Former Senate Staffer’s Fraud Convictions, Restitution Upheld

A former staffer for Sen. Ted Kennedy failed to convince the DC Circuit to vacate his wire fraud convictions based on ineffective counsel during trial.

Even if counsel’s failures to object “constituted deficient performance,” Ngozi Pole failed to show the errors were prejudicial, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit wrote in a Friday opinion.

Pole was an office manager for Kennedy for almost a decade until 2007. Pole awarded himself eight bonuses without authorization from Kennedy or his chief of staff. He was convicted of wire fraud and theft of government property, sentenced to 20 months in prison, and ordered to pay more than $75,000 in restitution.

The DC Circuit previously remanded Pole’s case for the trial court to consider his claim that he received ineffective counsel, and to make new factual findings for the restitution award. The district court rejected Pole’s ineffective counsel claim and upheld the restitution amount, and he appealed again.

Pole argued his counsel failed to object to the prosecution’s reference to his oath of office in its closing argument, as well as testimony provided by Kennedy’s then-chief of staff that Pole offered to pay back the bonuses.

But there’s no “reasonable probability” that, if Pole’s counsel made both of the objections, the result of the trial would’ve been different, Srinivasan said.

If the chief of staff’s statement that Pole offered to repay the bonuses had been excluded, it would’ve had a “minimal effect on the trial in the overall scheme of things,” Srinivasan said. The rest of the staffer’s lengthy testimony wouldn’t have been impacted by the exclusion of that single statement, which was also supported by testimony from other witnesses, the judge said.

The government’s reliance on Pole’s oath of office was also limited to small portions of the closing arguments, and is unlikely to have impacted the jury deliberations, according to the opinion. The reference to the oath wasn’t egregious or inflammatory, and the district court instructed jurors that the closing arguments aren’t evidence, the DC Circuit said.

The evidence against Pole was also “voluminous,” undercutting any claim that the outcome of the trial would’ve been different had his counsel made those two objections, Srinivasan wrote.

The DC Circuit also rejected Pole’s argument that the district court lacked the authority to order restitution for conduct beyond the acts for which he was convicted, since the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act allows for restitution encompassing all losses attributable to a fraudulent scheme.

Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards and Judge Robert L. Wilkins joined the opinion.

Ropes & Gray LLP represents Pole on appeal.

The case is United States v. Pole, D.C. Cir., No. 24-03029, 8/29/25.