994 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2021Background
- Sally López Martínez served as interim and then confirmed administrator of the Puerto Rico Workforce Development Administration (ADL) in 2013–2014 and oversaw ADL job‑fair contracts.
- ADL awarded contracts and amendments to entities affiliated with Anaudi Hernández Pérez, who had aided López's nomination and provided López (and other public officials) an ongoing stream of gifts and benefits.
- López and multiple others were indicted in 2015 on a 25‑count public‑corruption indictment; López faced six counts (conspiracy, honest‑services wire fraud, and federal‑programs bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666).
- At trial López was tried jointly with three codefendants, including Glenn Rivera (a House of Representatives official) whose alleged scheme involved corruption of House contracts; several co‑defendants pleaded guilty before trial.
- The jury convicted López on all six counts; on appeal the First Circuit held the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions but concluded the district court abused its discretion by refusing to sever López’s trial from Rivera’s, vacating López’s convictions and remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | López's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to Counts Three–Five (honest‑services wire fraud), Count Eleven (§ 666 bribery), and Count Two (conspiracy) | Gifts/timing have innocent explanations; prosecution failed to prove López intended to be influenced | Circumstantial proof (stream‑of‑benefits theory + evidence of preferential treatment at ADL) suffices to infer corrupt intent | Evidence was sufficient; a reasonable juror could infer corrupt agreement and intent from the circumstantial record |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to Count One (§ 371 conspiracy to commit honest‑services fraud/§ 666 bribery) | López had no corrupt role in the ADL‑funded AAA transaction and no knowledge of the AAA/Links Group scheme | Evidence showed López attended meetings about the ADL→AAA transfer, provided a sample interagency letter, and intervened to keep funding despite staff concerns | Evidence was sufficient; reasonable juror could infer López knowingly joined the conspiracy |
| Rule 8(b) joinder/misjoinder | Counts and defendants were improperly joined | Indictment charged related acts as part of an overarching scheme; joinder proper | District court found joinder proper; appellate court did not reverse joinder and the court proceeded to Rule 14 analysis (joinder issue not dispositive on appeal) |
| Rule 14 severance (joint trial with Rivera) | Joint trial prejudiced López because jury saw direct, detailed evidence of Rivera/House corruption while López's culpability rested on circumstantial evidence, risking impermissible spillover | Any prejudice was garden‑variety, curable by limiting instructions; evidence against López was independently admissible and strong | Denial of severance as to Rivera was an abuse of discretion—the spillover risk was substantial; convictions vacated and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (announces standard for sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence review)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (Rule 14 severance required only when joint trial poses serious risk to a specific trial right or reliable verdict)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (recognizes risk of transference of guilt in multi‑defendant trials)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (interprets honest‑services fraud as prohibiting bribery or kickbacks)
- United States v. McDonough, 727 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2013) (bribery can be established by an ongoing course of conduct/stream‑of‑benefits)
- United States v. Lopez‑Cotto, 884 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) (stream‑of‑benefits theory applicable to honest‑services fraud)
- United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1990) (defendant must make a strong showing of prejudice to obtain severance)