Bravo-Fernandez v. United States (15-537)

argument 15-537

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 51 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue in Bravo‑Fernandez v. United States and why is the Supreme Court hearing it?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case fifteen five thirty seven, Bravo Fernandez and Martinez Maldonado versus the United States. Ms. Black.

Kathleen M. Sullivan 0:13

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. For three reasons, acquittals should have full effect under the Double Jeopardy Clause without regard to invalid vacated convictions. First, vacated convictions are legal nullities, including under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Second, vacated convictions are not relevant to what a jury necessarily decided. And third, the government should bear the consequences when overlapping charges produce split verdicts of acquittals and invalid convictions.

Neil M. Gorsuch 0:53

You would agree that there might be cases where under Ash versus Svenson There's an acquittal on one count, conviction on the other count, conviction set aside. Government can retry This the account that had been set aside on the ground that under Ash vs. Swenson the v verdict on the other count was just irrelevant.

Kathleen M. Sullivan 1:12

That's right. So we al the defendant always has to meet the burden of just showing that the acquittal necessarily decided a fact that the government wants to prove in a subsequ subsequent prosecution.

Neil M. Gorsuch 1:26

What was the argument before the jury um on on the conspiracy and the travel counts. closely intertwined with six six six so that it uh

Kathleen M. Sullivan 1:41

Right. The only issue the only issue that was in dispute was whether there was a bribe. There's no dispute that to get to Las Vegas from Puerto Rico you have to travel. There was no dispute that they agreed to go to a boxing match together. So the only dispute is a very good idea. at all was whether there was a bribe. And so when the jury acquitted on conspiracy and travel to commit a program Section six sixty six bribery, they necessarily decided there was no bribery. Now, the Court of Appeals did not hold that. It was just petitioners' argument throughout the case, a point that the government just never disputed, a point that the government never disputed in its brief in opposition, and a point that the government never disputed in its brief on the merits.

Kathleen M. Sullivan 2:21

Mr.

Elena Kagan 2:22

Lab, but if we're trying to figure out what this jury found And then we're not talking about claim preclusion. Claim preclusion There can never be a new trial on the travel or the conspiracy. But we're talking about issue preclusion. And this jury w we don't know what it decided because of the Inconsistency it said yes to bribery on one no to bribery. On the other Um It might have just decided that that conviction of the predicate offence, the bribery, was enough. and that the government has laid it on too strong. by adding the conspiracy in the travel count. How do we know that that's not what the jury decided?

Kathleen M. Sullivan 3:09

Well, we know just looking at the acquittals alone that we know what they decided. So the question is, and it's I think under Jaeger and under the Double Jeopardy Clause, is this court for the first time in the history of its jurisprudence going to give any meaning to or relevance to an invalid conviction? You have never held an invalid conviction was relevant to or evidence of anything, Justice Ginsburg. And let me just suggest the last place that you should start. is the Double Jeopardy Clause, where illegal, invalid, vacated convictions have always been legal nullities.

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:42

Well M Ms. Platt, is I mean it it does seem to me that that's what your argument rests on in the end. The idea that we shouldn't give any uh weight or any influence to an invalid conviction. Is uh an is is that a double jeopardy principle or does it come from someplace else?

Kathleen M. Sullivan 4:00

Both. So we have our main I would call it our legal argument is just that vacated convictions are legal nullities, void abinitio. You pretend that they just don't exist.

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:10

Yes, well why do we do that? I mean I I take that you you have you know usually you do pretend that they don't exist. There are not many instances that we can find uh where we do look to vacated convictions for something or other. But in this case, the vacated conviction surely does tell us something about what the jury did do or what the jury didn't do.