Updated Oct. 2 with clarification.

Crying witnesses, colorful e-mails and descriptions of lobbyists as "sugar daddies" and congressmen as their "champions" -- it's all become routine in the trial of Kevin Ring, former associate of imprisoned ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. With a full cast of former lobbyists and congressional staffers who have already pleaded guilty in the scandal testifying as cooperating witnesses, courtroom drama has yet to cease, and it's only bound to continue as the defense is expected to begin presenting evidence next week.

As they fight a conviction, Ring's lawyers have the tough job of separating their client from all that intrigue. He was indicted on 10 criminal counts last year for honest services wire fraud, providing illegal gratuities, conspiracy to commit those crimes and obstruction of justice. In a pre-trial hearing, Judge Ellen Huvelle ruled to move the two obstruction of justice charges into a separate trial, unless they are settled out of court.

The eight charges against Ring in this trial hold a maximum combined sentence of 127 years jail time. Abramoff received a sentence of six total years for his guilty pleas in two fraud and bribery cases, and other "Team Abramoff" lobbyists who pleaded guilty have received probation and fines instead of jail time.

Ring was offered plea agreements by the government, but unlike the vast majority of individuals caught up in the scandal -- about 20 former lobbyists, congressional staffers, executive officials and one congressman, former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio -- Ring pleaded not guilty and chose to go to trial. Only one other individual, former White House aide David Safavian, has gone to trial rather than pleading guilty. He was found guilty of lying and obstructing justice twice: first in July 2006, then in a retrial in December 2008.

So what makes Ring different? Legal experts point to Ring's interactions with the Department of Justice leading up to the trial, his status as a lobbyist and the cost of a trial.

Before joining Team Abramoff as a lobbyist, Ring was an aide to former Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif. Ring was questioned at length by the Department of Justice about his lobbying of Doolittle, said Cleta Mitchell, a Washington lawyer who focuses on lobbying and ethics law. Witnesses last week described Doolittle as Ring's "champion" on Capitol Hill. The Department of Justice was likely "putting a lot of pressure on Kevin Ring to implicate Doolittle and say Doolittle did certain things because Kevin gave him things," Mitchell said. But Ring did not implicate the congressman and is now the target instead. That lead-up to the indictment could have limited Ring's willingness to come to an agreement with the government, Mitchell said.

Plus, the charges Ring faces are from his time as a lobbyist, not as a staffer. Other lobbyists have pleaded guilty in the scandal, including Abramoff, but it is harder to convict a lobbyist of wrongdoing than a public official in some kinds of corruption cases, legal experts say, because disclosure rules for lobbyists were looser when Ring's alleged crimes took place. The presiding judge drew the same distinction in court this week. "Keep in mind we're not convicting a public official here," Huvelle said.

The Department of Justice must prove that providing tickets to an NBA game was actually payment or reward for specific acts, making it an illegal gratuity. Or, prosecutors must convince the jury that Ring's efforts were part of a larger, purposeful scheme to improperly influence a public official.

This distinction may have factored into Ring's decision to go to trial, said Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer with experience in bribery cases.

"It's very hard to show under the bribery and gratuity laws that a specific official act was taken in exchange for a specific gift," Brand said.

In his opening statement, defense attorney Andrew Wise underscored that distinction: "You're going to hear about things that should be a crime, but they were not. Kevin Ring played by the rules."

For some of the individuals who already pleaded, the decision not to go to trial may have been a purely financial one. Fighting the government in a corruption case takes "guts and money," Brand said. "It's a hard row to hoe to take on the government in a criminal case. They have all the marbles."

When Ann Copland, a former aide to Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., who pleaded guilty in March to taking official actions because of tickets and meals given to her by lobbyists, was asked about her plea deal during testimony earlier this week, she said she could not "afford a trial."

Like Copland, four of the nine witnesses expected to be called by the prosecution have already pleaded guilty for involvement in the Abramoff scandal. The prominence of cooperating witnesses complicates Ring's defense, legal experts say. And the prosecution has tried to link their actions with Ring's.

Two of the cooperating witnesses, Neil Volz and Todd Boulanger, were Ring's lobbying associates on Team Abramoff. Much of their testimony focused on their own lobbying strategies and clients, their relationship with Ring and the general lobbying tools and practices employed by the group.

The prosecution is "trying to leave an impression that this is all corrupt and they're just all bad guys," Mitchell said. "They pleaded guilty, so this guy must be guilty, too."

In court, witnesses were asked about crimes to which they pleaded guilty and the potential punishments attached to their pleas. Of the cooperating witnesses, only Volz has been sentenced already -- in 2007, to probation, community service and a fine.

The defense has countered by trying to discredit the witnesses on several occasions. For Ring, it's important they appear unreliable or insincere, which Brand said may hurt the government's case if the jury doubts its witnesses' testimony.

These witnesses "have baggage," Brand said. "They're not coming in with clean hands."

Two of the cooperating witnesses, Volz and Copland, began crying during their testimony when discussing their plea deals and relationships with Ring. Another cooperating witness, John Albaugh, who had served as chief of staff to former Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., quoted Bible passages and said that after pleading guilty he regained "peace in my soul I didn't have for a number of years."

"That's going to be a jury determination as to how much credibility they're going to give the cooperating witnesses," said Ellen Podgor, a Stetson University law professor who specializes in white-collar crimes.

The members of the jury were selected because they had limited foreknowledge about the Abramoff scandal, but now they face the task of determining whether or not Ring was part of Abramoff's conspiracy. The scandal itself is complex, involving the names of dozens of officials, lobbyists and clients, including several Native American tribes, and the charges against Ring are some of the hardest to understand, legal experts say. That might not favor either side, but it's a challenge for both.

The honest services and gratuity statutes are "somewhat controversial," Boston College law professor George Brown said. Both of the statutes bear "vagueness concerns," he added, and the Supreme Court is expected to hear an honest services case this fall that could change how that statute is interpreted.

This week, a member of the jury requested a copy of the preliminary instructions that were read by the judge at the beginning of the trial. Huvelle gave the jury a copy of the instructions to help them understand the charges they must eventually decide unanimously on.

"If I'm confused about this, [the jury] will be confused about this," Huvelle said last week.

The jury also requested that a chart used by the prosecution during opening statements -- it mapped out the names and faces of individuals involved in the Abramoff scandal and how they are connected to each other -- be placed in the courtroom permanently. Huvelle admitted the chart as evidence to "help you sort of keep track," she told the jury.

The prosecution is expected to finish presenting evidence this week, and the defense's presentation of evidence will last through next week. The jury will likely decide the case in early October.

Clarification: The original version of this story was revised to clarify what constitutes an illegal gratuity and to distinguish that charge from honest services fraud.