United States v. Martinez-Maldonado
790 F.3d 41
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendants Juan Bravo‑Fernandez (former security‑firm president) and Hector Martínez‑Maldonado (former Puerto Rico senator) were tried on an indictment that included standalone 18 U.S.C. § 666 bribery counts, Travel Act counts (18 U.S.C. § 1952) premised on § 666, and conspiracy counts. The jury convicted on the standalone § 666 counts but acquitted on the § 666‑based Travel Act and § 666 conspiracy counts.
- On direct appeal this court (Fernandez) vacated the standalone § 666 convictions because jury instructions improperly allowed a gratuity theory (impermissible) as well as a quid‑pro‑quo/exchange theory (required), and remanded for possible retrial on § 666 under the correct theory.
- After issuance of the mandate, the district court mistakenly entered a line order stating that judgments of acquittal be entered as to certain counts (including § 666); it corrected that order within hours to state the § 666 convictions were VACATED. Defendants moved to reinstate the acquittal line order; denied.
- Defendants then moved (1) to bar retrial on the standalone § 666 counts under collateral estoppel/double jeopardy based on the earlier acquittals of related Travel Act and conspiracy counts, and (2) to treat the corrected line order as a final acquittal barring retrial. The district court denied both motions; this appeal followed.
- The panel applied Ashe collateral‑estoppel analysis (examine prior record: pleadings, evidence, charge, arguments) but declined to give the § 666‑based acquittals preclusive effect because the jury’s acquittals were inconsistent with its convictions on standalone § 666 counts and the record (instructions and counsel arguments) shows the same (erroneous) § 666 theories were presented across counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior acquittals on Travel Act and conspiracy counts (where § 666 was a predicate) collaterally estop retrial on standalone § 666 counts | Gov: Retrial permitted; acquittals do not necessarily resolve § 666 liability or the exchange theory | Defs: Ashe collateral estoppel bars retrial because acquittals necessarily rejected § 666 (exchange theory) | Denied: Vacated convictions plus identical instructions across counts create truly inconsistent verdicts; collateral estoppel unavailable under Powell |
| Whether vacated (non‑final) convictions should be considered in Ashe analysis | Gov: Vacated convictions relevant to what the jury actually decided | Defs: Vacated convictions nullified and should be ignored; only acquittals count | Held: Vacated convictions are part of the prior record and must be considered; they can prevent collateral estoppel (distinguishing hung counts) |
| Whether inconsistent verdicts can be harmonized by asserting the jury accepted gratuity theory only for standalone § 666 counts | Gov: Jury was instructed on same theories for all § 666‑related counts; harmonization speculative | Defs: Jury convicted on gratuity theory for standalone § 666 counts and acquitted on exchange theory for predicate counts, so no inconsistency | Held: Record (instructions and closings) shows gratuity/exchange instructions applied across all § 666 counts; reconciliation would require impermissible speculation about jury deliberations; Powell controls |
| Whether the district court’s October 25 line order (initially calling for acquittal) was an acquittal that bars retrial | Defs: The line order is a court‑decree acquittal and double jeopardy bars retrial | Gov: Line order was clerical/ministerial in execution of appellate mandate and did not resolve factual elements; court promptly corrected it | Held: Not an acquittal under Evans/Martin Linen; it was a transcription/ministerial error that the district court properly corrected; no double jeopardy bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court) (collateral estoppel/double jeopardy requires examining prior record to see whether acquittal necessarily decided issue)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court) (truly inconsistent verdicts undermine collateral estoppel because jury conclusions are indecipherable)
- Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (Supreme Court) (hung counts are not part of the prior record for Ashe analysis)
- United States v. Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (prior appeal: vacated § 666 convictions for erroneous gratuity instructions; remand for retrial on proper exchange theory)
- Martin Linen Supply Co. v. United States, 430 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court) (order that resolves factual elements of offense functions as an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes)
- Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (Supreme Court) (court‑decreed acquittal bars retrial even if erroneous; focus is substance over label in determining acquittal)