Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
137 S. Ct. 352
| SCOTUS | 2016Background
- Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martínez-Maldonado were tried on federal-program bribery (18 U.S.C. §666), conspiracy (§371), and Travel Act (§1952) charges based on an allegedly bribefunded trip to Las Vegas and subsequent legislative actions.
- The jury convicted them on the standalone §666 bribery counts but acquitted them of the §666-based conspiracy and Travel Act counts; other elements of those acquitted counts (agreement and interstate travel) were undisputed.
- The First Circuit vacated the §666 convictions on appeal because the jury was instructed that §666 covered gratuities as well as quid pro quo bribery; the First Circuit held §666 proscribes quid pro quo only.
- On remand the defendants moved to bar retrial of the §666 counts under the Double Jeopardy Clause’s issue-preclusion (Ashe) component, arguing the acquittals necessarily decided the key issue against the Government.
- The district court and First Circuit denied relief, holding the jury’s irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts prevented issue preclusion; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether vacated convictions alter the Ashe/Powell analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bravo/Martínez) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion bars retrial after a jury returned inconsistent conviction(s) and acquittal(s), and the conviction(s) were later vacated for unrelated legal error | Ashe requires preclusion because acquittals necessarily resolved the dispositive fact (no §666 violation) | Powell permits retrial where the same jury returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts; vacatur does not change that | Held: No. Inconsistent verdicts preclude a defendant from showing the issue was necessarily decided in their favor, even if convictions were later vacated for unrelated error |
| Whether vacated convictions should be treated like hung counts (excluded) in Ashes’s inquiry | Vacated convictions are legal nullities and therefore irrelevant—like hung counts in Yeager | Vacated convictions are jury decisions that are relevant to determining whether the jury necessarily resolved an issue | Held: Vacated convictions are relevant; they can evidence jury inconsistency and thus do not bar retrial |
| Burden of proof to obtain issue preclusion after an acquittal | Defendant bears the burden to show the acquittal necessarily decided the issue | Government stresses the burden and limits on appellate review of acquittals | Held: Defendant retains the burden; inconsistent verdicts prevent meeting it (Schiro/Ashe principles reaffirmed) |
| Effect of vacatur for insufficiency versus vacatur for instructional/legal error on retrial | If vacatur was for insufficiency, retrial is barred; if for unrelated error, retrial allowed | Distinguishes Burks (insufficiency = acquittal) from ordinary vacatur for trial error | Held: If vacatur stems from insufficiency, retrial is barred; here vacatur was instructional (not insufficiency), so retrial allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (Double Jeopardy issue-preclusion: an issue necessarily resolved by an acquittal cannot be relitigated)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (irreconcilably inconsistent jury verdicts defeat issue-preclusion; both acquittals and convictions stand)
- Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (hung counts reveal no jury decision and therefore do not defeat issue-preclusion based on an acquittal)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (vacatur for insufficient evidence is equivalent to an acquittal and bars retrial)
- Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222 (1994) (defendant bears burden to show an acquittal necessarily decided the issue)
- Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (an acquittal is final and bars subsequent prosecution for the same offense)
- Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) (preclusion doctrine depends on confidence in correctness of initial litigation; absence of government appellate review of acquittals counsels caution)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) (juror inconsistency: convictions and acquittals by same jury may both stand)
- United States v. Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (appellate decision vacating the §666 convictions here for instructional error)