Supreme Court Review 2016/2017 TERM
SATURDAY, MAY 27, 2017
CLICK HERE TO TRACK THIS CASE

Issue:  Preclusive Effect of Vacated Conviction

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States

15-537

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), this Court held that the collateral estoppel aspect of the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a prosecution that depends on a fact necessarily decided in the defendant’s favor by an earlier acquittal. Here, a jury acquitted petitioners of conspiring and traveling to violate 18 U.S.C. § 666, but convicted petitioners of violating § 666. The convictions were vacated on appeal because they rested on incorrect jury instructions, and it is undisputed that the acquittals depended on the jury’s finding that petitioners did not violate § 666. The government nonetheless sought to retry petitioners on the § 666 charges.

Widening an acknowledged split, the First Circuit held that the acquittals have no preclusive effect under Ashe because they were inconsistent with the vacated, unlawful convictions. The First Circuit distinguished Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009), which held that an acquittal retains its preclusive effect even when it is inconsistent with a hung count, on the theory that juries “speak” through vacated convictions, but not through hung counts. The questions presented are:

1. Whether, under Ashe and Yeager, a vacated, unconstitutional conviction can cancel out the preclusive effect of an acquittal under the collateral estoppel prong of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

2. Whether, under Evans v. Michigan, 133 S. Ct. 1069 (2013), the Double Jeopardy Clause permits a district court to retract its “judgment of acquittal” entered on remand as an interpretation of the Court of Appeals mandate.

DECISION

Decided November 29, 2016 HOLDING

The issue-preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the Government from retrying defendants, like petition­ers, after a jury has returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts of conviction and acquittal and the convictions are later vacated for le­gal error unrelated to the inconsistency.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Text of Opinion
pdf download

CERTIORARI STAGE

Granted March 28, 2016

Certiorari Stage Documents
      Petition for Certiorari (pdf download)
Brief in Opposition (pdf download)
Petitioner's Reply (pdf download)

PROCEEDING BELOW

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided June 15, 2015
pdf download