Bravo-Fernandez v. US

BRAVO-FERNANDEZ v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Ginsburg, Nov. 29, 2016,
Double Jeopardy – Issue Preclusion – Inconsistent jury verdicts do not result in issue preclusion when the guilty verdict is vacated for unrelated reasons

(Concur – Thomas – Quoting Scalia’s dissents as to issue preclusion being part of Double Jeopardy at all)

Businessman was charged with bribing a Puerto Rico Senator with a trip to Vegas in exchange for supporting certain legislation. A jury convicted of bribery but acquitted of conspiracy and other charges. The bribery conviction was vacated on appeal.

The Court reviewed its prior cases on the matter:
Ashe, on the one side: A group of masked men robbed six poker players. When a jury acquitted Ashe of robbery of one of the players due to insufficient evidence, he could not be retried for robbery of another player. A jury already decided whether or not Ashe was one of the robbers.

Powell, on the other side: An inconsistent verdict shows nothing about what the jury decided.

Yeager, clarifying Powell: An acquittal and a hung charge are not “inconsistent” under Powell. They reflect a decision and a lack of decision, so the decision prevails w/regard to issue preclusion.

Because acquittals can’t be appealed (and thus ensure confidence in the result), issue preclusion must be applied in a “guarded” manner in criminal cases. Juries enjoy an “unreviewable power . . . to return a verdict of not guilty for impermissible reasons.”

Particularly where it appears that a jury’s verdict is the result of compromise, compassion, lenity, or misunderstanding of the governing law, the Government’s inability to gain review “strongly militates against giving an acquittal [issue] preclusive effect.”

Double Jeopardy – For double jeopardy purposes, a court’s evaluation of the evidence as insufficient to convict is equivalent to an acquittal and therefore bars asecond prosecution for the same offense.

The Court did not address another split circuit issue: whether 18 USC 666 proscribes gratuities and bribes or only bribes.

Leave a Reply