Tim O'Toole is quoted on his oral argument to the Court of Appeals on the case of former lobbyist, Kevin Ring, convicted of bribing public officials in the Jack Abramoff scandal. In his argument, O’Toole claimed that the presence of an agreement to engage in illegal conduct between Ring and the purported bribe recipients is the objective test necessary to prove that a bribery scheme exists.
"We look to see if there was objective evidence that the recipient and the donor had an agreement," O'Toole said. "The government was allowed to proceed under a premise of not having an agreement. That's a fine theory, but you need the jury to find it." O'Toole also challenged the government's reliance on legal campaign contribution evidence to show how Ring gained access to public officials during his argument, saying the unnecessary information confused and prejudiced the jury against the former lobbyist.