## Facts

- Juan Bravo-Fernandez, president of a Puerto Rico private security firm, paid for Hector Martínez-Maldonado (a Puerto Rico senator) to take a 2005 Las Vegas trip, including airfare, hotel, and boxing tickets.
- The government alleged the trip was provided in exchange for Martínez’s support of legislation beneficial to Bravo’s company, constituting federal-program bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B).
- A federal grand jury charged petitioners with § 666 bribery, conspiracy to violate § 666, and Travel Act violations premised on promoting bribery.
- At trial, the jury instructions permitted conviction on a “gratuity” theory as well as quid pro quo bribery.
- The jury convicted petitioners of the standalone § 666 bribery counts but acquitted them of conspiracy and Travel Act counts.
- The First Circuit vacated the § 666 convictions due to instructional error, holding § 666 covers quid pro quo bribery, not gratuities.
- On remand, petitioners argued the earlier acquittals collaterally estopped retrial on the § 666 counts under the Double Jeopardy Clause; the district court denied relief, and the First Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Double Jeopardy issue preclusion bars retrial on bribery counts that were vacated for unrelated legal error when the same jury returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts by convicting on bribery but acquitting on related counts that turned on the same ultimate fact.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the First Circuit.
- Double Jeopardy issue preclusion did not bar retrial on the vacated § 666 bribery counts.
- Because the same jury returned inconsistent guilty and not-guilty verdicts on the relevant ultimate issue, petitioners could not show the acquittals necessarily decided that issue in their favor.
- The later vacatur of the convictions for instructional error did not convert the case into one involving only acquittals; the guilty verdicts remained relevant jury decisions demonstrating inconsistency.

## Legal Principles

- Issue preclusion under the Double Jeopardy Clause applies only to issues actually and necessarily resolved in the defendant’s favor by a valid and final judgment, and the defendant bears the burden of showing what the acquittal necessarily decided.
- When the same jury returns irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts on the same ultimate issue, the defendant cannot establish that the acquittal necessarily decided the issue; the acquittal therefore has no preclusive effect as to the count of conviction.
- A vacated guilty verdict (reversed for legal error unrelated to evidentiary sufficiency) remains a jury determination for purposes of assessing inconsistency; it is not treated like a hung count.
- Retrial is generally permitted after a conviction is set aside for legal or instructional error, but not after an acquittal or after reversal for insufficient evidence.

## Conclusion

The Court held that inconsistent verdicts of conviction and acquittal foreclose Double Jeopardy issue preclusion, and that later vacatur of the conviction for unrelated legal error does not restore preclusive force to the acquittals or bar retrial on the vacated counts.


Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 352 (2016)