United States v. Hamilton

In United States v. Hamilton, —- F.4th —-, No. 23-11132 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant’s collateral estoppel claim and affirmed the district court’s decision to deny his motion to dismiss.

Background: In 2022, the Fifth Circuit vacated Hamilton’s conviction because the district court had given the jury improper instructions on the elements of bribery. On remand, Hamilton asked the district court to dismiss his case based on collateral estoppel, because the previous jury had acquitted him of using an interstate facility to violate the Travel Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3).

Hamilton argued that the acquittal meant the jury had necessarily found that he did not provide anyone a quid pro quo bribe, which (in the first appeal) the Fifth Circuit had deemed an essential element of § 666. The district court denied Hamilton’s motion because it found the bribery and Travel Act charges to be based on “different conduct on different days.”

Legal Principles: To win a dismissal based on collateral estoppel, a party must prove that the factual issue in question “was actually decided in the first proceeding.” Garcia v. Dretke, 388 F.3d 496, 501 (5th Cir. 2004). That requires proof that if a second jury were to convict, it would necessarily make a finding “that contradicted a finding of the first jury.” Id. To evaluate these claims, courts ask two questions: (1) what facts were “necessarily decided” in the first trial, and (2) whether any of those facts is an essential element of the offense in the second trial.

Holding: Hamilton’s argument failed at the first of those two steps. In acquitting Hamilton on the Travel Act charge, the first jury could have found at least three different things. But collateral estoppel requires proof of what the jury must have found. Here, only one of those three options was an essential element of the bribery charge, and Hamilton failed to prove that the first jury necessarily must have made that specific finding.

Concurrence: Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod joined the majority but wrote separately to express her view that binding precedent “imposes a burden of proof that is both unclear in its weight and higher than is appropriate in this context.”

First, courts have not clarified what level of proof a party must provide. Second, “the invoking party essentially must prove conclusively that the issue under consideration was the sole disputed issue in the first trial for collateral estoppel to apply. If there is any evidence to the contrary, the invoking party loses his challenge.” And third, current precedent ignores the possibility that “a jury could have reached its verdict based on multiple issues, as opposed to merely a single issue.”