## Facts

- Juan Bravo Fernández, president of a private security company in Puerto Rico, and Héctor Martínez Maldonado, a Puerto Rico senator and committee chair, were federally charged in connection with an alleged exchange of a Las Vegas trip for favorable legislative action.
- The prosecution alleged that Bravo provided Martínez a lavish trip to attend a championship boxing match, intending to secure favorable action on legislation affecting the security-services market.
- A federal grand jury indicted the defendants in June 2010, including charges under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) (payer) and § 666(a)(1)(B) (recipient).
- After a multi-week trial, the jury convicted Bravo on the § 666(a)(2) count and Martínez on the § 666(a)(1)(B) count; the jury also returned mixed verdicts on other counts, including conspiracy.
- The trial court instructed the jury in a manner that permitted conviction on the § 666 counts under either a bribery theory (corrupt quid pro quo) or a gratuity theory (reward for official action without a corrupt agreement).
- Defendants appealed, challenging the scope of § 666 and arguing that Double Jeopardy barred further prosecution on the conspiracy counts in light of the verdicts and charging structure.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 666 criminalizes illegal gratuities, or instead is limited to bribery requiring corrupt intent and a quid pro quo.
2. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause entitled each defendant to an acquittal on the conspiracy charges based on the indictment, the jury’s mixed verdicts, and what the verdicts necessarily decided.

## Decision

- The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 666 does not criminalize gratuities; it reaches bribery only.
- Because the jury instructions allowed conviction on an impermissible gratuity theory, the § 666 convictions were vacated.
- The court held that Double Jeopardy entitled both defendants to acquittal on their respective conspiracy charges, though the reasons differed for each defendant.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings, including the possibility of retrial on § 666 under a proper bribery-only instruction.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 666 is a bribery statute; it does not create a freestanding illegal-gratuities offense.
- “Corruptly” in § 666 signals a requirement of bribery-type culpability, not mere rewarding of official action absent a corrupt agreement.
- Where a general verdict may rest on a legally invalid theory submitted to the jury, the conviction cannot stand and must be vacated.
- The Double Jeopardy Clause can require entry of a judgment of acquittal on a conspiracy charge when the verdicts and record establish that further prosecution would relitigate matters resolved in the defendant’s favor.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit vacated the defendants’ § 666 convictions because the jury was permitted to convict on an invalid gratuity theory, held § 666 is limited to bribery, and required acquittals on the conspiracy counts under Double Jeopardy, remanding for further proceedings consistent with those determinations.


United States v. Fernández, 722 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013)