UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,Plaintiff,v.

JUANBRAVO-FERNANDEZ[1],HECTORMARTINEZ-MALDONADO[2],Defendants.

CriminalNo.10-232(FAB)

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO

September1,2017

OPINIONANDORDER

BESOSA,DistrictJudge.

BeforetheCourtisdefendantJuanBravo-Fernandez's("Bravo")anddefendantHectorMartinez-Maldonado's("Martinez")jointpost-trialmotionforjudgmentofacquittalpursuanttoFederalRuleofCriminalProcedure29("Rule29").(DocketNo.971.)Forthereasonssetforthbelow,theRule29motionisDENIED.

I.BACKGROUND

Becausethepartiesarefamiliarwiththefactsofthiscase,theCourtwillnotrepeatthemhereexceptwherenecessary.Ageneraldescriptionofthetrialproceedingswillsuffice.SeeUnitedStatesv.Stierhoff,549F.3d19,21(1stCir.2008).TheCourtconveysthefactsthroughoutthisopinioninthelightmostfavorabletothejury'sverdict.UnitedStatesv.Rodriguez-Marrero,390F.3d1,6(1stCir.2004).

Page2

OnJune22,2010,afederalgrandjuryreturnedanindictmentchargingdefendantsBravoandMartinezwith,amongothercriminaloffenses,federalprogrambriberyinviolationof18U.S.C.§666(a)(2)and18U.S.C.§666(a)(1)(B)("section666"),respectively.(DocketNo.1.)Followingatwo-weektrial,thejuryconvicteddefendantsBravoandMartinezofviolatingsection666onMarch7,2011.1SeeDocketNo.438.TheFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsultimatelyvacatedtheconvictionsofdefendantsBravoandMartinezforviolatingsection666,andremandedthecaseforfurtherproceedings.2UnitedStatesv.Fernandez,722F.3d1,39(1stCir.2013).TheFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsheldthattheCourt's2010juryinstructionswereerroneousbecausetheypermittedthejurytoconvictpursuanttoagratuitytheory,statingthat"[t]hegovernmentmaynotpursueaconvictiononthatground[i.e.,agratuitytheory]ifDefendantsareretried."Id.atp.28.TheFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsreasonedthat

Page3

defendantscannotbeconvictedpursuanttoagratuitytheorybecause"thetruetargetof§666arebribes,notgratuities."Id.at26.

ThegovernmentretrieddefendantsMartinezandBravoforfederalprogrambriberyinasecondtrialthattookplacebetweenMay2,2017andMay31,2017.Inchargingthejury,theCourtomittedlanguagethatwouldallowajurytofinddefendantsguiltypursuanttoagratuitytheory,andspecificallyinstructedthejuryonwhatthegovernmentmustprovetoestablishtheexistenceofabribery.SeeUnitedStatesv.Sun-DiamondGrowersofCal.,526U.S.398,405(1999)(distinguishingaquidproquobribefromanillegalgratuity);UnitedStatesv.Mariano,983F.2d1150,1159(1stCir.1993)("Theessentialdifferencebetweenabribeandanillegalgratuityistheintentionofthebribegivertoeffectaquidproquo.").Bywayofexample,theCourtinstructedthejurythat:

Briberyrequiresthatthegovernmentprovebeyondareasonabledoubttheexistenceofaquidproquo,inplainEnglish,anagreementthatthethingofvaluethatisgiventothepublicofficialisinexchangeforthatpublicofficialpromisingtoperformofficialactsforthegiver.Itisnotsufficientthatthethingofvalueismadetocurryfavorbecauseoftheofficial'sposition,cultivateafriendshiporexpressgratitude,orthatthereissomeconnectionintimeorplacewithanofficialactthatispromisedtothegiver;rathertheremustbeanagreementthatthethingofvaluewasofferedbydefendantBravoandacceptedbySenatorMartinezinexchangeforapromisetoperformanofficialact.

Page4

(DocketNo.960atp.30)(emphasisadded).NotablyabsentfromtheRule29motionarechallengestothejuryinstructionsduringdefendants'secondtrial.Indeed,defendantsrevisitthegratuity/briberydichotomyonlywithregardtothesufficiencyoftheevidence,notthejuryinstructions.

OnMay31,2017,forasecondtime,ajuryfounddefendantBravoanddefendantMartinezguiltyofcommittingfederalprogrambribery.(DocketNos.963and964.)DefendantsmovethisCourtto"enterajudgementofacquittalof[thesection666offenses]forwhichtheevidenceisinsufficienttosustainaconviction."Fed.R.Crim.P.29(a).TheRule29motionsetsforthtwoprincipalarguments:(1)thegovernmentgenerallyfailedtoprovedefendantsguiltybeyondareasonabledoubtbecausenorationaljurycouldconcludethatdefendantMartinezanddefendantBravoenteredintoaquidproquoagreement,and(2)thegovernmentfailedtoestablishthejurisdictionalelementsrequiredbysection666.(DocketNo.971atp.2.)Thegovernmentopposeddefendants'Rule29motion,anddefendantsreplied.3(DocketNos.978&980.)

Page5

II.RULE29LEGALSTANDARD

Acourtmaysetasidethejury'sguiltyverdictandenterajudgmentofacquittalofanyoffenseforwhichtheevidenceisinsufficienttosustainaconviction.SeeFed.R.Crim.P.29.Inreviewingamotionforjudgmentofacquittal,courtsmustconsidertheevidence"inthelightmostfavorabletotheprosecution"anddeterminewhetherthe"bodyofproof,asawhole,hassufficientbitetogroundareasonedconclusionthatthegovernmentprovedeachoftheelementsofthechargedcrimebeyondareasonabledoubt."UnitedStatesv.Lara,181F.3d183,200(1stCir.1999)(citationsomitted).Rule29motionsrequirecourtsto"takeintoaccountallevidence,bothdirectandcircumstantial,and[to]

resolveevidentiaryconflictsandcredibilitydisputesinfavorofthejury'sverdict."Valerio,676F.3dat244;accordUnitedStatesv.Savarese,686F.3d1,8(1stCir.2012).Inotherwords,whilethesufficiencyoftheevidenceisattheheartoftheRule29inquiry,deferencetothejury'sverdictinformstheCourt'sanalysis.

TheCourtneedonlysatisfyitselfthattheguiltyverdict"findssupportinaplausiblerenditionoftherecord."See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Shaw,670F.3d360,362(1stCir.2012).Againstthisbackdrop,theFirstCircuitCourtofAppealshascalledthesufficiencyofevidencechallenge"atoughsell,"UnitedStatesv.

Page6

Polanco,634F.3d39,45(1stCir.2011),observingthatdefendantsseekingacquittalonthisbasis"faceanuphillbattle,"UnitedStatesv.Perez-Melendez,599F.3d31,40(1stCir.2010);accordUnitedStatesv.Hatch,434F.3d1,4(1stCir.2006)("Thesearedauntinghurdles.")(internalquotationmarksomitted).

III.DISCUSSION

A.SufficiencyoftheEvidence

DefendantMartinezanddefendantBravoarguethatthegovernmentfailedtoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthattheyviolatedsection666.Accordingtodefendants,norationaljurorcouldfindthatdefendantBravoanddefendantMartinezenteredintoanillicitquidproquoagreement;namely,thatdefendantBravoprovidedatriptoLasVegasinexchangeforinfluencingdefendantMartinez'sofficialactsregardingsenateprojects410and471.4(DocketNo.971atp.12.)TheCourtdisagrees.

DefendantMartinezanddefendantBravoattackthesufficiencyoftheevidencebyemphasizingfactsadducedattrialthatfavorthedefense.Insodoing,defendantsoverlookevidencesupportingthejury'sverdict.Inrulingonthemeritsofdefendants'Rule29motion,theCourtmustconsider"allthe

Page7

evidence,directandcircumstantial,"indeterminingwhetherajudgmentofacquittaliswarranted.UnitedStatesv.Peake,143F.Supp.3d1,6(D.P.R.2019)(Dominguez,J.)(emphasisadded).

Defendantsassertbroadlythatthegovernmentfailedtoprovethefollowing:whendefendantBravoofferedtheLasVegastriptodefendantMartinez,thatthedefendantsweremotivatedbyacorruptintent,andtheexistenceofaquidproquoagreementbetweendefendantBravoandJorgeDeCastro-Font(DeCastro-Font).5(DocketNo.971atpp.17and23.)Defendantsprovidespecificexamplesinanattempttosubstantiatetheseassertions.Forinstance,defendantMartinez'sformeradviser,VictorRivera("Rivera"),testifiedthat:(1)defendantMartinezsupportedsenateprojects410and471beforetheLasVegastrip,(2)heobserveddefendantMartinezmeetwithdefendantBravoandotherstodiscusstheLasVegastrip,butdidnotheardefendantMartinezconfirmhisattendanceattheboxingmatch,and(3)defendantMartinezhadnoreactionafterRiverarecommendedthatheforegotheLasVegastrip.Id.atpp.17and18.Additionally,CarlosDiaz("Diaz"),DeCastro-Font'sformerassistant,testifiedthat

Page8

hereceivedticketsfortheflighttoLasVegasonbehalfofDeCastro-FontfromTatoLebron,notfromdefendantBravopersonally.Id.atp.19.

Althoughdefendantscitedevidencethattendstounderminetheverdict,theirrenditionofthetrialrecordisincomplete.Bywayofexample,thegovernmentelicitedtestimonytoestablishthat:(1)defendantMartinezservedasChairmanofthePublicSafetyCommittee,instillinginhimtheauthoritytoschedulelegislativehearingsandtodeterminewhotestifiedbeforethecommittee,(2)defendantsBravoandMartinezwerenotfriendspriortodefendantMartinez'selectiontothePuertoRicoLegislature,(3)defendantBravocontributedtovariouspoliticalcandidates,butnottodefendantMartinez'scampaign,(4)defendantBravodeliveredadraftbillofsenateproject410todefendantMartinezneartheendofFebruary2005,(5)onMarch2,2005,defendantMartinezsubmittedsenateproject410totheSenatefordeliberation,(6)alsoonMarch2,2005,defendantBravopurchasedfour$1,000ticketstotheFelix"Tito"Trinidad/WinkyWrightboxingmatchinLasVegas,(7)defendantBravocalleddefendantMartinezandDeCastro-FontonMarch2,2005,(8)ataPublicSafetyCommitteehearingonApril12,2005regardingsenateproject471,defendantBravo'ssecurityfirm,RangerAmerican,wastheonlyprivatesecurityfirminvitedto

Page9

testify,and(9)thatdefendantBravo,defendantMartinez,andDeCastro-Fontdid,infact,traveltoLasVegastogether.(DocketNo.985atpp.17-74;DocketNo.984atpp.166-167,180;DocketNo.987atpp.178-180.)6

Indeed,thetrialrecordisrepletewithevidenceallowingareasonablejurytofinddefendantsguiltybeyondareasonabledoubtofcommittingfederalprogrambribery.Defendants'triptoLasVegasandthelegislativeactionstakenbydefendantMartinezandDeCastro-Fontinfurtheranceofenactingsenateprojects410and471occurredwithindaysofoneanother,providingthejurywithcircumstantialevidencethatthedefendantscommittedfederalprogrambribery.7SeeUnitedStatesv.Agostini,123F.3d1138,11983(7thCir.1997)("Areasonablejurycouldhavefoundthatthistiming[betweenofficialsactsandpaymentofthebribe]providedcircumstantialevidencethatAgostiniofferedGoetzthemoneywiththerequisitecorruptintent

Page10

toestablishaviolationof§666(a)(2).").Toillustrate,thePublicSafetyCommitteevotedonsenateprojects410and471onMay12,2005,thesamedaydefendantMartinezandDeCastro-Fontvotedtotransferthislegislationoutofcommittee.(DocketNo.986atp.139.)Thenextday,defendantBravo,defendantMartinez,anddeCastro-FonttraveledtoLasVegas.Id.ThedayafterdefendantsreturnedtoPuertoRico,defendantMartinezandDeCastro-Fontvotedtoenactsenateproject471.Id.Aweekafterattendingtheboxingmatch,defendantMartinezandDeCastro-Fontvotedinfavorofsenateproject410.(DocketNo.985atp.70.)TheCourtneednotitemizeeveryexhibitorpieceofevidencepresentedattrialtoconcludethatoverwhelmingevidencesupportstheverdict.

Inadditiontopresentinganincompleteaccountoftheevidencepresentedattrial,theRule29motionisfraughtwithinferencesmadeinthelightmostfavorabletothedefense,notthegovernment.TheCourtwillprovidetwoillustrativeexamples.

First,defendantsarguethatRivera'stestimonyregardingaconversationhehadwithdefendantMartinezunderminesthenotionthattherewasaquidproquoagreementbetweendefendantsMartinezandBravo.(DocketNo.971atp.18.)Attrial,RiveraclaimedthathesuggestedtodefendantMartinezthathenotaccompanydefendantBravotoLasVegasbecausedoingso

Page11

wouldbeinappropriate.8Id.AccordingtoRivera,defendantMartinezhadnoreaction.Id.ThegovernmentclaimedthatdefendantMartinez'sfailuretoreactwasanattempttoavoiddiscussingtheLasVegastripwithhismentor.Id.Defendantsinsteadarguethatthis"isnotareasonableinference,"andthat"thereisonlyonelogicalexplanationfor[defendantMartinez's]lackofreactiontohisfriendandadviser—[defendantMartinez]hadnotyetbeeninvitedtojointhetrip."Id.TheCourtdisagrees.Thetotalityoftheevidencepresentedattrialisconsistentwithanalternativeinference:thatdefendantMartinezavoideddiscussingthetripwithRiverabecausehewasembarrassed,choosingtoremainsilentratherthandisappointapersonheconsideredtobeafather-likefigure.

Second,defendantsfurtherattempttounderminethegovernment'sevidenceofaquidproquobyarguingthattheonlylogicalinferenceisthatthehotelroomsdefendantBravoreservedinLasVegas"wereforhimself,andnotforanyoneelse."(DocketNo.971atp.20.)Defendantsfurtherarguethat"evenassumingitwaslogicaltoinferthatoneoftheApril1reservationswasforsomeoneotherthan[defendantBravo],thereisnoevidence

Page12

indicatingforwhomtheyweremade."Id.DefendantsthengoontosuggestthatthefactthatdefendantsspokeonthephoneonMarch2,2005,thedatetheLasVegashotelroomswerereserved,isa"merecoincidence"that"isitselfinsufficienttoestablishthat[defendantMartinez]wasevenawareofthetriportheticketsonMarch2."(DocketNo.971atp.21.)

DefendantscannotprevailontheirRule29motionbyinterpretingisolatedfactsadducedattrialinamannerthatunderminesboththeverdictandthegovernment'stheoryofthecase.OnaRule29motion,courtsexaminewhether"theevidenceisinsufficienttosustainaconviction,"notwhetheranyoneparticularfact,standingalone,issufficienttoproveadefendant'sguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.Fed.R.Crim.P.29(a).ThatsomeoftheevidencepresentedattrialmaybesubjecttoaninterpretationthatisinconsistentwithafindingofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubtisnoreasonfortheCourttodisturbthejury'sverdict.Thisissobecausethegovernmentneednot"[e]liminateeverypossibletheoryconsistentwiththedefendant'sinnocence."UnitedStatesv.Perez-Melendez,599F.3d31,40(1stCir.2010)(citationomitted);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Abreu,952F.2d1458,1468(1stCir.1992)("Itistheprovinceofthejurytodecidetoappropriateweighttogivespecificevidence.").

Page13

Resolving"allevidentiarydisputesandcredibilityquestionsinfavorofthegovernment"and"drawingallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthegovernment'scase,"UnitedStatesvCedeño-Mariano,971F.Supp.2d225,230(D.P.R.2013)(Besosa,J.),compelstheCourttoconcludethattherewasampleevidencepresentedattrialtosustainthejury'sverdict.Thatis,thejurycouldreasonablyinferthatdefendantBravo,defendantMartinez,andDeCastro-FonttraveledtoLasVegasatdefendantBravo'sexpense.Similarly,thejurycouldalsoreasonablyinferthatdefendantsenteredintoquidproquoagreementonMarch2,2005,thedateinwhichdefendantsspokeonthephone,andthedatedefendantBravopurchasedticketsfortheboxingmatch.

B.PreviousandContemporaneousSupportofSenateProjects410and471

DefendantsMartinezandBravomoveforajudgmentofacquittalbecause"caselawestablishesthatthedefendantsmustintendthatthethingofvalueinducethepublicofficialtoalterhisofficialactortakeanofficialacthewouldnototherwisetake."DocketNo.971atp.16(citingUnitedStatesv.Sawyer,85F.3d713,730(1stCir.1996)(vacatingconvictionpremisedonstatelawallowingjuryto"convictforagratuityoffense,"inadditiontoabriberyoffense)).Defendantsarguethat"thegovernmentmustconvincethejurythattheofferandacceptanceoccurredbefore[defendantMartinez]madethedecisiontosupport

Page14

projects410and471."(DocketNo.971atp.22.)Defendantsmisstatethelaw.

Section666prohibitspublicofficialsfromacceptingthingsofvalue"intendingtobeinfluencedorrewardedinconnectionwithanybusiness."18U.S.C.§666(a)(1)(B).Attrial,thepartiesdisputedwhetheraquidproquoagreementexisted,andifso,whendefendantsagreedtoexchangeatriptoLasVegasforlegislativesupport.

Thetimingoftheagreementisparamountinaprosecutionforbribery,particularlywithregardtothe"rewarded"languageinsection666.TheFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsexplainedthat"rewarded"insection666doesnot"createaseparategratuityoffense."Fernandez,722F.3dat23.Rather,the"rewarded"languagesimplyclarifiesthat"abribecanbepromisedbefore,butpaidafter,theofficial'sactiononthepayor'sbehalf,"alsoknownasaforward-lookingbribe.Id.Defendantsarecorrectinstatingthat"[w]hatmattersisnotnecessarilythetimingofthepayment,butthetimingoftheagreementtomakeorreceivethepayment."(DocketNo.971atp.16,(citingFernandez,722F.3dat10.))Thegovernmentargued,andthejuryfound,thatdefendantsexchangedatriptoLasVegasinreturnforlegislativesupport,andthatthisexchangeinfluenceddefendantMartinez's

Page15

officialactions.Thegovernmentwasundernoobligationtoprovetheprecisedatethatthedefendantsagreedtothebribe.

Defendants,however,seektoimposeanadditionalrequirementonthegovernment:thattheconvictioncannotstandifdefendantMartinezsupportedsenateprojects410and471beforeenteringintoaquidproquoagreementwithdefendantBravo.Essentially,defendantsarguethatthegovernmentcannotprovebriberyinthiscasebecausethepurportedquo—defendantMartinez'ssupportforsenateprojects410and471—alreadyexistedwhendefendantBravoofferedthequid-atriptoLasVegas.

Precedentandthestatutorylanguagedefeatdefendants'argument.Absentfromsection666isarequirementthatthepublicofficialchangecourse,orthatthepublicofficialadoptlegislationthatheorshewouldnototherwisesupport.Rather,section666forbidspublicofficialsfromacceptingbribes"intendingtobeinfluenced,"not"intendingtodeviatefrompreviousplans."18U.S.C.§666(a)(1)(B).The"intenttobeinfluenced"isthequo.

Defendants'argumentisfurtherdefeatedbyrelevantprecedent.InUnitedStatesv.Jannotti,theThirdCircuitCourtofAppealsdismissedtheverysameargumentdefendantsmakeinthiscase.673F.2d578(3rdCir.1982).DefendantsinJannotti

Page16

deniedwrongdoingbecausetheiractionsinfurtheranceofaconstructionprojectwerelegitimateandbenefitedthepublic.Id.at601.TheCourtrejectedthisargument,statingthatdefendants"failtonegatethepermissibleinferencethatbothmenknewtheywereactingimproperlyinacceptingmoneyinreturnfortheirsupportandinfluence."Id.Itisnodefenseagainstbriberythat"hadtherebeennobribe,the(publicofficial)might,ontheavailabledata,lawfullyandproperlyhavemadetheveryrecommendationthat(thebriber)wantedhimtomake."Id.(internalquotationmarksandcitationomitted);id.("[S]ocietydealssternlywithbriberywhichwouldsubstitutethewillofaninterestedpersonforthejudgmentofapublicofficialasthecontrollingfactorinofficialdecisions.")(citationomitted).

Similarly,inUnitedStatesv.Bryant,defendantsassertedthat"withoutaspecificallegationthat[thepublicofficial]tookactionsheotherwisecouldnothavetaken,theIndictmentdoesnotallegethat[thepublicofficial]wasinfluencedbythebargainhestruckwith[thebriber],anddespitetheIndictment'suseoftheword'exchange,'[thepublicofficial]exchangednothing."556F.Supp.2d378,390(D.N.J.2008).TheBryantcourtrejectedthisrational,notingthat"exchange"assetforthinsection666referstotheexchangeofabribeinreturnforinfluence.Id.Apublicofficial,suchasdefendantMartinez,

Page17

can"havetheintenttobeinfluencedbyabribe,i.e.,theintenttomakegoodonthebargain,"eventhoughthepublicofficial"endsuptakingthesameactionhewouldlikelyhavetakenifhewerenotbribed."Id.(internalcitationomitted);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Ford,435F.3d204,213(2dCir.2006)("Therecipient's'awareness'thatthedonorgavesomethingofvalueforthepurposeofinfluencingtherecipientmightwellconstitutestrongcircumstantialevidencethattherecipientactedwiththerequisiteculpablestateofmindinacceptingtheitem,butajuryshouldbeclearlyinstructedthatitistherecipient'sintenttomakegoodonthebargain,notsimplyherawarenessofthedonor'sintentthatisessentialtoestablishingguiltunder[thebriberyprongof]Section666").).

Inthiscase,thejury'sguiltyverdictisnowayunderminedbythefactthatdefendantMartinezmayhavesupportedsenateprojects410and471becausetheywere"goodbills"priortotheLasVegastrip.(DocketNo.996atp.105.)AjurycouldreasonablyfindthatdefendantMartinezsupportedthelegislationforlegitimatereasonswhilesimultaneouslyconcludingthatheimpermissiblyintendedtobeinfluencedbythetriptoLasVegas.Accordingly,theCourtcannotsetasidethejury'sverdictbecause

Page18

defendantMartinezmayhavesupportedsenateprojects410and471beforetheLasVegastrip.9

C.JurisdictionalElementsofSection666

Defendantscontesttheverdictbecause,theyargue,thegovernmentfailedtoestablishthatdefendantMartinezandDeCastro-FontwereagentsofaPuertoRicoentitythatreceivedmorethan$10,000infederalfunds.(DocketNo.971atp.34.)Section666appliestoagentsofan"organization,government,oragency[that]receives,inanyoneyearperiod,benefitsinexcessof$10,000underaFederalprogram."18U.S.C.§666(b).InFernandez,theFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatevidenceestablishingthat"theCommonwealthreceivedover$4.7billioninfederalfunds[...]wassufficienttoshowthat[defendantMartinezandDeCastroFont]areagentsofa'government...[that]receives,inanyoneyearperiod,benefitsinexcessof

Page19

$10,000underaFederalprogram.'"722F.3dat9(citing18U.S.C.§666(b)).Attrial,thepartiesconsentedtothefollowingstipulation,whichtheCourtreadtothejury:

Thepartiesherebystipulatethatinfiscalyear2005theCommonwealthofPuertoRicoreceivedmorethan$10,000infederalfunding.Specifically,fromOctober1,2004,toSeptember30,2005,theCommonwealthofPuertoRicoreceivedover$4.7billioninfederalfunds.

(DocketNo.932.)ThestipulationreadtothejuryincorporatinglanguageidenticaltothelanguagereviewedbytheFernandezcourtsatisfiesthefederalbenefitselementpursuanttosection666.

DefendantMartinezanddefendantBravoalsocontendthattheevidencepresentedattrialwasinsufficienttoestablishthe"business"or"transaction"elementofsection666.(DocketNo.971atp.40.)Pursuanttosection666,briberymustbe"inconnectionwithanybusiness,transaction,orseriesoftransactionsofsuchorganizations,governmentoragencyinvolvinganythingofvalueof$5,000ormore."18U.S.C.§§666(a)(1)(B),666(b).Accordingtodefendants,acquittalisrequiredbecausesenateprojects410and471"didnotconcernanygrants,contracts,money,orproperty—didnotconstituteorconductbusinessor

Page20

financialtransactions."10Id.Oncemore,theFernandezdecisionisdispositive.TheFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsspecificallyrejectedthisnarrowinterpretationofthe"businessortransaction"requirement

becausedoingso"wouldforecloselargeswathsofgovernmentactivitythat,thoughtechnically'non-commercial,'couldbeprofitableforunscrupulousindividualstoattempttoinfluence."722F.3dat14(citingSalinasv.UnitedStates,522U.S.52,56(1997)).Senateprojects410and471,includingthehearings,votes,researchandotherofficialactsassociatedwiththislegislation,fulfillthe"businessortransaction"elementpursuanttosection666.

Defendants'finalargumentthatsenateprojects410and471donotsatisfythe$5,000requirement,liketheotherjurisdictionalarguments,isunconvincing.Section666requiresthatthebusinessortransactionexchangedforthebribe"involveanythingofvalueof$5,000ormore."18U.S.C.§§666(a)(1)(B),666(b).Thegovernmentpresentedevidenceattrialestablishingthatsenateproject471wouldcrippledefendantBravo'scompetitorsintheprivatesecurityindustry,providingdefendant

Page21

Bravoaccesstoanadditional$1.5millioninprofits.(DocketNo.989atp.19.)Thiscalculation,defendantsargue,istoospeculative.(DocketNo.971atp.45.)Defendants,however,acknowledgethattheFirstCircuitofAppealsaddressedthisissueinFernandez,holdingthatevidencepresentedinasection666prosecutionis"sufficientifthedirectandforeseeableeffectofthatlegislationwouldbetogivetheindividualofferingthebribeaparticularresult."722F.3dat15.Thegovernment"presentedevidencethattheforeseeableeffectofSenateProject471wouldbeachangeinthearmoredcarserviceindustry,whichinturnwouldresultinfinancialbenefitstoRangerAmericanand[defendantBravo]farexceeding$5,000."Id.Consequently,theevidencepresentedattrialissufficientforajurytofindthatsenateprojects410and471metthe$5,000thresholdsetforthinsection666.

IV.CONCLUSION

Basedontheforegoinganalysis,theCourtDENIEStheRule29motionforjudgmentofacquittal.(DocketNo.971.)

ITISSOORDERED.

SanJuan,PuertoRico,September1,2017.

s/FranciscoA.BesosaFRANCISCOA.BESOSAUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTJUDGE

--------

Footnotes:

1.Thejuryalsoconvicteddefendantsofconspiracyaschargedincountone,anddefendantBravoofinterstatetravelinaidofracketeering,aschargedincounttwo.SeeDocketNo.438.TheCourtgranteddefendantBravo'smotionforacquittalregardingthetravelactconvictionsetforthincounttwo.UnitedStatesv.Bravo-Fernandez,828F.Supp.2d441,449(D.P.R.2011)(Besosa,J.).Thejuryacquitted

defendantMartinezofthechargesallegedincountsthreeandsixoftheindictment—interstatetravelinaidofracketeeringandobstructionofjustice,respectively.Id.TheFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsreverseddefendantBravo'sconspiracyconviction.UnitedStatesv.Fernandez,722F.3d1,39(1stCir.2013).

2.Onremand,onlythesection666offensesallegedincountsfourandfivewereatissue.

3.Adefendantmaymoveforjudgmentofacquittalwithinfourteendaysafteraguiltyverdictorafterthedischargeofthejury,whicheverislater.Fed.R.Crim.P.29(c)(1).Inthiscase,thejuryreachedaverdictonMay31,2017.(DocketNos.963&964.)TheCourtgranteddefendants'motionforanextensionoftimeregardingpost-trialmotions,allowingdefendantsuntilJuly7,2017tosubmittheRule29motion.(DocketNo.970.)DefendantsmovedforajudgmentofacquittalonJuly7,2017.(DocketNo.971.)Accordingly,defendants'Rule29motionistimely.

4.Senateproject410concernedacodeofconductforshoppingcenters.Senateproject471setforthregulationsfortheprivatesecurityindustryinPuertoRico.

5.JorgeDeCastro-FontisaformersenatorofthePuertoRicoLegislature.OnOctober2,2008,agrandjuryreturnedanindictmentchargingDeCastro-Fontwith,interalia,federalprogrambriberyinviolationofsection666.(CaseNo.08-337,DocketNo.3.)DeCastro-Fontultimatelypledguiltytowirefraudandinterferencewithcommercebythreatsorviolenceinviolationof18U.S.C.sections1343,1346and1951.(CaseNo.08-337,Docket174.)TheCourtsentencedDeCastro-Fontto60monthsofimprisonment.(CaseNo.08-337,DocketNo.353.)

6.IntheRule29motiondefendantsMartinezandBravo"raiseandpreserveforreviewtheclaimthat[the]evidenceshouldnotbedeemedsufficientforpurposeoftherecord."(DocketNo.971atp.45.)TheCourt,nonetheless,mustconsider"thebodyofproof,asawhole,"resolvingallevidentiaryandcredibilityquestionsinfavorofthegovernment.SeeUnitedStatesv.Manso-Cepeda,CaseNo.14-082,25F.Supp.3d196,200(D.P.R.2014)(Besosa,J.)(citationomitted).

7.InFernandez,theFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsdistinguishedthatsection666requiresan"agreementtoexchange[athingofvalue]forofficialaction."722F.3dat19.Circumstantialevidenceofaquidproquoagreement,thus,maybeofsignificantrelevancebecausebribery"agreements[frequently]willbeoralandinformal,"requiringthejurytoinfer"whattheparticipantssay,meananddo."UnitedStatesv.McDonough,727F.3d,143,153(1stCir.2013).

8.Attrial,RiveratestifiedthathewarneddefendantMartinezthat"itwasnotappropriate,thatitwasnotrighttobegoingonatripwithapersonwhohadtwobillssubmittedbeforetheCommittee."(DocketNo.985atp.60.)

9.Inkeepingwithprecedentandthestatutorylanguage,theCourtinstructedthejurythat:thethingofvalueneednothavebeensolicited,demanded,oracceptedsolelywithacorruptintenttoinfluenceorrewardbecausepeoplerarelyactforasinglepurpose.Tofindthatthethingofvaluewassolicited,demanded,oracceptedwithacorruptintenttoinfluenceorreward,youmustfindthatdefendantMartinezsolicited,demanded,accepted,oragreedtoacceptthethinkofvalueinparttocorruptly

influenceorrewardhisofficialacts[...]ThegovernmentisnotrequiredtoprovethatdefendantMartinez'ssolicitation,demand,acceptance,oragreementtoacceptthetriptoLasVegascauseddefendantMartineztochangehisactionsorcourseofconductregardingsenateproject410and/or471."(DocketNo.960atpp.27&29)(emphasisadded).Defendants'repeatedassertionsthat"[t]oprovebribery,thegovernmenthadtoprove[defendantMartinez]supportedProjects410and471inexchangeforhavingbeenofferedabribe—notbecausehebelievedthelegislationwasbeneficialforPuertoRico"aremeritlessinthecontextoftheRule29motion.

10.Defendantsmadethesameargumentin2010.SeeDocketNo.58atp.9(arguingthatprosecutionpursuanttosection666isimproperbecause"theSenatepasseslegislation,itcreateslaw;thereisnosortofnegotiatedfinancialexchangewithanyotherparty.")ThisCourtrejecteddefendants'argument,notingthat"theSupremeCourt,inanalyzingaclaimunder666,hasadvisedcourtstorefrainfromimposinga'narrowingconstruction'ofthebusinessortransactionclause."UnitedStatesv.Bravo-Fernandez,828F.Supp.2d441,454(D.P.R.2011)(Besosa,J.).

--------