BRIBERY

Issues

Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martínez-Maldonado were involved in a federal program bribery scheme in which Bravo allegedly paid for Martinez’s trip to Las Vegas to attend a boxing match in exchange for Martínez pushing through beneficial legislation for Bravo’s private security company. A jury convicted both defendants of committing federal bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 but acquitted them of other bribery-related charges.  The convictions were later vacated due to a jury instruction error, and Bravo and Martínez were acquitted on remand.  Bravo and Martínez argue that the jury acquittals retain preclusive effect under the Double Jeopardy Clause despite the fact that jury had originally returned inconsistent verdicts. The government counters that because the jury’s inconsistent verdicts do not allow Bravo and Martínez to show that the jury had decided in their favor, collateral estoppel does not apply. The outcome of this case could potentially affect prosecutorial theories and could disadvantage criminal defendants who face various predicate and conspiracy charges. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Samuel Ocasio, a former officer of the Baltimore Police Department, was involved in a kickback scheme in which officers would refer car accident victims to an unauthorized towing company in exchange for monetary compensation. Ocasio was charged with conspiracy to commit extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. In this case, the Supreme Court will address whether the conspirators have to agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy. See Brief for Petitioner, Samuel Ocasio at i. Ocasio claims that a defendant must conspire with someone to obtain property from another person outside the conspiracy. See id. at 21. The United States counters that the conspirators in an extortion scheme need to agree only that the public official will obtain property from another person, but that the other person may be one of the co-conspirators. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 15. The decision in this case will implicate the boundaries between state criminal law and federal law for extortion. The decision will also clarify the method of statutory interpretation applied when statutory language is ambiguous. See Brief of Amici Curiae Former United States Attorneys, in Support of Petitioner at 4, 10.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to analyze 18 U.S.C. § 1346, the honest-services fraud statute, and determine if an individual with informal power but no official governmental position can violate the statute. Joseph Percoco and Steven Aiello argue that private individuals lacking formal governmental power cannot commit honest-services fraud because they do not owe the public a duty of honest services. Percoco and Aiello further argue that including private individuals within § 1346 would render the statue unconstitutionally vague, violate the First Amendment, and entrench upon state sovereignty. The United States contends that private individuals can commit honest-services fraud when they have been selected for public office and when they are de facto officeholders in all but name. The United States also argues that § 1346 clearly defines improper behavior and does not limit First Amendment activity. This case touches on important questions regarding lobbying, free speech, and the interaction of state and federal bribery laws.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether 18 U.S.C. Section 666—the statute for federal-funds bribery—also criminalizes gratuities. Snyder, a former mayor in Indiana, steered city contracts to a local company and then accepted from that company a fabricated consulting job worth $13,000. A jury convicted him of accepting an illegal gratuity under the statute. Snyder argues that the law only criminalizes bribes, however, because Congress has removed the language from the statute that used to refer to gratuities. The United States argues that the statute criminalizes gratuities through the word “rewarded,” while the word “influenced” refers to bribes. This case raises concerns about federal intrusion on state interests depending on how broadly courts will construe federal criminal statutes that seek to prohibit gratuities. It may also affect the outcome of how federal prosecutors will combat corruption at the state and local levels.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources