804 F. Supp. 2d 1261
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- This case comes on remand from the Eleventh Circuit after Skilling v. United States, which vacated all counts and directed reconsideration of retrial under Fifth Amendment constraints.
- Cabrera was previously convicted on multiple wire fraud counts and several money laundering counts based on a scheme to defraud investors of money and the intangible right to honest services.
- The district court instructed the jury that wire fraud had two objects (money and honest services) and that verdicts could be rendered on either object; money laundering tied to proceeds from wire or mail fraud.
- On remand, the government sought a new trial on wire fraud and money laundering; Cabrera argued retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause due to acquittal or improper verdicts.
- The court found that the jury acquitted Cabrera of the money fraud theory of wire fraud and that retrial on the wire fraud and money laundering charges would violate Cabrera's Fifth Amendment rights.
- Because the money laundering verdicts were ambiguous and could not be sustained on the honest services theory after Skilling, and collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of the money fraud theory, the government’s retrial request was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial on wire fraud violates Fifth Amendment | Cabrera argues acquittal on money fraud theory bars retrial. | Cabrera contends successively retrial would double-jeopardy the patient. | Retrial on wire fraud violates Fifth Amendment. |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars retrial on money laundering | Magluta/Ohayon approach shows collateral estoppel applies to predicate facts. | Government contends verdicts could rest on valid predicate money wire fraud. | Collateral estoppel precludes retrial on money laundering; retrial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (honest-services scope limited to bribes/kickbacks)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (acquittal bars retrial; legal vs. evidentiary error distinction)
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (retrial after reversible error not barred by double jeopardy)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel in double jeopardy analysis)
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (general verdicts may be pruned where ambiguity arises)
- United States v. Ohayon, 483 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (collateral estoppel applied in double jeopardy context)
- United States v. Magluta, 418 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 2005) (predicate facts and money laundering linkage constraints)
- United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2002) (sufficiency and double jeopardy standards for predicate grounds)
- United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) (invited ambiguity and collateral estoppel considerations)
- Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent verdicts generally stand; reviewability limited)
- Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) (sandbagging and forfeiture of rights; timely objections)