Bravo-Fernandez v. United States

Background

The prosecution arose from an alleged all-expenses-paid Las Vegas trip that an entrepreneur gave to a Puerto Rico senator. A federal jury convicted them on standalone federal bribery counts but acquitted them on related conspiracy and Travel Act charges. The First Circuit vacated the bribery convictions because the jury had been instructed incorrectly about gratuities versus quid pro quo bribery. Petitioners argued the acquittals should bar retrial on the vacated bribery counts.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether double jeopardy’s issue-preclusion rule prevents retrial when the same jury returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts and the convictions were later vacated for unrelated legal error. The Court held that actual inconsistency makes it impossible to know what the jury necessarily decided, and vacatur for unrelated error does not erase that inconsistency. The Court stressed that only a vacatur based on insufficient evidence (equivalent to an acquittal) would bar a new prosecution.

Real world impact

The ruling permits prosecutors to retry defendants after appellate vacatur when a prior jury returned conflicting guilty and not-guilty verdicts that cannot be reconciled. Defendants keep the benefit of counts that were actually acquitted, but those acquittals do not automatically block retrial on separately vacated convictions. The decision leaves intact the separate rule that vacatur for insufficient evidence equals an acquittal and bars retrial.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence noting he would reconsider prior decisions that expanded issue-preclusion under the Double Jeopardy Clause, but he joined the Court’s judgment allowing retrial.