United States v. Martinez-Maldonado
722 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- In 2005 Bravo (businessman) paid for a Las Vegas trip and tickets attended by Senator Martinez and others; soon after Martinez supported/pushed two Senate bills that would benefit Bravo’s company, Ranger American.
- Indictment charged both with conspiracy, Travel Act violations, and federal program bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666; Martinez also faced obstruction charges. Juries convicted both on § 666 counts; Bravo was also convicted on a Travel Act substantive count and conspiracy count; Martinez convicted of conspiracy but the jury did not agree on any specified object.
- At trial, prosecutors argued and the court instructed that the timing of the thing-of-value (before/after the official acts) did not matter, permitting conviction based on a gratuity theory as well as quid pro quo bribery.
- On appeal the First Circuit addressed (1) whether § 666 criminalizes gratuities or only bribery, (2) sufficiency and elements of agency and the $5,000 transactional-value requirement, and (3) double jeopardy issues as to the conspiracy convictions given jury inconsistencies and a district-court dismissal/reinstatement episode.
- Court held § 666 does not reach gratuities (only bribery), vacated the § 666 convictions because jury instructions allowed a gratuity theory, and entered/acquitted or reversed conspiracy convictions for Martinez and Bravo on double jeopardy grounds (no retrial allowed for Bravo or Martinez on those conspiracy counts).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 666 criminalizes gratuities in addition to bribery | Government: §666’s language (“influence or reward”) and jury instructions correctly allow conviction for payments intended to reward official acts | Defendants: §666 mirrors §201 distinctions; “reward” should not create a separate gratuity offense; statute should be read to require quid pro quo | Court: §666 does not criminalize gratuities; it targets bribery only; convictions vacated because jury could have convicted on gratuity theory |
| Jury instruction error (timing language permitting after-the-fact payments) | Government: overall charge (including separate bribery instruction) required quid pro quo; titles and later instructions cured any ambiguity | Defendants: timing instructions allowed conviction for gratuities (payment after acts) and prosecution stressed that timing didn’t matter | Held: Instructions 20 & 21 improperly allowed gratuity theory; government closing reinforced error; error prejudicial — §666 convictions vacated |
| Scope of “agent” and constitutional/transactional linkage ($10K, $5K rules) | Government: state legislators are agents of the Commonwealth; evidence showed Commonwealth received >$10K federal funds; legislative acts can be “transactions” involving $5,000+ | Defendants: senators lack authority over federal funds; transactions must be commercial or directly involve federal monies; $5,000 should relate to bribe value | Held: Legislators qualify as agents of the Commonwealth; no extra requirement that agent control funds; $5,000 transactional element refers to value of the subject matter (here legislative acts foreseeably worth >$5,000 to Ranger American) |
| Sufficiency re: transactional element ($5,000) | Government: testimony showed anticipated profits and monopoly effects making the legislation worth >$5,000 to Ranger American | Defendants: legislation was revenue-neutral and did not directly give funds to Ranger American | Held: Evidence (competitor exit and market share testimony) sufficient to support $5,000 transactional-value element |
| Conspiracy counts and Double Jeopardy (Bravo & Martinez) | Government: inconsistent jury verdicts do not preclude upholding conspiracy conviction; if one predicate fails, others may sustain; retrial allowed if needed | Defendants: Bravo — object (Puerto Rico bribery) was repealed before travel date so conspiracy impossible; Martinez — court’s dismissal was an acquittal so reconvening to retry violates Double Jeopardy | Held: Bravo’s conspiracy reversed (jury necessarily found objective was state bribery, which was not a crime on travel date); Martinez entitled to acquittal — district court dismissal was an acquittal and Double Jeopardy bars retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (rejecting added requirement that bribe must affect federal funds; broad reading of §666-related language)
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004) (upholding §666 as rationally related to Spending Clause; no requirement of traceable nexus to specific federal monies)
- Sun-Diamond Growers v. United States, 526 U.S. 398 (1999) (distinguishing bribery from illegal gratuities by intent; gratuity = given "for or because of" an official act)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error standard applied to jury instruction error; prejudice inquiry)
- United States v. Marmolejo, 89 F.3d 1185 (5th Cir. 1996) (value of intangible subject matter may be shown by market or payment evidence for §666 transactional element)
- United States v. Robinson, 663 F.3d 265 (7th Cir. 2011) (interpreting $5,000 transactional requirement as referring to value of the transaction, not the bribe)
- Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (issue preclusion under Double Jeopardy — a jury’s acquittal can preclude relitigation of necessarily decided issues)