Background
Ángel Pérez-Otero, the former mayor of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, was indicted on three counts: conspiracy to accept bribes, federal-program bribery, and extortion under color of official right. The government alleged that Pérez used his power over municipal contracting to steer contracts to a construction company owner in exchange for secret cash payments. A jury found him guilty on all counts, and the District Court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment and supervised release. Pérez appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the indictment, and the reasonableness of his sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and found that a rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the payments were not campaign contributions. The evidence showed the payments were made in secret, often under the table, and were not reported to the Electoral Comptroller, unlike legitimate campaign contributions. Furthermore, the payer testified that the payments were bribes intended to secure contracts, and the timing of contract discussions following the payments supported a finding of a quid pro quo. The court rejected the argument that the payments were merely campaign contributions intended to pay off a debt, noting inconsistencies in the records and the continued surreptitious nature of the payments.
Because a rational jury could reject Pérez’s characterizations of the evidence and find that the payments were not campaign contributions, we must reject this McCormick-based challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that secret cash payments to public officials, even if framed as campaign debt repayments, can constitute bribery if the evidence supports a finding of a quid pro quo and lack of legitimate campaign contribution status.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download