United States v. Valle: With Help from the Fifth Circuit, Dispute over the Role of Intent in Bribery Convictions Continues to Thrive

Recent Development by Kelsie Tregilgas

When Border Patrol officers discovered that Mexican national Francisco Gutierrez-Avila (Gutierrez) had violated the geographical limitations of his visa, they took him into custody and brought him to the Department of Homeland Security's El Paso Processing Center for detention and processing. During his stay at the Processing Center, Gutierrez was interviewed by Santiago Efrain Valle (Valle), an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. Valle's primary duty at the facility was to review the files of detainees to ensure that they were classified properly according to prior criminal history, though Valle was additionally responsible for the collection of intelligence from detainees. It was in this latter capacity that Valle first spoke with Gutierrez. During the initial meeting, Valle indicated that he and Gutierrez had a mutual acquaintance who had requested that Valle assist Gutierrez in any way he could. At a second meeting, Valle informed Gutierrez that he had helped him out by making his existing criminal charges disappear—a service for which Valle demanded $20,000 in return. Having no knowledge of any criminal charges against him, Gutierrez reported this conversation to his attorney who then informed federal agents of the situation. When Valle later accepted $20,000 from an undercover agent posing as Gutierrez' brother-in-law, the government indicted Valle on one count of bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(C), as well as one count of extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 872.

Valle was tried by a jury on both counts. Twice Valle motioned for acquittal and twice Valle's motion was denied. The jury then convicted Valle on both counts. Affirming Valle's conviction, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a conviction under § 201(b)(2) may be sustained whenever an official corruptly agrees to receive something of value in return for an official act or violation of his duty, regardless of the official's intent or lack thereof to actually commit the act or violation. United States v. Valle, 538 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2008).


About the Author

Kelsie Tregilgas. J.D. candidate 2010, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 2007, Austin College.

Citation

83 Tul. L. Rev. 1549 (2009)