Salinas v. United States
522 U.S. 52 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, does not require the government to prove that a bribe directly affected federal funds, so long as the local government agency involved receives more than $10,000 in federal benefits in a one-year period. A conviction for conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), does not require proof that the defendant personally agreed to commit two predicate acts.
Facts:
- In 1984, Hidalgo County, Texas, entered into an agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service to house federal prisoners in its jail.
- In exchange, the federal government provided the county with grant money and per diem payments for each prisoner, totaling well over the $10,000 statutory minimum per year.
- Homero Beltran-Aguirre, a federal prisoner, paid Sheriff Brigido Marmolejo bribes in exchange for private "contact visits" with his wife and girlfriend.
- Mario Salinas, a principal deputy sheriff, assisted the scheme by arranging the visits and standing watch outside the room.
- In return for his assistance, Salinas received a pair of designer watches and a pickup truck from Beltran.
Procedural Posture:
- Mario Salinas was indicted in federal trial court on charges of violating RICO, conspiracy to violate RICO, and bribery.
- A jury convicted Salinas on the RICO conspiracy and bribery counts but acquitted him on the substantive RICO count.
- Salinas, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Salinas's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, apply only to cases where the bribe has a demonstrated effect on federal funds? And, for a RICO conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), must the government prove the defendant personally agreed to commit two of the predicate acts required for a substantive RICO violation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No, the federal bribery statute is not limited to cases where the bribe affects federal funds. The plain language of § 666 is expansive and unqualified, covering bribes in connection with 'any business, transaction, or series of transactions' of a government agency that receives sufficient federal benefits. The statute was enacted to broaden federal jurisdiction over bribery of state and local officials, and limiting it to bribes that directly affect federal funds would contradict that legislative purpose. The relationship between the bribe and the federally-funded jail program is sufficient to bring the conduct within the statute's scope. No, a RICO conspiracy conviction does not require the defendant to personally agree to commit two predicate acts. Under well-established common-law conspiracy principles, a conspirator need only agree to the overall objective of the criminal enterprise and adopt the goal of furthering or facilitating it. A conspirator can be liable for agreeing to facilitate only some of the acts leading to the substantive offense; they need not agree to personally perform the core criminal acts themselves. The RICO conspiracy statute, § 1962(d), incorporates these traditional principles and does not require each conspirator to agree to commit the two predicate acts required for the underlying substantive offense.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of two powerful federal criminal statutes. By holding that § 666 does not require a direct link between a bribe and federal funds, the Court empowers federal prosecutors to target corruption at state and local levels whenever a federal funding nexus exists, regardless of the bribe's specific subject matter. The ruling on RICO conspiracy resolves a circuit split in favor of a broader interpretation, making it easier to prosecute individuals who play supporting roles in a criminal enterprise. This lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors, as they only need to prove a defendant agreed to facilitate the enterprise's criminal objective, rather than proving they agreed to personally commit the underlying racketeering acts.
Unlock the full brief for Salinas v. United States