Bailey v. United States
10 A.3d 637
| D.C. | 2010Background
- Bailey devised an elaborate scheme to extort sexual favors from two men recently released from prison by using forged letters and the threat of re-incarceration.
- He used his position at the Prisoners' Project to obtain criminal history and other information about parolees and to obtain falsified letters on letterhead from a foundation.
- First victim S.C. was approached in December 2004; Bailey invited him to his home under a pretext of discussing charges and then offered to dismiss charges in exchange for sex after producing a forged letter.
- Second victim M.S. was lured to Bailey's apartment in January 2005; Bailey showed paperwork and a gun, coerced sexual acts, and threatened to make charges disappear.
- Evidence included the forged letters found on Bailey's computer and in his apartment, and Bailey's sister testified to papers Bailey asked her to destroy.
- The trial court denied Bailey's motion to sever the S.C. and M.S. offenses, ruling joinder was proper because the offenses were connected; Bailey challenged this denial as prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance | Bailey argues prejudice from joinder would prevent a fair trial. | Government contends evidence would be mutually admissible or properly connected, so severance unnecessary. | No abuse; joinder proper and not prejudicial. |
| Whether the denial of severance constitutes reversible error given the strength of the government's case | Bailey contends prejudice from joint trial undermines guilt determination. | Government emphasizes strong, corroborated evidence and mutual admissibility. | Not reversible; strong evidence supports conviction notwithstanding joinder. |
| Whether lesser-included sexual abuse convictions merge with first-degree convictions for M.S. | Bailey seeks merger of lesser offenses into a single conviction. | Government contends separate acts (finger vs. penis) remain distinct offenses. | Three lesser-included merges into two first-degree offenses; two first-degree do not merge. |
| Whether forgery convictions must be vacated due to failure to prove the letters as 'written instruments' | Bailey argues forgery elements were not proven. | Government concedes failure on essential element; convictions should be vacated. | Forgery convictions vacated; remand for re-sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (mutual admissibility governs severance; not automatic)
- Winestock v. United States, 429 A.2d 519 (D.C.1981) (most compelling prejudice standard for severance)
- Arnold v. United States, II, 511 A.2d 399 (D.C.1986) (discretion in severance decisions)
- McFerguson v. United States, 870 A.2d 1199 (D.C.2005) (mutual admissibility and separate evidence grounds for denying severance)
- Johnson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1087 (D.C.1996) (mutual admissibility as closely intertwined evidence)
- Spain v. United States, 665 A.2d 658 (D.C.1995) (fork-in-the-road test for whether acts are separate offenses)
- Ellison v. United States, 919 A.2d 612 (D.C.2007) (fresh impulse doctrine for non-merger of offenses)
- Jenkins v. United States, 980 A.2d 421 (D.C.2009) (two different sexual acts are separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes)