Undo Skilling’s Lim- iting Construction of the Honest Services Fraud Law.............................. 9 B. The Court of Appeals’ Decision Conflicts With the Rulings of Oth- er Circuits ........................................... 12 iii II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTI- ORARI TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE FIRST AMENDMENT PERMITS JU- RORS TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF A LOBBYIST’S LEGAL CAMPAIGN CON- TRIBUTIONS, PERMISSIBLY MADE TO REWARD AND INFLUENCE POLIT- ICAL OFFICIALS, AS PROBATIVE OF WHETHER THE LOBBYIST ENGAGED IN CORRUPTION BY PUTTING OTHER THINGS OF VALUE TO SIMILAR USE.....15 III. GUIDANCE FROM THIS COURT ON THE ISSUES PRESENTED HERE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO ACHIEVING FAIR AND CONSISTENT OUTCOMES IN THE LOWER COURTS ....20 CONCLUSION......................................................... 24 Appendix A – Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirming conviction (January 25, 2013)..................................................................... 1a Appendix B – Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denying motion to dismiss in- dictment (June 25, 2009)................................... 29a Appendix C – Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denying motion for judgment of acquittal and denying motion for new for tri- al (March 11, 2011)............................................ 82a iv Appendix D – Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir- cuit denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc (March 21, 2013)............................................. .102a Appendix E – Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir- cuit denying Petition for Panel Rehearing (March 21, 2013).............................................. 103a Appendix F –Judgment affirming conviction (January 25, 2013)........................................... 104a Appendix G – Order of the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Columbia granting motion for release pending appeal (October 26, 2011)............................................ 106a v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).............................8, 16, 18, 20 McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)...............................................16 McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991).............................8, 16, 18, 20 United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972).........................................3, 10 United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012)................................19 United States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2007)............................7, 12 United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2007)............................7, 12 United States v. Ring, 628 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C. 2009).......................1 United States v. Ring, 768 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D.D.C. 2011).......................1 United States v. Ring, 706 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2013)...............................1 vi United States v. Rosen, __ F.3d __, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10755 (2d Cir. May 29, 2013) ........................................13 United States v. Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2001).................................21 United States v. Scruggs, 713 F.3d 258, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7410 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2013).......................................14 United States v. Skilling, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010)................................. passim United States v. Terry, 707 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2013), reh’g denied, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9287 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 2013).......................................13 United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009)...........................7, 12 United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 2012)..........................13, 14 Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)..................................... passim vii Constitutional Provisions and Statutes U.S. Const. Amendment I................................ passim 18 U.S.C. § 201...........................................................3 18 U.S.C. § 1346...........................................2, 3, 9, 12 28 U.S.C. § 1254.........................................................1 Rules Sup. Ct. R. 10 .............................................................9 OPINIONS BELOW The January 25, 2013 opinion of a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co- lumbia Circuit is published as United States v. Ring, 706 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2013). This opinion is repro- duced in the appendix (“App.”) to this petition at 1a- 28a. The D.C. Circuit’s orders denying rehearing and rehearing en banc are unpublished and are reproduced in the appendix to this petition at 102a-103a. The district court issued two published decisions address- ing the issues raised in this petition: United States v. Ring, 768 F. Supp. 2d 302 (D.D.C. 2011), and United States v. Ring, 628 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C. 2009). Each is reproduced in the appendix at 82a-101a and 29a-81a, respectively. The district court’s October 26, 2011 order granting Mr. Ring’s release pending appeal is also reproduced in the appendix at 106a-110a. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Petitioner Kevin A. Ring seeks review of the January 25, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his criminal conviction. A timely petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed, which the Court of Appeals denied on March 21, 2013. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED U.S. Const. amend. I provides in pertinent part: Congress shall make no law . abridging the freedom of speech . and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 provides in full: For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Throughout the 1990s, Petitioner Kevin Ring worked as a Capitol Hill staffer for Republican House and Senate members. JA 701. In 1999, when he had just turned 29 years old, he left the Hill to join a lobby- ing practice, where he worked under Jack Abramoff, at the time a highly regarded lobbyist with a stable of clients ranging from municipalities to Indian tribes. JA 702. From 2000-2004, Petitioner built and main- tained a network of connections throughout Washington utilizing traditional tools of lobbying, including hosting fundraisers, giving campaign contri- butions, and entertaining at local restaurants and other venues. In 2004, the news media became focused on Mr. Abramoff after it was discovered that he and Michael Scanlon defrauded clients of millions of dollars in a kick-back scheme in which Petitioner did not partici- pate. See 2 SJA 013; JA 801. The law firm at which 3 both men worked (Greenburg Traurig) fired Mr. Abramoff, hired outside counsel to investigate, and promised to cooperate with investigations by the De- partment of Justice, various Congressional committees, and other government agencies. App. at 32a-33a. The firm shared the results of its investiga- tion, along with hundreds of thousands of internal documents, including years of email communications, with the various government investigators. Id. The government investigation eventually fo- cused on the lobbyists’ provision of meals, tickets, travel, and other “things of value” to government offi- cials. Traditional