Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. 5

Petitioners Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martínez-Maldonado were tried on multiple federal counts arising from an alleged Las Vegas trip that the Government characterized as a § 666 bribery scheme; the jury convicted on standalone § 666 bribery counts but acquitted on related conspiracy and Travel Act counts.
The First Circuit vacated the § 666 convictions on appeal because the trial court's jury instruction improperly treated gratuities as punishable under § 666 (while the court held § 666 requires quid pro quo), and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand petitioners moved to bar retrial of the vacated § 666 counts under the Double Jeopardy Clause’s issue-preclusion (collateral estoppel) component, arguing the acquittals on related counts necessarily decided the bribery issue in their favor.
The District Court denied the motions; the First Circuit affirmed, concluding the original jury’s mixed verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent and so the acquittals lacked preclusive effect as to the vacated convictions.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the First Circuit: when a single jury returns irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts (conviction on one count, acquittal on another) and the convictions are later vacated for error unrelated to the inconsistency, the Double Jeopardy issue-preclusion bar does not prevent retrial of the vacated convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a jury acquittal precludes retrial of vacated convictions when the same jury returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts on counts that turn on the same ultimate fact	Bravo/Martínez: The acquittals necessarily decided the key § 666 issue and therefore, like Yeager, bar retrial of the vacated convictions	Government: Powell governs; inconsistent verdicts undermine confidence in what the jury actually decided, so vacated convictions may be retried	Held: Retrial permitted. Vacatur for unrelated legal error does not erase the jury's inconsistency; inconsistent acquittals lack preclusive effect and do not bar reprosecution

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (Double Jeopardy incorporates issue preclusion when a prior acquittal necessarily decided an ultimate fact)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts prevent issue preclusion because one cannot know what the jury actually decided)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (an acquittal precludes retrial of a hung count that turned on the same ultimate fact because a hung count reveals nothing and shows no irrationality)
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (an acquittal is final and bars retrial)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (vacatur for insufficiency of evidence is equivalent to an acquittal and bars reprosecution)