United States v. Martinez-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Martinez-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/48

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 14- 108914- 1091

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J UAN BRAVO- FERNANDEZ and HECTOR MART NEZ- MALDONADO,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Franci sco A. Besosa, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howar d, Li pez, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Mar t i n G. Wei nber g, wi t h whom Davi d Z. Chesnof f , Chesnof f &Schonf el d, and Ki mber l y Homan wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant J uanBr avo- Fer nandez.

Abbe Davi d Lowel l , wi t h whomChr i st opher D. Man and Chadbour ne& Park LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant Hect or Mar t nez- Mal donado.

Vi j ay Shanker , Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Cr i mi nal

Di vi si on, Appel l at e Sect i on, wi t h whom Lesl i e R. Cal dwel l ,Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Davi d A. O' Nei l , Act i ng Deput yAssi st ant At t or ney Gener al , and Pet er M. Koski , Uni t ed St at esDepar t ment of J ust i ce, Cr i mi nal Di vi si on, Publ i c I nt egr i t y Sect i on,wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.


2/48

J une 15, 2015

-2-


3/48

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal r ai ses i mpor t ant and,

i n our Ci r cui t , novel i ssues about when an acqui t t al i n an ear l i er

t r i al may be deemed t o bar , under t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause, a new

pr osecut i on on a r el at ed of f ense. The l egal i ssues ar i se i n

connect i on wi t h t he f eder al br i ber y pr osecut i ons of a f ormer member

of t he Puer t o Ri co Senat e and of t he f or mer pr esi dent of a Puer t o

Ri co pr i vat e secur i t y f i r m.

We l ast consi der ed t hese pr osecut i ons t wo year s ago

f ol l owi ng a t r i al at whi ch t he def endant s had been convi ct ed of

f eder al pr ogr am br i ber y under 18 U. S. C. 666. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Fer nandez, 722 F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . At t hat t i me, we vacat ed

t he convi ct i ons because t he j ur y had r ecei ved i mpr oper i nst r uct i ons

about what const i t ut ed "br i ber y" under t hat st at ut e. I d. at 18- 27.

We t hus r emanded f or a possi bl e new t r i al based on a pr oper t heor y

of l i abi l i t y under 666. I d.

I n t hi s appeal , t he def endant s cont end t hat t he new t r i al

may not begi n because t he r enewed pr osecut i ons vi ol at e t he Doubl e

J eopar dy Cl ause, whi ch pr ovi des t hat " [ n] o per son [ may] be subj ect

f or t he same of f ense t o be t wi ce put i n j eopar dy of l i f e or l i mb. "

U. S. Const . Amend. V. I n pr essi ng t hi s cont ent i on, t he def endant s

make t wo ar gument s.

The def endant s f i r st ar gue t hat t he Doubl e J eopar dy

Cl ause bar s t he r enewed pr osecut i ons because t he j ur y acqui t t ed on

cl osel y r el at ed of f enses i n t he ear l i er t r i al and, i n doi ng so,

-3-


4/48

necessar i l y f ound t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove i ssues t hat

t he gover nment woul d have t o r el i t i gat e i n t he new pr osecut i ons.

Separat el y, t he def endant s cont end t hat t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause

bar s t he r enewed pr osecut i ons because a l i ne order t hat t heDi st r i ct Cour t i ssued and t hen cor r ect ed days af t er we i ssued our

mandat e i n t he l ast appeal const i t ut ed a f i nal and i r r evocabl e

order of acqui t t al on t he r enewed 666 charges.

The Di st r i ct Cour t r ej ect ed bot h doubl e j eopar dy

ar gument s, and so do we. We t hus af f i r m t he Di st r i ct Cour t .

I.

For pur poses of t he i ssues bef or e us i n t hi s appeal , i t

i s t he pr ocedur al hi st or y of t he case t hat mat t er s most . And so we

pr ovi de t he r el evant det ai l s of t hat hi st or y her e.

The 666 char ges ar e based on a t r i p f r omPuer t o Ri co t o

Las Vegas t hat def endant J uan Br avo- Fer nandez t ook wi t h def endant

Hect or Mar t nez- Mal donado i n May of 2005. The t wo men had t r avel ed

t o Las Vegas t o see boxer "Ti t o" Tr i ni dad f i ght boxer "Wi nky"

Wr i ght . At t he t i me, Br avo was t he pr esi dent of Ranger Amer i can,

a pr i vat e secur i t y f i r m i n Puer t o Ri co. Mar t nez was a member of

t he Puer t o Ri co Senat e.

A gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed t he def endant s i n J une of 2010,

f i ndi ng pr obabl e cause f or t he gover nment ' s al l egat i ons concer ni ng

t he connect i on bet ween Br avo' s payment f or t he t r i p and Mar t nez' s

suppor t f or l egi sl at i on benef i ci al t o Br avo' s company. The

-4-


5/48

i ndi ct ment cont ai ned a number of di st i nct count s. These count s

i ncl uded vi ol at i ons of t he f eder al pr ogr am br i ber y st at ut e, 18

U. S. C. 666, vi ol at i ons of t he Tr avel Act , 18 U. S. C.

1952( a) ( 3) ( A) , and conspi r acy, 18 U. S. C. 371. The Tr avel Act pr ohi bi t s t r avel i n i nt er st at e commer ce

f or a cri mi nal pur pose, 18 U. S. C. 1952( a) ( 3) ( A) . I n t hi s

i nst ance, t he gover nment al l eged t hat t he cr i mi nal pur pose was bot h

t o commi t t he br i ber y t hat 666 pr ohi bi t s and t o vi ol at e Puer t o

Ri co br i ber y l aw. 1 The pr edi cat e of f enses f or t he conspi r acy

count s wer e t he Tr avel Act ( i n f ur t her ance of , accor di ng t o t he

i ndi ct ment , vi ol at i ons of 666 and Puer t o Ri co br i ber y l aw) and

666.

Af t er a t hr ee week t r i al i n 2011, t he j ur y r et ur ned spl i t

ver di ct s as t o each def endant . The j ur y convi ct ed each def endant

of f eder al pr ogr am br i ber y under 666. The j ur y acqui t t ed each

def endant of conspi r acy t o vi ol at e 666 and of vi ol at i ng t he

Tr avel Act i n f ur t herance of vi ol at i ng 666. I n addi t i on, t he

j ur y convi ct ed Br avo of t wo ot her of f enses: conspi r i ng t o vi ol at e

t he Tr avel Act i n f ur t her ance of ( accor di ng t o t he ver di ct f or m 2)

unspeci f i ed "r acket eer i ng" act i vi t y, and vi ol at i ng t he Tr avel Act

i n f ur t her ance of vi ol at i ng Puer t o Ri co br i ber y l aw. The j ur y

1 See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 33 4360, 4363 ( r epeal ed 2005) .2 Unl i ke t he i ndi ct ment , t he ver di ct f or m di d not speci f y

666 and Puer t o Ri co br i ber y l aw as t he pr edi cat e of f enses f or t heconspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act char ges.

-5-


6/48

acqui t t ed Mar t nez of t hose l ast t wo of f enses. The def endant s

appeal ed each of t he convi ct i ons.

I n Fer nandez, we consi der ed t he def endant s' appeal and

r ever sed or vacat ed al l of t he convi ct i ons. Fer nandez, 722 F. 3d at39. We r ever sed t hose of Br avo' s convi ct i ons t hat wer e based on

Puer t o Ri co br i ber y l aw as pr edi cat e of f enses. We di d so because

we hel d t hat t hose br i bery l aws had been r epeal ed bef or e Br avo had

commi t t ed t he r el evant act s under l yi ng t he convi ct i ons. I d. at 28-

34.

We al so vacat ed Br avo' s and Mar t nez' s convi ct i ons on t he

st andal one 666 count s. I d. at 27. Speci f i cal l y, we concl uded

t hat 666 r equi r ed t he government t o pr ove t hat Br avo had pai d f or

Mar t nez' s t r i p t o t he boxi ng mat ch " i n exchange f or " t he f ut ur e

act i ons t hat Mar t nez al l egedl y t ook wi t h r espect t o t he

l egi sl at i on f avor i ng Br avo' s company. I d. at 19. We concl uded,

however , t hat t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons al l owed t he j ur y t o f i nd a

vi ol at i on of 666 even i f t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove t hi s

"exchange" t heor y and i nst ead pr oved onl y what we cal l ed a

"gr at ui t y" t heor y. I d. at 26- 27. Under t hi s i mpr oper gr at ui t y

t heor y, t he government needed onl y t o pr ove t hat Br avo had gi ven,

and Mar t nez had r ecei ved, "a r eward f or " havi ng al r eady suppor t ed

t he t wo bi l l s t hat f avor ed Br avo' s company. I d. at 20.

Af t er hol di ng t hat t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons wer e i mpr oper i n

t hi s r espect , we f ur t her concl uded t hat t he evi dence suppor t ed not

-6-


7/48

onl y t he cor r ect exchange t heor y but al so t he i mpr oper gr at ui t y

t heor y. I d. at 26- 27. We t hus hel d t hat t he er r or i n t he j ur y

i nst r uct i ons was not har ml ess. I d. On t hat basi s, we vacat ed t he

convi ct i ons on t he st andal one 666 count s. I d. at 27. We t henr emanded f or possi bl e r e- pr osecut i on of t he st andal one 666 count s

under t hat same i ndi ct ment . I d. at 27- 28. I n doi ng so, we

expl ai ned t hat " [ t ] he gover nment may not pur sue a convi ct i on" f or

t he 666 count s on a gr at ui t y t heor y "i f [ d] ef endant s are

r et r i ed. " I d. at 28.

Our mandat e i n Fer nandez i ssued on Oct ober 23, 2013. The

Di st r i ct Cour t assumed j ur i sdi ct i on once agai n. Two days l at er , on

Oct ober 25, unpr ompt ed by any par t y, t he Di st r i ct Cour t ent er ed a

l i ne or der . That l i ne or der st at ed:

ORDER r e 639 U. S. C. A. J udgment and 640U. S. C. A. J udgment as t o J uan Br avo- Fer nandezand Hect or Mar t i nez- Mal donado. The mandat ehavi ng been i ssued ( Docket No. 641) , i naccor dance wi t h t he J udgment s of t he Cour t of Appeal s ( Docket Nos. 639 and 640) , a j udgmentof acqui t t al shal l be ent er ed as t o def endantMar t i nez' s conspi r acy count , as t o def endantBr avo' s conspi r acy convi ct i on, and as t o bot hdef endant s' sect i on 666 convi ct i ons. Si gnedby J udge Fr anci sco A. Besosa on 10/ 25/ 2013.

Wi t hi n hour s, t he gover nment f i l ed an emergency mot i on

"t o cl ar i f y" t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s l i ne or der . The gover nment

cont ended i n t hat mot i on t hat t he l ast cl ause of t he l i ne or der was

mi st aken. The gover nment expl ai ned - - cor r ect l y, al l par t i es t o

t hi s appeal agr ee - - t hat t hi s Cour t ' s opi ni on i n Fer nandez, i n

-7-


8/48

vacat i ng t he st andal one 666 convi ct i ons, "di d not or der [ t he

Di st r i ct Cour t ] t o ent er a j udgment of acqui t t al on t he 666

convi cti ons. "

Less t han t hr ee hour s af t er ent r y of t he i ni t i al l i neor der , and f ol l owi ng t he r ecei pt of t he gover nment ' s mot i on, t he

Di st r i ct Cour t vacat ed t hat or der . The Di st r i ct Cour t ' s new or der

speci f i ed t hat "[ t ] he def endant s' sect i on 666 convi ct i ons ar e

VACATED. "

The def endant s t hen moved t o " r ei nst at e" t he by- t hen

vacat ed l i ne or der . The def endant s ar gued t hat t he l i ne or der

const i t ut ed a j udgment of acqui t t al t hat , gi ven t he Doubl e J eopar dy

Cl ause, coul d not be t aken back. But t he Di st r i ct Cour t di sagr eed

and deni ed t he mot i on.

Shor t l y t her eaf t er , t he def endant s f i l ed a new mot i on f or

acqui t t al on t he st andal one 666 char ges. I n t hi s mot i on, t he

def endant s f ocused on t he spl i t j ur y ver di ct s. The def endant s

cont ended t hat , under t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause, t he acqui t t al s of

t he def endant s f or conspi r acy t o vi ol at e 666 and f or vi ol at i ng

t he Tr avel Act i n f ur t her ance of a 666 of f ense pr ecl uded any

r enewed pr osecut i on on t he st andal one 666 count s. The Di st r i ct

Cour t deni ed t hat mot i on, t oo.

The def endant s now appeal t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deni al of

t he t wo acqui t t al mot i ons. We have appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on under

our aut hor i t y t o r evi ew "pret r i al or der s r ej ect i ng cl ai ms" under

-8-


9/48

t he Doubl e J eopardy Cl ause. Abney v. Uni t ed St at es, 431 U. S. 651,

662 ( 1977) . We r evi ew t he "const i t ut i onal quest i ons" r ai sed de

novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Lanoue, 137 F. 3d 656, 661 ( 1st Ci r . 1998)

( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Agui l ar - Ar ancet a, 957 F. 2d 18, 21 ( 1stCi r . 1992) , abr ogat ed on ot her gr ounds, Yeager v. Uni t ed St at es,

557 U. S. 110, 119 ( 2009) ) .

II.

We st ar t by addr essi ng t he def endant s' ar gument s about

t he pr ecl usi ve ef f ect of t he 666- based Tr avel Act and conspi r acy

acqui t t al s . 3 The def endant s' argument s r el y on " t he r ul e of

col l at er al est oppel " t hat " i s embodi ed i n t he Fi f t h Amendment

guar ant ee agai nst doubl e j eopar dy. " Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436,

444- 45 ( 1970) . Bef or e consi der i ng whet her t hat r ul e appl i es i n

t hi s case, however , we need t o say mor e about how t he r ul e appl i es

gener al l y.

Thi s aspect of t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause ensur es t hat

"when an i ssue of ul t i mat e f act has once been det er mi ned by a val i d

and f i nal j udgment , t hat i ssue cannot agai n be l i t i gat ed bet ween

3 The government does not ar gue t hat t he def endant s wai vedt hi s chal l enge by f ai l i ng t o r ai se i t i n Fer nandez. See Uni t edSt at es v. Medi na- Vi l l egas, 700 F. 3d 580, 585 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "Thel aw of t he case doct r i ne ' bar s a par t y f r om r esur r ect i ng i ssuest hat ei t her wer e, or coul d have been, deci ded on an ear l i erappeal . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mat t hews, 643 F. 3d 9, 12- 13( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) ) . We t hus addr ess t he chal l enge, as t hedef endant s' f ai l ur e t o r ai se i t i n Fer nandez does not af f ect our

j ur i sdi ct i on t o consi der i t . See Cohen v. Br own Uni v. , 101 F. 3d155, 168 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

-9-


10/48

t he same par t i es i n any f ut ur e l awsui t . " I d. at 443. I n Ashe, t he

Supr eme Cour t made cl ear t hat t he r ul e " i s not t o be appl i ed wi t h

t he hyper t echni cal and archai c appr oach of a 19t h cent ur y pl eadi ng

book. " 397 U. S. at 444. The i nqui r y, i nst ead, " ' must be set i n apr act i cal f r ame and vi ewed wi t h an eye t o al l t he ci r cumst ances of

t he pr oceedi ngs. ' " Ashe, 397 U. S. at 444 ( quot i ng Seal f on v.

Uni t ed St at es, 332 U. S. 575, 579 ( 1948) ) .

To t hat end, Ashe i nst r uct s t hat we must " ' exami ne t he

r ecor d of [ t he] pr i or pr oceedi ng, t aki ng i nt o account t he

pl eadi ngs, evi dence, char ge, and ot her r el evant mat t er , and

concl ude whet her a r at i onal j ur y coul d have gr ounded i t s ver di ct

upon an i ssue ot her t han t hat whi ch t he def endant seeks t o

f or ecl ose f r om consi der at i on. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Dani el K. Mayer s &

Fl et cher L. Yar br ough, Bi s Vexar i : New Tr i al s and Successi ve

Pr osecut i ons, 74 Har v. L. Rev. 1, 3839 ( 1960) ) . And, i f a r evi ew

of al l t hat mat er i al shows t hat a "r at i onal j ur y, " as a pr act i cal

mat t er , deci ded adver sel y t o t he gover nment an i ssue t o be

r el i t i gat ed i n t he new pr osecut i on, t hen t he def endant get s t he

benef i t of col l at er al est oppel . See i d. I n ot her wor ds, under t he

r ul e, t he gover nment may not " r el i t i gat [ e] any i ssue t hat was

necessar i l y deci ded by a j ur y' s acqui t t al i n a pr i or t r i al , " even

-10-


11/48

i n a t r i al f or a di f f er ent of f ense. 4 Yeager 557 U. S. at 119

( di scussi ng Ashe, 397 U. S. at 445- 46) .

Ashe suppl i es a good exampl e of what i t means t o "set i n

a pr act i cal f r ame" t he i nqui r y i nt o what t he j ur y necessar i l ydeci ded. I d. at 444 ( quot i ng Seal f on, 332 U. S. at 579) . Ther e,

t he j ur y had acqui t t ed a def endant of t he r obber y of one vi ct i m i n

t he basement of a home i n a case t hat i nvol ved t he r obbery of

mul t i pl e vi ct i ms i n t hat home at t hat same t i me. I d. at 437- 38.

The new pr osecut i on of t hat def endant f ocused on a di f f er ent one of

t he vi ct i ms. I d. at 439- 40. I n t hat r espect , t he new pr osecut i on

i nvol ved a di st i nct of f ense. But t he Cour t st i l l concl uded t hat

t he pr i or acqui t t al bar r ed t he gover nment f r om goi ng f or war d wi t h

t he new pr osecut i on. I d. at 446.

To r each t hat concl usi on, Ashe under t ook a car ef ul r evi ew

of t he r ecor d i n t he f i r st t r i al . See i d. at 438- 39. The r evi ew

4 Br avo cont ends t hat Ashe' s i nst r uct i on f or us t o "exami net he r ecor d of [ t he] pr i or pr oceedi ng, t aki ng i nt o account t hepl eadi ngs, evi dence, char ge, and ot her r el evant mat t er , " 397 U. S.at 444, appl i es onl y t o acqui t t al s based on a gener al ver di ct . AndBr avo poi nt s out t hat t he def endant s' t r i al i nvol ved a speci alver di ct f or m. But whi l e we agr ee wi t h Br avo t hat t he " speci alver di ct s t hemsel ves must be consi der ed" i n under t aki ng t he Ashei nqui r y, i n t hi s case, as we wi l l expl ai n, t he speci al ver di ct f or mal one does not pr ovi de enough i nf ormat i on t o r esol ve t hedef endant s' argument s. We t her ef ore, f or r easons pr ovi ded bel ow,must consi der t he mat er i al s t hat Ashe i dent i f i es al ong wi t h t hespeci al ver di ct f or m t o det er mi ne whet her t he acqui t t al s t he j ur yr ecor ded i n t he speci al ver di ct f or m necessar i l y deci ded an i ssueadver sel y t o t he gover nment t hat t he gover nment woul d have t or el i t i gat e i n t he r enewed pr osecut i ons on t he st andal one 666count s.

-11-


12/48

consi der ed t he evi dence i nt r oduced, t he argument s of counsel , and

t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons. See i d. The Cour t concl uded f r om t hat

r evi ew t hat , i n acqui t t i ng, t he j ur y had necessar i l y deci ded t hat

t he def endant was not pr esent at t he home wher e t he vi ct i ms hadbeen r obbed. I d. at 445. The Cour t t hen concl uded t hat t he j ur y' s

r esol ut i on of t hat i ssue adver sel y t o t he gover nment was as

det er mi nat i ve of t he gover nment ' s abi l i t y t o pr ove i t s case i n t he

second pr osecut i on as i n t he f i r st . See i d. at 445- 46. And so t he

Cour t hel d t hat t he second pr osecut i on coul d not go f or ward even

t hough t he named vi ct i m was di f f er ent . I d.

There i s, however , an i mpor t ant l i mi t at i on on t he

appl i cat i on of t he r ul e of col l at er al est oppel t hat , Ashe hel d, t he

Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause i ncor por at es. And t hi s l i mi t at i on i s of

pot ent i al r el evance t o t he col l at er al est oppel ef f ect t hat we

shoul d accor d t o t he acqui t t al s on whi ch t he def endant s r el y her e,

i n l i ght of t he convi ct i ons on t he st andal one 666 count s t hat

t hi s same j ur y al so r ender ed.

Thi s l i mi t at i on i s set f or t h i n t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Powel l , 469 U. S. 57 ( 1984) . Ther e,

t he Supreme Cour t expl ai ned t hat wher e " t he same j ury r eached

i ncons i s tent r esul t s . . . [ , ] pr i nci pl es of col l at er al es toppel - -

whi ch are pr edi cat ed on t he assumpt i on t hat t he j ur y act ed

r at i onal l y and f ound cer t ai n f acts i n r eachi ng i t s ver di ct - - ar e

no l onger usef ul . " I d. at 68. Rel yi ng on i t s pr i or hol di ng t o t he

-12-


13/48

same ef f ect i n Dunn v. Uni t ed St at es, 284 U. S. 390 ( 1932) , Powel l

gave t he f ol l owi ng r eason f or t hi s r ul e: "[ W] her e t r ul y

i nconsi st ent ver di ct s have been r eached, ' [ t ] he most t hat can be

sai d . . . i s t hat t he ver di ct shows t hat ei t her i n t he acqui t t alor t he convi ct i on t he j ur y di d not speak t hei r r eal concl usi ons,

but t hat does not show t hat t hey were not convi nced of t he

def endant ' s gui l t . ' " Powel l , 469 U. S. at 64- 65 ( quot i ng Dunn, 284

U. S. at 393) .

Powel l acknowl edged t hat i t i s, of cour se, possi bl e t hat

an acqui t t al t hat i s i nconsi s tent wi t h a convi ct i on s t i l l r ef l ect s

a j ur y' s f i ndi ng of r easonabl e doubt as t o gui l t . I d. But Powel l

expl ai ned t hat "[ i ] t i s equal l y possi bl e t hat t he j ur y, convi nced

of gui l t , pr oper l y r eached i t s concl usi on on t he [ convi ct ed]

of f ense, and t hen t hr ough mi st ake, compr omi se, or l eni t y, ar r i ved

at an i nconsi st ent concl usi on on t he [ acqui t t ed] of f ense. " I d. at

65.

Powel l f or t hat r eason r ej ect ed t he ar gument t hat , under

Ashe, an acqui t t al coul d, vi a col l at er al est oppel , i nval i dat e a

t r ul y i nconsi st ent convi ct i on t hat was r ender ed by t he same j ur y i n

t he same pr oceedi ng. I d. at 64. I n such a case, Powel l concl uded,

t her e i s no way t o know wi t hout specul at i ng whi ch of t he

i nconsi st ent ver di cts - - t he acqui t t al or t he convi cti on - - "t he

j ur y ' r eal l y meant . ' " I d. at 68. The government , of cour se,

cannot chal l enge t he acqui t t al s on t hat basi s - - t he acqui t t al s

-13-


14/48

must st and. See i d. But t he i nconsi st ency makes t he j ur y' s

f i ndi ngs i ndeci pher abl e. See i d. at 65- 68. And so "pri nci pl es of

col l at er al est oppel " - - whi ch r equi r e a det er mi nat i on of what t he

j ur y necessar i l y deci ded - - ar e i mpossi bl e t o appl y. I d. at 68. Thus, i n l i ght of Powel l , t he def endant s do not deny t hat

a t r ue i nconsi st ency i n what t he j ur y has done i n acqui t t i ng on one

of f ense whi l e convi ct i ng on anot her can make unanswerabl e Ashe' s

quest i on about what t he j ur y necessar i l y deci ded i n r ender i ng t he

acqui t t al . And so l ong as t hat quest i on cannot be answer ed, t he

acqui t t al cannot be gi ven col l at er al est oppel ef f ect such t hat i t

woul d bar a pr osecut i on f or a r el at ed of f ense.

Agai nst t hi s l egal backgr ound, t he def endant s admi t t hey

need t o show t wo t hi ngs i n or der f or t hei r col l at er al est oppel

ar gument t o succeed and bar t he r enewed prosecut i ons on t he

st andal one 666 count s. The def endant s need t o show t hat t he

acqui t t al s on t he Tr avel Act and conspi r acy count s i nvol vi ng 666

woul d, consi der ed on t hei r own, col l at er al l y est op t he r enewed,

st andal one 666 pr osecut i ons. The def endant s f ur t her need t o show

t hat , under Powel l , t he now- vacat ed convi ct i ons on t hose st andal one

666 count s do not st r i p t he 666- based Travel Act and conspi r acy

acqui t t al s of t he col l at er al est oppel ef f ect t hat t hey ot her wi se

mi ght have. Al t hough t he def endant s need t o make bot h showi ngs i n

order t o pr evai l , t he argument s t he def endant s make wi t h r espect t o

each showi ng ar e not unr el at ed t o one anot her . I n par t i cul ar ,

-14-


15/48

under st andi ng t he def endant s' argument s about what t he acqui t t al s

show on t hei r own hel ps t o set t he st age f or many of t he

def endant s' argument s about why t hose acqui t t al s have col l at er al

est oppel ef f ect not wi t hst andi ng t he convi ct i ons t hat t he j ur y al sor ender ed. We t her ef ore consi der each par t of t he def endant s'

col l at er al est oppel ar gument i n t ur n.

III.

We begi n by set t i ng t o one si de t he convi ct i ons on t he

st andal one 666 count s and exami ni ng whet her t he acqui t t al s on t he

conspi r acy and Tr avel Act count s i nvol vi ng 666 woul d, consi der ed

on t hei r own, suppor t t he def endant s' col l at er al est oppel ar gument .

To make t hat ar gument , t he def endant s seek t o demonst r at e t hat t he

j ur y, i n acqui t t i ng on t he conspi r acy and Tr avel Act count s

i nvol vi ng 666, necessar i l y deci ded t hat t he gover nment had f ai l ed

t o pr ove t hat t he def endant s vi ol at ed 666. And t he def endant s

f ur t her cont end t hat t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng as t o t he f ai l ur e of pr oof

concer ned, i n par t i cul ar , t he exchange t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y on

whi ch t he r enewed prosecut i ons must depend. See Fer nandez, 722

F. 3d at 19- 20, 28.

We st ar t wi t h t he def endant s' cont ent i on t hat t he

acqui t t al s show t hat t he j ur y f ound a f ai l ur e of pr oof as t o 666.

One obst acl e t he def endant s f ace i n maki ng t hat showi ng ar i ses f r om

t he nat ur e of t he t wo of f enses on whi ch t he j ur y acqui t t ed. As t o

each, 666 was i mpl i cat ed onl y as a pr edi cat e of f ense. And so

-15-


16/48

t her e i s a quest i on whet her t he j ur y' s acqui t t al s concer ned t he

pr edi cat e of f ense at al l .

I n t he abst r act , as t he gover nment poi nt s out , an

acqui t t al f or conspi r acy does not necessar i l y show t hat t he j ur yf ound t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t he def endant

commi t t ed t he pr edi cat e of f ense. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Mar i no, 277 F. 3d 11, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . Conspi r acy r equi r es pr oof

of el ement s i ndependent of t he pr edi cat e of f ense, i ncl udi ng t he

el ement t hat t her e be an agr eement bet ween "t wo or mor e per sons. "

See 18 U. S. C. 371. I t i s t hus possi bl e t hat a j ur y' s acqui t t al

on conspi r acy r ef l ect s onl y t hat j ur y' s f i ndi ng t hat t he gover nment

f ai l ed t o pr ove one of t hose i ndependent el ement s - - such as t he

el ement of agr eement - - r at her t han t hat t he government f ai l ed t o

pr ove a vi ol at i on of t he pr edi cat e of f ense.

Si mi l ar l y, t he Tr avel Act r equi r es pr oof of el ement s,

i ncl udi ng i nt er st at e t r avel , t hat ar e i ndependent of t he pr edi cat e

of f ense. See 18 U. S. C. 1952. And t hus, i n t heor y, as t he

gover nment al so not es, an acqui t t al on t hat of f ense mi ght r est onl y

on a j ur y' s f i ndi ng t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove one of t he

i ndependent el ement s and not on a f i ndi ng t hat t he gover nment had

f ai l ed t o pr ove t he pr edi cat e of f ense i t sel f . See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. St af f or d, 831 F. 2d 1479, 1482 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) .

But t he def endant s ar gue - - and t he gover nment does not

cont end ot her wi se - - t hat t he i ndependent el ement s of t he

-16-


17/48

conspi r acy and Tr avel Act of f enses ar e not mat er i al t o t he

col l at er al est oppel anal ysi s her e. I n suppor t of t hat ar gument ,

t he def endant s poi nt t o t he nat ur e of t he char ged conduct f or t he

pr edi cat e 666 of f ense f or t he conspi r acy and Tr avel Act count s. That conduct i ncl uded a t r i p t he def endant s t ook f r om

Puer t o Ri co t o Nevada t o see a boxi ng mat ch, i n connect i on wi t h

suppor t f or pendi ng l egi sl at i on. The def endant s t hus ar gue t hat

t he char ged conduct i nvol ved bot h t r avel and agr eement . On t hat

basi s, t he def endant s cont end - - and, agai n, t he gover nment does

not argue t o t he cont r ary - - t hat t he i ndependent el ement s of

t r avel and agr eement f or t he conspi r acy and Travel Act count s

i nvol vi ng 666 necessar i l y over l apped wi t h el ement s of 666

i t sel f . Thus, t he def endant s ar gue, when t he j ur y acqui t t ed on

t hose count s, t he j ur y necessar i l y r ej ect ed l i abi l i t y under 666

i t sel f , even t hough 666 was onl y a pr edi cat e of f ense f or t he

conspi r acy and Travel Act count s.

We next consi der t he def endant s' cont ent i on t hat t he

acqui t t al s show t hat t he j ur y r ej ect ed t he exchange t heor y of 666

l i abi l i t y i n par t i cul ar . Her e, t oo, t he def endant s cont end t hat

t her e i s no pr obl em. The def endant s poi nt out t hat t he acqui t t al s

show t hat t he j ur y r ej ect ed ever y t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y t hat

t he j ur y was gi ven, i ncl udi ng t he exchange t heor y. I n t hi s way,

t he def endant s cont end t hat t he " r ecor d of t he pr i or pr oceedi ng, "

Ashe, 397 U. S. at 444 ( quot i ng Mayers & Yar br ough, supr a) , shows

-17-


18/48

t hat t he acqui t t al s on t he conspi r acy and Tr avel Act count s f or

whi ch 666 was t he pr edi cat e of f ense do have col l at er al est oppel

ef f ect on t he r enewed, st andal one 666 pr osecut i ons.

But even i f we wer e t o accept each st ep i n t hedef endant s' ar gument t o t hi s poi nt , t he def endant s st i l l woul d need

t o show one mor e t hi ng. 5 The def endant s woul d st i l l need t o show

t hat t he conspi r acy and Tr avel Act acqui t t al s do not l ose t he

col l at er al est oppel ef f ect t hat t hey ot her wi se mi ght have i n

consequence of t he convi ct i ons t hat t he j ur y al so r ender ed on t he

st andal one 666 count s. Accor di ngl y, we now t ake up t hat i ssue.

IV.

The def endant s of f er t wo r easons f or concl udi ng t hat t he

vacat ed convi ct i ons on t he st andal one 666 convi ct i ons do not ,

under Powel l ' s l i mi t at i on on t he r ul e of col l at er al est oppel , st r i p

t he acqui t t al s on t he conspi r acy and Tr avel Act count s i nvol vi ng

666 of col l at er al est oppel ef f ect . Nei t her r eason t he def endant s

of f er , however , i s per suasi ve.

5 The gover nment does not ar gue t hat t he acqui t t al s t hedef endant s r el y on r est ed on a r ej ect i on of t he ext r a el ement si nvol ved i n t hose of f enses. But nei t her does t he gover nmentexpr essl y concede t hat t he acqui t t al s di d r ej ect 666 l i abi l i t y.I nst ead, t he gover nment ar gues t hat t he acqui t t al s ar e "at mosti nconsi st ent " wi t h t he convi ct i ons on t he i ssue of 666 l i abi l i t y.As we f i nd such an i nconsi st ency, we need not deci de whet her t heacqui t t al s di d r ej ect 666 l i abi l i t y, or whet her t hey i nst eadr est ed onl y on a r ej ect i on of some ext r a el ement .

-18-


19/48

A.

The def endant s' f i r st r eason i s t hat t he convi ct i ons on

t he st andal one 666 count s have been vacat ed and ar e no l onger

f i nal . See Fer nandez, 722 F. 3d at 27. The def endant s t hus argue

t hat t he acqui t t al s al one shoul d be consi der ed i n det er mi ni ng what

t he j ur y necessar i l y deci ded under Ashe. And, t he def endant s

f ur t her cont end, because t he acqui t t al s, consi der ed on t hei r own,

show t hat t he j ur y di d r ej ect 666 l i abi l i t y, t he Doubl e J eopar dy

Cl ause bar s t he r enewed pr osecut i ons on t he st andal one 666

count s.

We do not agr ee, however , t hat we may not consi der t he

vacat ed convi ct i ons as par t of our col l at er al est oppel i nqui r y,

under Ashe, i nt o what t he j ur y necessar i l y deci ded. Our r easoni ng

on t hi s poi nt f ol l ows i n l ar ge par t f r om Ashe i t sel f .

Ther e, t he Cour t i nst r uct ed t hat , f or pur poses of

det er mi ni ng t he col l at er al est oppel ef f ect of acqui t t al s, we must

under t ake a " pr act i cal " anal ysi s based on t he " r ecor d" of t he pr i or

pr oceedi ng, and wi t h "' an eye t o al l t he ci r cumst ances of t he

pr oceedi ngs. ' " Ashe, 397 U. S. at 444 ( quot i ng Seal f on, 332 U. S. at

579) . Li ke t he acqui t t al s on whi ch t he def endant s r el y, t he

convi ct i ons i n t hi s case ar e par t of what t he j ur y deci ded at

t r i al . For t hat r eason, Ashe' s expansi ve i nst r uct i on t o consi der

what happened i n t he pr i or pr oceedi ng poi nt s st r ongl y i n f avor of

-19-


20/48

t aki ng account of not onl y t he acqui t t al s but al so t he convi ct i ons,

even t hough t hey have been vacat ed.

The f act t hat a vacat ed convi ct i on has been "nul l i f i ed, "

Bul l i ngt on v. Mi ssour i , 451 U. S. 430, 442 ( 1981) , mor eover , doesnot r equi r e a di f f er ent concl usi on. "When a cour t vacat es a

convi cti on, i t set s asi de or nul l i f i es the convi cti on and i t s

at t endant l egal di sabi l i t i es; t he cour t does not necessar i l y

at t empt t o er ase t he f act of t he convi ct i on. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Cr owel l , 374 F. 3d 790, 792 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) . And i t i s t he " f act of

t he convi ct i on, " and not i t s "at t endant l egal di sabi l i t i es , " i d. ,

t hat i s r el evant t o t he Ashe anal ysi s of what t he j ur y' s ver di ct s

show t hat t he j ur y necessar i l y deci ded.

I n addi t i on, t he convi ct i ons at i ssue her e wer e vacat ed

onl y f or t r i al er r or . See Fer nandez, 722 F. 3d at 26- 27. But a

"r ever sal f or t r i al er r or . . . does not const i t ut e a deci s i on t o

t he ef f ect t hat t he gover nment has f ai l ed t o pr ove i t s case. "

Bur ks v. Uni t ed St at es, 437 U. S. 1, 15 ( 1978) . Thus, f or pur poses

of deci di ng whet her t he j ur y necessar i l y deci ded t hat t he

gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t he def endant s vi ol at ed 666, t he

f act t he j ur y al so convi ct ed t he def endant s of vi ol at i ng 666

woul d seem t o be of qui t e obvi ous r el evance, even t hough t he

convi ct i ons wer e l at er vacat ed.

We al so do not agr ee wi t h t he def endant s t hat , i n

conduct i ng t he Ashe anal ysi s, we shoul d di sr egard vacat ed

-20-


21/48

convi ct i ons because t hey ar e not meani ngf ul l y di f f er ent f r om hung

count s, whi ch are count s on whi ch t he j ur y r eached no verdi ct at

al l . The def endant s r el y f or t hei r cont ent i on on t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s deci si on i n Yeager v. Uni t ed St at es, 557 U. S. 110.I n Yeager , t he Cour t hel d t hat hung count s ar e, f or

pur poses of per f or mi ng Ashe' s col l at er al est oppel i nqui r y i nt o what

a j ur y necessar i l y deci ded, "not a ' r el evant ' par t of t he ' r ecor d

of [ t he] pr i or pr oceedi ng. ' " I d. at 121 ( quot i ng Ashe, 397 U. S. at

444) . I n r eachi ng t hat concl usi on, Yeager expl ai ned t hat Powel l

r el i ed on t he need t o r espect t he f i nal i t y of an ot her wi se val i d

ver di ct i n r ef usi ng t o over t ur n a convi ct i on t hat seemi ngl y

conf l i ct ed wi t h an acqui t t al . Yeager , 557 U. S. at 124. Yeager

r easoned i n t hi s r egard t hat t he same concer n about r espect i ng

f i nal ver di cts appl i ed equal l y t o r especti ng t he f i nal i t y of an

acqui t t al . See i d. Yeager t hus decl i ned t o al l ow a hung count - -

whi ch was not a f i nal ver di ct - - t o cr eat e a conf l i ct wi t h an

acqui t t al - - whi ch was. I d.

But we do not bel i eve Yeager suppor t s t r eat i ng vacat ed

convi ct i ons l i ke hung count s under Ashe. For whi l e a vacat ed

convi ct i on, l i ke a hung count , i s not a f i nal j ur y ver di ct , Yeager

di d not r el y sol el y on a r espect- f or - f i nal i t y r at i onal e t o expl ai n

why hung count s shoul d not be consi dered f or Ashe pur poses. Nor

di d Yeager hol d t hat a ver di ct t hat l acked f i nal i t y coul d never

bear on an acqui t t al ' s col l at er al est oppel ef f ect. I nst ead, i n

-21-


22/48

r ef usi ng t o concl ude t hat a hung count coul d cr eat e a " t r ul y

i nconsi st ent " ver di ct , Yeager al so expl ai ned t hat "a j ur y speaks

onl y t hr ough i t s ver di ct , " and t hat t her e was " no way t o deci pher

what a hung count r epr esent s" as a hung count r epr esent s not "a j ur y' s deci si on[ ] " but onl y " i t s f ai l ur e[ ] t o deci de. " I d. at 121-

122.

Thi s l i ne of r easoni ng i n Yeager suggest s t hat , under

Ashe, vacat ed count s shoul d be t r eat ed di f f er ent l y f r om hung

count s. Af t er al l , vacat ed convi ct i ons, unl i ke hung count s, ar e

j ur y deci si ons, t hr ough whi ch t he j ur y has spoken. I n ot her wor ds,

vacat ed convi ct i ons ar e st i l l par t of what t he j ur y di d deci de at

t r i al . For t hat r eason, vacat ed convi ct i ons on some count s do

pot ent i al l y bear on t he quest i on whet her t he j ur y, i n acqui t t i ng on

ot her count s, necessar i l y deci ded an i ssue i n a manner cont r ar y t o

what t he government woul d have t o pr ove i n r enewed prosecut i ons.

See Yeager , 557 U. S. at 115. And t hat i s because Powel l ' s "pr udent

acknowl edgment " t hat i nconsi st ent ver di ct s make i t i mpossi bl e t o

det er mi ne what a j ur y necessar i l y deci ded, 469 U. S. at 65, 68, i s

not under mi ned by t he mer e f act t hat a pot ent i al l y conf l i ct i ng

convi ct i on has been vacat ed. Rat her , a vacat ed convi ct i on may

st i l l suggest t hat an acqui t t al wi t h whi ch t hat convi ct i on

conf l i ct s was t he r esul t of "mi st ake, compr omi se, or l eni t y. " I d.

at 65. And so unl ess t he i nconsi st ency can be r esol ved,

-22-


23/48

"pr i nci pl es of col l at er al es toppel . . . ar e no l onger usef ul . "

I d. at 68.

We t hus concl ude t hat vacat ed convi ct i ons, unl i ke hung

count s, ar e r el evant t o t he Ashe i nqui r y i nt o what a j ur ynecessar i l y deci ded when acqui t t i ng on count s r el at ed t o t he

vacat ed convi ct i ons. 6 I n doi ng so, we j oi n t he onl y ot her ci r cui t s

t o have deci ded t he i ssue, see Uni t ed St at es v. Ci t r on, 853 F. 2d

1055, 1059 ( 2d Ci r . 1988) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pr i ce, 750 F. 2d 363,

366 ( 5t h Ci r . 1985) , 7 as wel l as t he hi ghest cour t s of New J er sey

and t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, see St at e v. Kel l y, 992 A. 2d 776, 789

( N. J . 2010) ; Evans v. Uni t ed St at es, 987 A. 2d 1138, 1141- 42 ( D. C.

2010) . And al t hough a di vi ded Mi chi gan Supreme Cour t r ecent l y came

6 To be cl ear , al t hough we concl ude t hat t he vacat edconvi ct i ons mi ght pr event t he acqui t t al s f r om col l at er al l yest oppi ng t he r enewed pr osecut i ons, t he acqui t t al s t hemsel vesr emai n i nvi ol at e. They f or ever bar t he Uni t ed St at es f r ompr osecut i ng t he def endant s f or conspi r acy and Tr avel Act of f ensesbased on t he char ged conduct and 666 as a pr edi cat e of f ense.Li kewi se, our t aki ng account of t he vacat ed convi ct i ons does notunder mi ne t he def endant s' vi ct or y i n get t i ng t hose convi ct i ons setasi de. The def endant s st i l l get t he benef i t of t hei r appel l at evi ct or y i n Fer nandez, as t he convi ct i ons have been vacat ed, and t hegovernment i n a second pr osecut i on cannot pr esent t he i mpermi ss i bl egr at ui t y t heor y.

7 Al t hough Ci t r on and Pr i ce pr edat e Yeager , bot h t he Secondand Fi f t h Ci r cui t s deci ded t hat vacat ed count s ar e r el evant t o t heAshe anal ysi s at a t i me when t hose ci r cui t s had al r eady r ul ed t hathung count s s houl d be di sr egar ded f or pur poses of t he Ashe i nqui r y.See Uni t ed St at es v. Mespoul ede, 597 F. 2d 329, 332, 335- 36 ( 2d Ci r .1979) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Nel son, 599 F. 2d 714, 716- 17 ( 5t h Ci r .1979) . And t he Second Ci r cui t has cont i nued t o f ol l ow Ci t r on af t er

Yeager . See Uni t ed St at es v. Br uno, 531 F. App' x 47, 49 ( 2d Ci r .2013) ( unpubl i shed) .

-23-


24/48

t o t he opposi t e j udgment , we f i nd t he di ssent i ng opi ni on i n t hat

case mor e per suasi ve on t hi s poi nt . See Peopl e v. Wi l son, 852

N. W. 2d 134 ( 2014) ; see al so i d. at 142 ( Mar kman, J . , di ssent i ng) . 8

Thus, i n under t aki ng our Ashe i nqui r y i nt o t he col l at er alest oppel ef f ect t hat must be gi ven t o t he acqui t t al s on t he

conspi r acy and Travel Act count s i nvol vi ng 666, we must consi der

t he now vacat ed, st andal one 666 convi ct i ons. Cont r ar y t o t he

def endant s' cont ent i on, t he f act t hat t hose convi ct i ons wer e

over t ur ned f or t r i al er r or pr ovi des no basi s f or excl udi ng t hem

f r om t he r ecor d t hat Ashe r equi r es us t o consi der .

B.

The def endant s do have a f al l back posi t i on. They ar gue

t hat , even i f t he convi ct i ons must be consi der ed as par t of t he

Ashe i nqui r y, t he convi ct i ons do not depr i ve t he acqui t t al s of

col l at er al est oppel ef f ect . That i s because, t he def endant s

8 Mar t nez does ci t e an unr epor t ed deci si on of t he Appel l at eDi vi si on of t he Super i or Cour t of New J er sey i n whi ch t hat cour tr ef er r ed t o i t s "i ncl i nat i on t o r egar d t he count s on whi ch [ i t ] hadr ever sed t he def endant ' s convi ct i on . . . as a nul l i t y, anal ogoust o a si t uat i on wher e t her e i s a hung j ur y on cer t ai n count s. "St at e v. Hermal yn, No. 06- 11- 2085, 2012 WL 3000334, at *1 ( N. J .Super . Ct . App. Di v. J ul y 24, 2012) ( per cur i um) ( ci t i ng Yeager ,557 U. S. at 120) . Her mal yn pr ovi des no expl anat i on f or t hat"i ncl i nat i on, " and i t appear s di r ect l y i nconsi st ent wi t h t he New

J er sey Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n Kel l y, whi ch Her mal yn di d notci t e. See Kel l y, 992 A. 2d at 789. I n Kel l y, whi ch l i ke t hi s case( and l i ke Her mal yn) i nvol ved t he ret r i al of vacat ed convi ct i ons,t he New J er sey Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat "Yeager has no appl i cat i ont o a case . . . i nvol vi ng an i nconsi st ent ver di ct of acqui t t al s andconvi ct i ons r et ur ned by t he same j ur y, " as opposed t o hung count s.I d. at 778, 789.

-24-


25/48

cont end, t he t r i al r ecor d shows t hat t he convi ct i ons on t he

st andal one 666 count s ar e act ual l y consi st ent wi t h t he acqui t t al s

on t hose count s f or whi ch 666 was a pr edi cat e of f ense. And,

f ur t her , t he def endant s cont end t hat t he ver di ct s on t hose count s- - t hough i nvol vi ng bot h convi ct i ons and acqui t t al s - - ar e

consi st ent i n a way t hat shows t hat t he acqui t t al s di d r ej ect t he

exchange t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y and t hus shoul d be gi ven

col l at er al est oppel ef f ect t o bar t he r enewed st andal one 666

pr osecut i ons. Thus, t he def endant s ar gue, t he convi ct i ons do not

cr eat e "t r ul y i nconsi st ent " ver di ct s wi t h r espect t o 666 t hat

woul d i mpl i cat e Powel l ' s l i mi t at i on on t he col l at er al est oppel

r ul e. 469 U. S. at 64.

To show how t he convi ct i ons and acqui t t al s may be

r econci l ed i n t hi s way, Mar t nez expl ai ns t hat "[ a] ' r at i onal ' j ur y

coul d concl ude a def endant had not commi t t ed br i bery [ under an

exchange t heory] . . . whi l e at t he same t i me convi ct i ng t he same

def endant under a gr at ui t y t heory under Sect i on 666. " And so,

Mar t nez ar gues, "concl udi ng t hat t he j ur y f ound a gr at ui t y and not

br i ber y [ i n convi ct i ng on t he st andal one 666 count s] i s t he

l ogi cal way t o r econci l e t he ver di ct . " Or , as Br avo put s t he poi nt

i n hi s br i ef , t he "onl y l ogi cal concl usi on i s t hat t he j ur y r est ed

i t s [ ] 666 convi cti ons on a f i ndi ng of gr at ui t i es, not [ ] 666

br i ber y [ under t he pr oper exchange t heor y] , and t hat i t s ver di ct s

-25-


26/48

on t he conspi r acy and Tr avel Act count s necessar i l y r ej ect ed a

[ ] 666 br i ber y t heor y [ under t he pr oper exchange t heor y] . "

I n maki ng t hi s ar gument , t he def endant s r el y sol el y on a

cl ai m about how t he j ur y was i nst r uct ed. 9 I n par t i cul ar , t hedef endant s cont end t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t pr esent ed t he i mpr oper

gr at ui t y t heor y t o t he j ur y onl y as t o t he st andal one 666 count s.

The def endant s t hus cont end t hat - - consi st ent wi t h t he j ur y

i nst r uct i ons - - t he j ur y coul d have convi ct ed on t he st andal one

666 count s on t he gr at ui t y t heor y wi t hout havi ng t o consi der ( and

9 The def endant s of f er no ot her argument f or how t he j ur yr at i onal l y coul d have acqui t t ed on t he conspi r acy and Tr avel Actcount s t hat i nvol ved 666 i n a way t hat r ej ect ed onl y t he exchanget heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y and not t he gr at ui t y t heor y as wel l .Per haps t he def endant s coul d have ar gued t hat a gr at ui t y, unl i ke aqui d pr o quo exchange, i nvol ves no agr eement . I f a gr at ui t y neednot i nvol ve an agr eement , t hen i t coul d be ar gued t hat t he 666-based conspi r acy acqui t t al s r ej ect ed onl y t he exchange t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y. A gr at ui t y t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y, by notr equi r i ng t hat t her e be an agr eement , woul d ar guabl y not haver equi r ed t he j ur y t o f i nd conspi r acy l i abi l i t y. But t he def endant sdo not make such an argument f or r econci l i ng t he ver di ct s, and sowe do not addr ess whet her t her e i s any f or ce t o t he ar gument .

The r eason t he def endant s do not make t hat addi t i onalar gument , mor eover , i s r eadi l y appar ent . The ar gument does nothel p wi t h r espect t o t he separ at e, 666- based Tr avel Actacqui t t al s. I n t hi s case, t he al l egedl y unl awf ul payment t ook t hef or m of an al l - expenses pai d i nt er st at e t r i p. Whet her t hat t r i pwas gi ven as a gr at ui t y or as a qui d pr o quo exchange, i t woul dst i l l i nvol ve i nt er st at e t r avel . And t hus, i f t he j ur y concl udedt he t r i p vi ol at ed 666 t hen t he j ur y shoul d al so have f ound a 666- based Tr avel Act vi ol at i on. See 18 U. S. C. 1952( a) ( 3)( pr ohi bi t i ng i nt er st at e t r avel t o "promot e, manage, est abl i sh,car r y on, or f aci l i t at e t he pr omot i on, management , est abl i shment ,or car r yi ng on, of any unl awf ul act i vi t y") . Yet t he j ur y di d notdo so. Thus, i f t he def endant s ' di f f er ent i al j ur y i nst r ucti onsar gument does not hol d up, t hen t hey ar e l ef t wi t h ver di ct s on 666 t hat ar e unavoi dabl y i nconsi st ent wi t h each ot her .

-26-


27/48

t hus r ej ect ) t hat same t heor y i n acqui t t i ng on t he conspi r acy and

Tr avel Act count s t hat i nvol ved 666. I n t hi s way, t he def endant s

argue, t he ver di ct s concer ni ng 666 - - whet her as a st andal one or

pr edi cat e of f ense - - may be har moni zed. The acqui t t al s r ej ect edone t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y ( t he pr oper one) and t he convi ct i ons

accept ed anot her t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y ( t he i mpr oper one) .

The Supr eme Cour t i n Powel l - - i n hol di ng t hat an

acqui t t al l acks col l at er al est oppel ef f ect when t r ul y i nconsi st ent

wi t h an accompanyi ng convi ct i on - - di d not di r ect l y conf r ont an

argument l i ke t hi s one. The def endant i n Powel l was argui ng t hat

t he ver di ct s wer e i nconsi st ent i n or der t o compel t he r ever sal of

a convi ct i on i n consequence of a supposedl y cont r adi ct or y

acqui t t al . 469 U. S. at 60. And t he gover nment , i n def endi ng t he

convi ct i on agai nst such chal l enge, di d "not di sput e t he

i nconsi st ency. " I d. at 69. The Supr eme Cour t t hus di d not need t o

addr ess i n Powel l how cour t s shoul d det er mi ne whet her ver di ct s ar e

i nconsi st ent when a def endant seeki ng t o benef i t f r om t he

col l at er al est oppel ef f ect of an acqui t t al deni es t hat t he

acqui t t al r eal l y i s i n conf l i ct wi t h a convi ct i on t hat t he j ur y

al so r ender ed. See i d. Nor has t he Supr eme Cour t had occasi on t o

addr ess t hat i ssue i n any subsequent case.

Because Ashe governs t he def endant s' under l yi ng

col l at er al est oppel ar gument , however , we bel i eve t hat Ashe' s

i nst r uct i on t o consi der t he r ecor d i n t he pr i or pr oceedi ng i n

-27-


28/48

det er mi ni ng what t he j ur y necessar i l y deci ded i s f ul l y appl i cabl e

t o t hi s aspect of t he col l at er al est oppel i nqui r y. Mor eover , we

agr ee wi t h t he def endant s t hat j ur y i nst r uct i ons are r el evant t o

t he r evi ew of t he r ecor d t hat Ashe r equi r es. See 397 U. S. at 444( expl ai ni ng t hat t he i nqui r y shoul d consi der t he "char ge" t o t he

j ur y) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 983 F. 2d 201, 202 ( 11t h Ci r . 1993)

( l i st i ng "j ur y i nst r uct i ons" as among t he "r el evant mat t er s" t o be

consi der ed i n t he Ashe i nqui r y) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano,

507 U. S. 725, 740 ( 1993) ( descr i bi ng " t he al most i nvar i abl e

assumpt i on of t he l aw t hat j ur or s f ol l ow t hei r i nst r uct i ons"

( quot i ng Ri char dson v. Mar sh, 481 U. S. 200, 206 ( 1987) ) ) . Rel evant

as wel l t o t he Ashe i nqui r y ar e t he par t i es' " cl osi ng ar gument s. "

Br own, 983 F. 2d at 202.

And so, t o eval uat e t he def endant s' f al l back ar gument , we

r evi ew t he t r i al r ecor d - - and, i n par t i cul ar , t he j ur y

i nst r uct i ons and t he ar gument s t hat t he par t i es made t o t he j ur y

about t he meani ng of 666 - - t o det er mi ne whet her t he verdi ct s

i nvol vi ng 666 may be r econci l ed i n t he way t he def endant s

pr opose. I f i t t ur ns out f r omt hat r evi ew t hat t he ver di ct s may be

r econci l ed by r ef er ence t o t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons and t he ar gument s

of counsel , t hen t he "assumpt i on t hat t he j ur y act ed r at i onal l y and

f ound cer t ai n f act s i n r eachi ng i t s ver di ct " wi l l be r est or ed, and

col l at er al est oppel pr i nci pl es wi l l agai n be usef ul . See Powel l ,

-28-


29/48

469 U. S. at 68; Wi l son, 852 N. W. 2d at 151- 52 n. 12 ( Mar kman, J . ,

di ssent i ng) .

I n t aki ng up t hi s i nqui r y, we ar e mi ndf ul t hat t he

def endant s bear t he bur den of showi ng t hat t he j ur y necessar i l ydeci ded an i ssue adver sel y t o t he gover nment t hat t he government

needs t o pr ove i n or der t o convi ct on a r el at ed of f ense i n a new

t r i al . See Schi r o v. Far l ey, 510 U. S. 222, 232 ( 1994) . But we ar e

al so mi ndf ul t hat , i f " any r easonabl e assessment of t he ver di ct "

woul d l ead t o a r econci l i at i on of t he appar ent i nconsi st ency

bet ween t he convi ct i ons and t he acqui t t al s i nvol vi ng 666, we

mi ght be r equi r ed t o adopt t hat account . Fer nandez, 722 F. 3d at

34. As we put i t i n Fer nandez, " [ w] e wi l l not bend over backwards

t o f ormul at e some r out e" t o al l ow t he gover nment t o r e- pr osecut e.

I d.

As we wi l l expl ai n, however , t he r ecor d i n t hi s case

shows t hat t he j ur y was of f er ed t he same t heor i es of 666

l i abi l i t y as t o ever y count i nvol vi ng 666, whet her as a pr edi cat e

of f ense or a st andal one cr i me. We t her ef or e concl ude t hat on t hi s

r ecor d no r easonabl e assessment of t he ver di ct s i s avai l abl e t hat

r econci l es t he ver di ct s i n t he way t he def endant s pr opose. And i n

consequence of t he i nconsi st ency i n t hose ver di ct s, we concl ude

t hat , consi st ent wi t h t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Powel l , t he

def endant s cannot meet t hei r bur den of showi ng t hat t he acqui t t al s

-29-


30/48

i nvol vi ng 666 col l at er al l y est op t he r enewed, st andal one 666

pr osecut i ons.

1.

Consi der t he f i r st pai r of i nst r ucti ons t hat t he j ur y

r ecei ved r egar di ng 666. These were t he ones t hat we hel d were

er r oneous i n Fer nandez. 722 F. 3d at 26- 27. The Di st r i ct Cour t

began each er r oneous i nst r uct i on by expl ai ni ng t hat " t o f i nd [ each

def endant ] gui l t y of br i ber y, you must be convi nced t hat t he

Government has pr oven each of t he f ol l owi ng t hi ngs beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . . . . " ( emphasi s added) . The i nst r uct i ons t hen

went on t o def i ne "br i ber y" i n a way t hat i ncl uded bot h t he pr oper

exchange t heory and t he i mpr oper gr at ui t y t heory. See i d.

Si gni f i cant l y, not hi ng i n t hese i nst r ucti ons t i ed or

r est r i ct ed t hat def i ni t i on of "br i ber y" - - i mpr oper t hough i t was

- - t o t he st andal one 666 count s i n par t i cul ar . And t hus not hi ng

about t hese i nst r uct i ons suggest s t hat t he j ur y was of f er ed t he

gr at ui t y t heor y onl y as t o t he st andal one count s on whi ch t he j ur y

convi ct ed, and not as t o t he ot her count s i nvol vi ng 666, f or

whi ch 666 was a pr edi cat e of f ense and on whi ch t he j ur y

acqui t t ed.

The wr i t t en ver si on of t hese i nst r uct i ons, mor eover , was

gi ven t o t he j ur y under t he headi ng "Br i ber y Concer ni ng Pr ogr ams

Recei vi ng Feder al Funds, 18 U. S. C. 666( a) ( 2) . " That headi ng al so

t i ed t he def i ni t i on of br i ber y t o 666 as an of f ense wi t hout t yi ng

-30-


31/48

t hat def i ni t i on t o t he st andal one 666 count s speci f i cal l y. And

t hus, on i t s f ace, t he headi ng di d not excl ude t he i mpr oper

gr at ui t y t heor y f r om appl yi ng t o t he ot her count s i nvol vi ng 666

as a pr edi cat e cr i me - - namel y, t he count s t hat r esul t ed i n t heacqui t t al s .

An exami nat i on of t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons wi t h r espect t o

t he Tr avel Act count s r ei nf or ces t he poi nt . The Di st r i ct Cour t

i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat t he gover nment had t o pr ove "[ f ] i r st , t hat

t he Def endant s t r avel l ed [ si c] i n i nt er st at e commer ce; [ and]

[ s] econd, t hat t hey di d so wi t h t he i nt ent t o pr omot e, manage,

es tabl i sh, car r y on, or f aci l i t at e . . . an ' unl awf ul act i vi t y, '

her e, a vi ol at i on of Feder al or Puer t o Ri co l aw r egar di ng cr i mi nal

br i ber y. " The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen expl ai ned t hat "[ t ] he el ement s

of br i ber y i n vi ol at i on of t he br i ber y l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es - -

speci f i cal l y, Ti t l e 18, Uni t ed St at es Code, Sect i on 666( a) ( 1) ( B)

and 666( a) ( 2) - - ar e di scussed el sewher e i n t hese i nst r uct i ons. "

I n ot her wor ds, t he i nst r uct i ons on t he Tr avel Act count s

expl i ci t l y i ncor por at ed by r ef er ence t he l at er , er r oneous

i nst r uct i ons on what was needed t o convi ct t he def endant s of

"br i ber y" under 666. Thus, cont r ar y t o t he def endant s'

cont ent i on, t he j ur y had no basi s f or appl yi ng a di f f er ent

"br i ber y" def i ni t i on i n t he Tr avel Act count s f or whi ch 666 was

a pr edi cat e of f ense - - and on whi ch t he j ur y acqui t t ed - - f r om t he

-31-


32/48

"bri ber y" def i ni t i on t hat t he j ur y appl i ed i n t he st andal one 666

count s - - on whi ch t he j ur y convi ct ed.

The j ur y i nst r uct i ons on t he conspi r acy count s ar e no

di f f er ent i n t hi s r egar d. The j ur y was t ol d:For you t o f i nd Def endant s Br avo and Mar t i nezgui l t y of conspi r acy, you must be convi ncedt hat t he Gover nment has proven each of t hef ol l owi ng beyond a r easonabl e doubt : Fi r st ,t hat t he agr eement speci f i ed i n t heI ndi ct ment , and not some ot her agr eement oragr eement s, exi st ed bet ween at l east t wopeopl e t o: Commi t br i ber y concer ni ng f eder alf unds, pur suant t o Ti t l e 18, Uni t ed St at esCode, Sect i on 666, or ; Tr avel i n i nt er st at ecommer ce i n ai d of r acket eer i ng, pur suant t o

Ti t l e 18, Uni t ed St at es Code, Sect i on 1952. . . .

The Di st r i ct Cour t t hen pr ovi ded i nst r uct i ons on t he r equi r ement s

f or f i ndi ng an agr eement , but sai d not hi ng at al l at t hat t i me

about what "br i ber y concer ni ng f eder al f unds, pur suant t o Ti t l e 18,

Uni t ed St at es Code, Sect i on 666" meant . And so wi t h r espect t o t he

conspi r acy count s i nvol vi ng 666, t he j ur y was not gi ven any cause

t o appl y a di f f er ent def i ni t i on of "br i ber y" i n t he conspi r acy

count s f r omt hat whi ch t he j ur y had been i nst r uct ed t o appl y t o t he

st andal one 666 count s.

Nor di d t he par t i es' cl osi ng ar gument s suggest t hat

di f f er ent t heor i es of 666 l i abi l i t y appl i ed. I n i t s cl os i ng

argument , t he gover nment di d use, i n connect i on wi t h t he st andal one

666 count s, t he " i nt ent t o i nf l uence or r ewar d" l anguage t hat we

hel d i n Fer nandez had al l owed t he j ur y t o consi der t he

-32-


33/48

i mper mi ssi bl e "gr at ui t y" t heor y. See 722 F. 3d at 18. But t he

gover nment , l i ke t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons, used t hat l anguage i n

def i ni ng what "br i ber y t hat i nvol ves f eder al f unds" meant . The

gover nment t hus sai d not hi ng t o suggest t hat t he gr at ui t y t heor ywas i nappl i cabl e t o t he Tr avel Act and conspi r acy count s i nvol vi ng

666.

I n f act , when t he gover nment t ur ned i n i t s cl osi ng

argument t o t he Tr avel Act count s, t he gover nment sai d onl y as t o

t he meani ng of br i ber y t hat t he def endant s must have t r avel ed "wi t h

t he i nt ent t o commi t a cr i me. And her e, t he cr i me' s br i ber y. "

Fur t her , when t he gover nment t ur ned t o t he conspi r acy count s, t he

gover nment ar gued expr essl y t hat " t he agreement has t o be t o commi t

one of t he t wo cr i mes we' ve al r eady t al ked about : Feder al pr ogr am

br i ber y or i nt er st at e t r avel i n ai d of r acket eer i ng" ( emphasi s

added) . The gover nment ' s cl osi ng argument , t her ef ore, di d not

suggest t hat t he def i ni t i on of br i ber y di scussed wi t h r espect t o

t he st andal one 666 count s appl i ed excl usi vel y t o t hose count s.

Fi nal l y, Mar t nez' s counsel i n hi s cl osi ng ar gument

under scor ed t he equi val ence bet ween "br i ber y" as used i n t he

st andal one 666 count s and as used i n t he conspi r acy and Tr avel

Act count s i nvol vi ng 666. Mar t nez' s counsel ar gued t hat t he

j ur y shoul d appl y onl y t he exchange t heor y of br i bery. But he made

t hat ar gument wi t h r espect t o "Count s 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 5" - - i n

ot her wor ds, wi t h r espect t o al l of t he count s ( conspi r acy, Tr avel

-33-


34/48

Act , and st andal one) i nvol vi ng 666. Not hi ng Mar t nez' s counsel

sai d, t her ef or e, suggest ed any di f f er ence bet ween t he def i ni t i on of

"br i ber y" t he j ur y was t o use as t o any of t hese count s, even

t hough t he j ur y convi ct ed on some and acqui t t ed on ot her s. 10

We t her ef or e concl ude t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t i nst r uct ed

t he j ur y t o consi der t he gr at ui t y t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y not

onl y on t he st andal one 666 count s, but al so on t he Travel Act and

conspi r acy count s f or whi ch 666 was a pr edi cat e of f ense. And

f ur t her , we concl ude t hat t he cl osi ng argument s by counsel accor d

wi t h t hi s same under st andi ng of how t he j ur y was t o be i nst r uct ed.

2.

The def endant s do sei ze on one bi t of l anguage f r om

Fer nandez i n suppor t of t hei r cont ent i on t hat t he j ur y r ecei ved

di f f er ent i nst r uct i ons as t o some of t he count s i nvol vi ng 666.

I n Fer nandez, we di d observe t hat t he j ur y r ecei ved a cor r ect

br i ber y i nst r uct i on, whi ch al l owed onl y t he exchange t heor y,

al ongsi de t he i mpr oper one t hat al l owed bot h t he exchange and t he

gr at ui t y t heor i es. I d. at 20. I n doi ng so, we expl ai ned t hat t hi s

pr oper i nst r uct i on "appl i ed t o bot h t he Puer t o Ri co and f eder al

br i ber y count s, " wher eas t he er r oneous i nst r uct i ons set t i ng f or t h

t he gr at ui t y t heor y wer e " i nst r uct i ons on t he 666 count s

t hemsel ves. " I d.

10 Br avo' s counsel al so gave a cl osi ng ar gument , but hi sar gument di d not addr ess t he def i ni t i on of br i ber y.

-34-


35/48

The def endant s ar gue t hat t hi s quot ed l anguage - - by

r ef er r i ng t o t he " 666 count s" - - shows t hat we hel d i n Fer nandez

t hat t he j ur y r ecei ved t he i mpr oper gr at ui t y i nst r uct i on onl y f or

t he st andal one 666 count s, and not f or t hose count s i nvol vi ng 666 t hat r esul t ed i n acqui t t al s, each of whi ch i nvol ved 666

onl y as a pr edi cat e of f ense. I n t hi s way, t he def endant s cont end

t hat Fer nandez suppor t s t hei r ar gument t hat t he j ur y' s appar ent l y

i nconsi st ent ver di ct s can be r econci l ed by r ef er ence t o t he

i nst r uct i ons t he j ur y r ecei ved.

But t he def endant s over r ead t he quot ed l anguage.

Fer nandez di d not deci de whet her " t he 666 count s" t o whi ch we

sai d t he er r oneous i nst r uct i ons appl i ed i ncl uded onl y t he

st andal one 666 count s. See i d. I n cont ext , i t s eems cl ear t hat

by "t he 666 count s" we meant t o di st i ngui sh t hose count s t hat

i nvol ved 666 f r om t hose count s t hat i nvol ved Puer t o Ri co br i ber y

l aw. See i d. We were not dr awi ng a di st i nct i on among t he " 666

count s, " count s t hat i n f act i ncl uded t he Tr avel Act and conspi r acy

count s f or whi ch 666 was a pr edi cat e of f ense.

I ndeed, we had no occasi on i n Fer nandez t o consi der

whet her t he er r oneous i nst r uct i ons on t he meani ng of 666 al so

appl i ed t o t he Travel Act and conspi r acy count s f or whi ch 666 was

a pr edi cat e of f ense. The acqui t t al s on t hose count s wer e,

obvi ousl y, not under r evi ew i n t hat appeal . See i d. at 8.

-35-


36/48

Mor eover , i t i s not sur pr i si ng t hat t he er r oneous

i nst r uct i ons of f er i ng up t he gr at ui t y t heor y appl i ed t o al l t he

count s i nvol vi ng 666, and not j ust t o t he st andal one 666

count s. As we expl ai ned i n Fer nandez, cour t s have di vi ded wi t hr espect t o whet her 666 does or does not cr i mi nal i ze gr at ui t i es.

See i d. at 23- 27. And whi l e we hel d i n Fer nandez t hat 666 does

not cr i mi nal i ze gr at ui t i es , i d. at 27, t he Di str i ct Cour t , i n

gi vi ng t he er r oneous i nst r uct i ons over t he def endant s' obj ect i ons,

evi dent l y had det er mi ned t hat 666 di d cr i mi nal i ze gr at ui t i es. No

par t y ar gued t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t , however , t hat 666

cr i mi nal i zes gr at ui t i es when t he def endant i s pr osecut ed f or 666

vi ol at i ons t hemsel ves, but not when 666 ser ves as a predi cat e

of f ense f or conspi r acy or Tr avel Act vi ol at i ons. Nor do t he

def endant s advance any such ar gument on appeal .

For t hat r eason, i t makes per f ect sense t hat t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons on what 666 pr ohi bi t ed wer e gi ven as t o al l

count s i nvol vi ng t hat of f ense, bot h when 666 ser ved as a

pr edi cat e of f ense and when i t st ood al one. And, as we have j ust

expl ai ned, t he r ecor d shows t hat t he i nst r uct i ons set t i ng f or t h t he

er r oneous gr at ui t y theor y of 666 l i abi l i t y appl i ed br oadl y to al l

count s i nvol vi ng 666. As di scussed, expl i ci t and i mpl i ci t cr oss-

r ef er ences i n t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons show t hat t he er r oneous

i nst r uct i ons on 666 wer e gi ven as t o al l t he count s t hat i nvol ved

-36-


37/48

666 as a pr edi cat e of f ense, i ncl udi ng t he count s i nvol vi ng 666

on whi ch t he j ur y r ender ed acqui t t al s.

3.

Thi s f act about t he count s t o whi ch t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons

- - and t he ar gument s of counsel - - appl i ed i s i ncompat i bl e wi t h t he

def endant s' account of what t he j ur y di d. I f , as t he def endant s

cont end, t he j ur y based t he now- vacat ed, st andal one 666

convi ct i ons sol el y on a gr at ui t y t heor y, t hen t he j ur y shoul d have

consi der ed t hat same gr at ui t y t heory and f ound t he def endant s

gui l t y when t he j ur y i ssued i t s ver di ct s on at l east t he Tr avel Act

charges f or whi ch 666 was a pr edi cat e of f ense. 11 Af t er al l , t he

i nst r uct i on al l owi ng t he gr at ui t y t heor y appl i ed, by i t s t er ms, t o

al l 666- r el at ed count s. And yet t he j ur y f ound t he def endant s

not gui l t y on t hose 666- based Tr avel Act char ges. The ver di ct s

ar e t hus i nconsi st ent wi t h r espect t o 666 l i abi l i t y, even

11 I n r ef er r i ng t o t he 666- based Tr avel Act char ges, we donot i ncl ude t he conspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act char ges. Weset t hose conspi r acy char ges, as wel l as t he char ges f or conspi r acyt o vi ol at e 666, t o one si de even t hough, as not ed above, supr anot e 9, t he def endant s make no ar gument di st i ngui shi ng t heconspi r acy char ges f r om t he Tr avel Act char ges i n at t empt i ng t or econci l e t he ver di ct s. We l i mi t our f ocus i n t hi s way because,even i f t he 666- based conspi r acy acqui t t al s coul d be squared wi t ht he st andal one 666 convi ct i ons on t he gr ound t hat a gr at ui t y-t heory 666 vi ol at i on need not have i nvol ved an agr eement , seei d. , t he 666- based Tr avel Act acqui t t al s not i nvol vi ng conspi r acyar e not subj ect t o any such squar i ng. The r esul t i s t hat t he 666- based Tr avel Act acqui t t al s suf f i ce on t hei r own t o cr eat et r ul y i nconsi st ent ver di ct s concer ni ng 666 l i abi l i t y, and t hus t opr event t he def endant s f r ommeet i ng t hei r bur den under Ashe t o showwhat t he j ur y necessar i l y deci ded.

-37-


38/48

assumi ng, as t he def endant s cont end, t hat t he convi ct i ons on t he

st andal one 666 count s r el i ed onl y on t he j ur y' s accept ance of t he

gr at ui t y t heor y.

I f , on t he ot her hand, t he j ur y i nt er pr et ed t hei nstr uct i ons ' conf l i ct i ng def i ni t i ons of "br i ber y" t o al l ow f or

onl y an exchange t heor y of 666 l i abi l i t y, t hen t he ver di ct s woul d

st i l l be i r r econci l abl e. And t hat i s agai n because t he same

i nst r uct i ons on t he meani ng of br i ber y i n 666 wer e gi ven as t o

al l count s i nvol vi ng 666. The convi ct i ons on t he st andal one

count s woul d t hus show t hat t he j ur y f ound t he def endant s gui l t y

under t he pr oper , exchange t heory of 666. I n cont r ast , t he

acqui t t al s on t he Tr avel Act count s based on t he 666 pr edi cat e

of f ense woul d show t hat t he j ur y f ound t he def endant s not gui l t y

under t hat s ame exchange t heor y of 666. Once agai n, t he

acqui t t al s woul d be i nconsi st ent wi t h t he convi ct i ons wi t h r espect

t o t he def endant s' l i abi l i t y under 666.

For t hat r eason, t he ar gument t hat we must r ead t he

ver di ct s consi st ent l y i f possi bl e does not , on t hi s r ecor d, hel p

t he def endant s meet t hei r bur den under Ashe. And t hat i s because

no consi st ent r eadi ng of t he ver di ct s i s avai l abl e - - gi ven t hi s

r ecor d - - t hat woul d suppor t , under Ashe' s pr act i cal i nqui r y, t he

def endant s' f avor ed concl usi on: namel y, t hat t he j ur y acqui t t ed

t he def endant s on t he exchange t heor y of 666 and convi ct ed t he

def endant s onl y on t he gr at ui t y t heor y.

-38-


39/48

Of cour se, i t i s possi bl e t hat t he j ur y di d actual l y f i nd

t he def endant s gui l t y on t he st andal one 666 count s onl y on t he

basi s of a gr at ui t y t heor y and not on t he basi s of an exchange

t heor y. And i t i s al so possi bl e t hat t he j ur y consi der ed ( andr ej ect ed) onl y t he exchange t heor y i n acqui t t i ng on t he Tr avel Act

count s i nvol vi ng 666. But i t was equal l y possi bl e i n Powel l t hat

t he j ur y " r eal l y meant " t o acqui t r at her t han t o convi ct , when t he

j ur y di d bot h, and yet t hat mer e possi bi l i t y di d not l ead t he Cour t

t o gi ve t he acqui t t al col l at er al est oppel ef f ect . Powel l , 469 U. S.

at 68.

So, t oo, her e. Not hi ng about t he i nst r uct i ons or t he

r ecor d i n t he pr i or pr oceedi ng suggest s t hat t he j ur y di d what t he

def endant s necessar i l y cont end t hat t he j ur y di d - - depar t f r omt he

Di st r i ct Cour t ' s i nst r ucti ons and r el y on di f f er ent t heor i es of

666 l i abi l i t y i n assessi ng t he di f f er ent count s i nvol vi ng t hat

of f ense. We coul d t heref ore come t o such a concl usi on onl y by

engagi ng i n t he sor t of "pur e specul at i on" or " i nqui r i es i nt o t he

j ur y' s del i berat i ons" t hat Powel l f or bi ds. I d. at 66. And such a

specul at i ve exer ci se coul d har dl y suf f i ce t o sat i sf y t he

def endant s' bur den under Ashe of showi ng t hat " t he i ssue whose

r el i t i gat i on [ t hey] seek[ ] t o f or ecl ose was act ual l y deci ded" i n

t he pr i or pr oceedi ng. Schi r o, 510 U. S. at 233.

-39-


40/48

C.

The def endant s do make one f i nal ar gument on behal f of

t hei r at t empt ed r econci l i at i on of t he acqui t t al s and t he

convi ct i ons t hat i nvol ve 666. The def endant s poi nt t o t hi s

Cour t ' s handl i ng of a separ at e col l at er al est oppel i ssue i n

Fer nandez. See 722 F. 3d at 29- 33. The def endant s ar gue t hat t hi s

aspect of our deci si on i n Fer nandez suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat

t he j ur y' s acqui t t al s of t he def endant s on t he count s f or whi ch

666 i s a pr edi cat e of f ense wer e consi st ent wi t h t he j ur y havi ng

convi ct ed t he def endant s on t he st andal one 666 count s. See i d.

But our anal ysi s i n Fer nandez does not compel a f i ndi ng

of col l at er al est oppel her e. I n f act, i f anyt hi ng, our anal ysi s of

t he col l at er al est oppel i ssue i n Fer nandez shows why, i n l i ght of

t hi s r ecor d, a f i ndi ng of col l at er al est oppel her e woul d be

unwar r ant ed gi ven Powel l ' s r ul e agai nst specul at i ng about what a

j ur y di d i n t he case of t r ul y i nconsi st ent ver di ct s.

The col l at er al est oppel i ssue ar ose i n Fer nandez i n t he

f ol l owi ng way. The j ur y had convi ct ed Br avo of conspi r i ng t o

vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act i n f ur t her ance of unspeci f i ed "r acket eer i ng"

act i vi t y. 722 F. 3d at 34. We had vacat ed t hat convi ct i on. I d.

We di d so because of t he possi bi l i t y t hat t he " r acket eer i ng"

act i vi t y t he j ur y f ound had concer ned vi ol at i ons of t he Puer t o Ri co

br i ber y l aw - - a l aw t hat had been r epeal ed bef ore t he r el evant

-40-


41/48

act i ons t he def endant s had under t aken - - r at her t han vi ol at i ons of

666. I d.

Br avo t hen sought t o f or ecl ose hi s f ut ur e pr osecut i on f or

conspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act i n f ur t her ance of 666vi ol at i ons speci f i cal l y. See i d. at 33. We i nt er pr et ed Br avo' s

ar gument agai nst such a f ut ur e pr osecut i on as bei ng based on t he

col l at er al est oppel r ul e cont ai ned i n Ashe. I d. at 33 & n. 25.

Speci f i cal l y, Br avo cont ended t hat hi s acqui t t al s on t he same

of f enses on whi ch t he def endant s now r el y - - conspi r acy t o vi ol at e

666 and a Tr avel Act vi ol at i on based on 666 - - bar r ed hi s

f ut ur e pr osecut i on f or conspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act i n

f ur t her ance of a 666 vi ol at i on. See i d. at 33- 34.

To r esol ve Br avo' s col l at er al est oppel ar gument , we

deci ded we needed t o det er mi ne what " r acket eer i ng" act i vi t y t he

j ur y had deci ded Br avo engaged i n when t he j ur y convi ct ed hi m of

conspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act . I d. at 34. And t he t wo

possi bi l i t i es we i dent i f i ed wer e a 666 vi ol at i on and a vi ol at i on

of Puer t o Ri co br i ber y l aw. I d. at 29. Onl y i f t he unspeci f i ed

" r acket eer i ng" act i vi t y under l yi ng t he convi ct i on had been based on

a vi ol at i on of Puer t o Ri co br i ber y l aw r at her t han of 666 coul d

Br avo succeed i n pr essi ng hi s col l at er al est oppel ar gument agai nst

bei ng r et r i ed f or conspi r i ng t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act i n

f ur t her ance of a 666 vi ol at i on. See i d. at 34.

-41-


42/48

Our i nqui r y i nt o whi ch of t hose of f enses was t he

" r acket eer i ng" act i vi t y on whi ch t he vacat ed conspi r acy convi ct i on

r est ed t ur ned out t o be an easy one. The j ur y had acqui t t ed Br avo

on t he char ge t hat he had conspi r ed t o vi ol at e 666 and on t hechar ge t hat he had vi ol at ed t he Tr avel Act i n f ur t her ance of a

666 vi ol at i on. I d. I n cont r ast , t he j ur y had convi ct ed Br avo on

t he char ge of vi ol at i ng t he Tr avel Act i n f ur t her ance of a

vi ol at i on of Puer t o Ri co br i ber y l aw. I d.

Taki ng a "pr act i cal , r eal i st i c vi ew" of t he ver di ct s, we

concl uded f r om t hese ot her ver di cts t hat Br avo' s ( f aci al l y

ambi guous) conspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act convi ct i on had been

based on Puer t o Ri co br i ber y l aw vi ol at i ons, and not 666. Onl y

t hat concl usi on, we expl ai ned, har moni zed t he ver di ct s wi t hout

cr eat i ng any i nconsi st ency among t hem. I d. at 34. And, i n

consequence of t hat concl usi on about what t he j ur y had done, we

concl uded t hat t he conspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act convi ct i on

- - at l east i f we assumed t he j ur y had act ed r at i onal l y - - di d not

cont r adi ct t he acqui t t al on t he Tr avel Act and conspi r acy char ges

t hat had 666 as a pr edi cat e of f ense. I d. We t hen hel d t hat t he

l at t er acqui t t al s di d col l at er al l y est op Br avo' s r enewed

pr osecut i on f or conspi r i ng t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act i n f ur t her ance

of vi ol at i ng 666. I d.

Fer nandez does show t hat t he def endant s' appr oach of

usi ng acqui t t al s on separ at e count s t o cl ar i f y t he basi s f or an

-42-


43/48

ambi guous convi ct i on has pot ent i al f or ce. But t he par t i es i n

Fer nandez di d not r ai se, and so Fer nandez di d not addr ess, t he

quest i on t hat i s t he cr uci al one i n t hi s appeal : whet her t he

conspi r acy and Tr avel Act acqui t t al s based on 666 may be gi venany col l at er al est oppel ef f ect at al l gi ven t hei r i nconsi st ency

wi t h t he st andal one 666 convi ct i ons.

The government made no such ar gument i n Fer nandez.

Rat her , t he government ' s sol e Powel l - based ar gument i n Fer nandez

was t he cont ent i on t hat Powel l showed t hat Br avo' s convi ct i on f or

conspi r acy t o vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act was st i l l val i d even i f t hat

convi ct i on was i nconsi st ent wi t h ot her ver di ct s. And so, i n

concl udi ng t hat t he 666- based conspi r acy and Travel Act

acqui t t al s pr ecl uded a f ut ur e pr osecut i on f or conspi r acy t o vi ol at e

t he Tr avel Act , our anal ysi s di d not addr ess t he st andal one 666

convi ct i ons, or t hei r r el evance t o t he col l at er al est oppel ef f ect

t hat t he 666- based Tr avel Act and conspi r acy acqui t t al s shoul d be

gi ven.

I n t hi s case, by cont r ast , t he gover nment squar el y r ai ses

t he ar gument t hat , under Powel l , t he convi ct i ons on t he st andal one

666 count s are i nconsi st ent wi t h t he acqui t t al s on t he 666-

based conspi r acy and Tr avel Act charges, and t hus depr i ve t hose

acqui t t al s of t he col l at er al est oppel ef f ect t hat t he def endant s

ask us t o gi ve t hem. And so we have been obl i ged t o consi der t he

ef f ect of t he st andal one 666 convi ct i ons. As we have expl ai ned,

-43-


44/48

however , t hose convi ct i ons, unl i ke t he convi ct i on f or conspi r acy t o

vi ol at e t he Tr avel Act based on unspeci f i ed "r acket eer i ng" act i vi t y

at i ssue i n Fer nandez, cannot be r econci l ed wi t h t he j ur y' s

deci si on t o acqui t on at l east t he 666- based Tr avel Act of f ense.Our ear l i er di scussi on of t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons and t he par t i es'

ar gument s shows why.

I n consequence of t hi s conf l i ct i n t he ver di ct s, we may

not specul at e t hat t he f aci al l y i nconsi st ent ver di ct s nonet hel ess

necessar i l y r ef l ect a r ej ect i on of 666 exchange- t heor y l i abi l i t y,

when t hey equal l y coul d r ef l ect a f i ndi ng of such l i abi l i t y. See

Powel l , 469 U. S. at 66. Our consi der at i on of t he convi ct i ons

t her ef or e pr event s us f r om concl udi ng t hat t her e i s an avai l abl e

consi st ent r eadi ng of al l of t he j ur y' s ver di ct s t hat woul d l ead us

t o gi ve t he col l at er al est oppel ef f ect t o t he Tr avel Act and

conspi r acy acqui t t al s based on 666 t hat t he def endant s now seek

i n t hi s appeal . We t her ef or e af f i r mt he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deni al of

t he def endant s' mot i on f or a j udgment of acqui t t al .

V.

That br i ngs us t o t he def endant s' f i nal , separ at e doubl e

j eopar dy ar gument . Thi s ar gument r el i es on t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

Oct ober 25, 2013, l i ne or der . The Di st r i ct Cour t ent er ed t hat l i ne

or der t wo days af t er t hi s Cour t ' s mandat e i n Fer nandez i ssued. The

l i ne or der di r ect ed ent r y of a j udgment of acqui t t al on t he

st andal one 666 count s. The def endant s t hus cont end t hat t hi s

-44-


45/48

l i ne or der const i t ut ed an i r r ever si bl e acqui t t al of t he def endant s

of t hose count s under t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause.

The def endant s base t hi s chal l enge on t he wel l -

est abl i shed r ul e t hat " t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause bar s r et r i alf ol l owi ng a cour t - decreed acqui t t al , even i f t he acqui t t al i s

' based upon an egr egi ousl y er r oneous f oundat i on. ' " Evans v.

Mi chi gan, 133 S. Ct . 1069, 1074 ( 2013) ( quot i ng Fong Foo v. Uni t ed

St at es, 369 U. S. 141, 143 ( 1962) ) . And t hat r ul e, t he Supr eme

Cour t has hel d, pr ohi bi t s even t he cour t t hat ent er ed a j udgment of

acqui t t al f r om r econsi der i ng t hat j udgment under at l east some

ci r cumst ances. See Smi t h v. Massachuset t s, 543 U. S. 462, 469- 75

( 2005) .

Whet her an or der count s as an "acqui t t al , " however , i s a

quest i on of subst ance and not of name. 12 See Evans, 133 S. Ct . at

1078. The det er mi nat i ve quest i on i s t hus "whet her t he r ul i ng of

t he j udge, what ever i t s l abel , act ual l y r epr esent s a r esol ut i on,

cor r ect or not , of some or al l of t he f act ual el ement s of t he

of f ense char ged. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n Li nen Suppl y Co. , 430

U. S. 564, 571 ( 1977) .

12 The government does not ar gue i n t hi s case t hat t he Oct ober25 order l acked doubl e j eopardy ef f ect because t hat order wasent er ed bef ore a new j ur y had been sworn f ol l owi ng t hi s Cour t ' sr emand. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Tobi n, 552 F. 3d 29, 31 ( 1st Ci r .2009) ( " [ J ] eopar dy ( her e, af t er a vacat ur of a convi ct i on and ar emand) does not at t ach unt i l a j ur y has been sworn. " ) . Wet her ef or e do not addr ess t hat i ssue.

-45-


46/48

Her e, t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s Oct ober 25 l i ne or der i s not

an acqui t t al under t he subst ant i ve t est t hat Evans and Mar t i n Li nen

r equi r e t hat we appl y. I n Mar t i n Li nen, t he Supr eme Cour t f ound an

acqui t t al wher e t he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed f or t he def endant on amot i on f or j udgment of acqui t t al t hat t he def endant made under

Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 29( c) . 430 U. S. at 571- 72. The

di st r i ct cour t had "pl ai nl y gr ant ed t he Rul e 29( c) mot i on on t he

vi ew t hat t he Gover nment had not pr oved f act s const i t ut i ng cr i mi nal

cont empt . " I d. at 572. I t was t hus "pl ai n t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t

. . . eval uat ed t he Gover nment ' s evi dence and det er mi ned t hat i t

was l egal l y i nsuf f i ci ent t o sust ai n a convi cti on. " I d.

No such eval uat i on by t he Di st r i ct Cour t i s "pl ai n, " or

even hi nt ed at , by t he r ecor d i n t hi s case. The l i ne or der i t sel f

st at es t hat i t was ent er ed "i n accor dance wi t h" t hi s Cour t ' s

mandat e. That s t at ement suggest s t hat t he l i ne or der was merel y

i nt ended as a mi ni st er i al act t o car r y out t hi s Cour t ' s

i nst r uct i ons - - what ever t hey may have been - - and not an

appl i cat i on of l aw t o f act r egar di ng t he def endant s' "

Documents

United States v. Martinez-Maldonado, 1st Cir. (2015)