United States v. Acevedo-Hernandez

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2018 · Evidence

898 F.3d 150 (1st Cir. 2018)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidence18 U.S.C. § 37118 U.S.C. § 666conspiracybriberysufficiency of evidenceplain errorRule 403

Facts

Acevedo, a Puerto Rico Superior Court judge, was assigned to preside over Lutgardo's criminal case arising from a fatal car collision. The evidence showed that Acevedo agreed through intermediary Ángel Román-Badillo to give Lutgardo favorable treatment, including an acquittal, in exchange for benefits such as meals, gifts, tax payments, home remodeling, and help obtaining an appellate judgeship and jobs for relatives. Acevedo then gave strategic advice about motions and trial tactics, communicated through intermediaries during trial, limited the prosecution's rebuttal evidence, and acquitted Lutgardo. At Acevedo's federal trial, the government also introduced testimony from the victim's mother-in-law and Acevedo attempted to call Lutgardo, who invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Acevedo's conspiracy and bribery convictions; whether the government's remarks and the challenged testimony required a new trial; whether the district court erred in upholding Lutgardo's Fifth Amendment privilege; and whether alleged Guidelines calculation errors required resentencing.

Rule

On sufficiency review, the court views the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and reverses only if no rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A § 371 conspiracy requires an agreement to commit an unlawful act, knowing and voluntary participation, and an overt act; a conspirator need not know or contact all other participants. For § 666, the $5,000 transactional element refers to the value of the business or transaction sought to be influenced, not the value of the bribe itself, though courts may use the bribe's value as evidence when the transaction is intangible. A witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever there is a reasonable possibility that testimony on direct or cross could contribute to prosecution or affect sentencing, notwithstanding the defendant's Sixth Amendment interest in presenting the witness.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal prosecution in Boston, Dana Mercer, a city procurement officer, is convicted of bribery after a contractor's fixer testified that Mercer accepted dinners, repair work on her townhouse, and strategic requests relayed through intermediaries to steer a contract award. On appeal, Mercer argues that each item of evidence was weak by itself and that the fixer was not credible.

What is the proper appellate approach to Mercer's sufficiency challenge?

Explanation. On preserved sufficiency review, the court considers the sum of the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the government. It does not reweigh evidence or second-guess the jury's credibility determinations, and reversal is warranted only if no rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.