Case Analysis Essay: United States vs. Bailey

Introduction

The case summarizes the legal battle between the Governments of the United States and Bailey. The case revolves around defendants who were imprisoned in one of the federal prisons in Washington, D.C. The primary issue that brought the legal matter between the state and these citizens was due to the problem that one day, Bailey and other colleagues tried to run away from the court through the prison windows. Unfortunately for these defendants, they were arrested for the second time of their attempt to escape the prison (Schwartz, 2008). They were taken to court and tried only after three months. In the trial, they were accused of the plot to escape from the prison. Even though the charged should just be decided in one case as outlined in the judicial procedures, the court proceeded to tackle each prosecution differently.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

As part of the proceedings, the court confirmed that all the accused party was guilty. However, to register his complaint with the prosecution, Cogdell, one of the defendants, stated that it was the unsatisfactory conditions in the sentence that made them organize and desire for a jail escape. To further put forward their complaint, they succinctly stated that even the former prisoners hard argued that they were being forced and suffered a lot from frequently occurring fires and that some guards also always tried to threaten them of killing and or beating them up. This possibly made them look for alternative ways to run away from the escape and organizing a jailbreak was the only possible alternative that they were left with (Schwartz, 2008). As part of the facts of the case, it should be noted that the sitting judges refused to be convinced by these arguments put forward by the defendants and instead condemned them

After all these issues, the claim was brought forward by the plaintiffs to the court of appeal and tried to argue that the lower court did not keenly consider the testimonies brought forth by the defendants which the plaintiff asserted that they were illegible. The primary reason for this was that while being tried at the District Court, the general arguments of Bailey and the group was that the conditions in which they were put in the jail solely adduced duress. This was the main reason as to why the Court of Appeal reversed earlier decisions by the lower court at the district level. The Appellate Court claimed that the lower court at the district level improperly considered the arguments of the defendants. Therefore it was concluded that the trial court failed to submit a procedure of duress (DeMatteo & Edens, 2006). In the Judges argument at the trial court, they claimed that for duress to be alleged, the defendants had first to show the commitment that they had surrendered when they will be free from jail.

It is important to note that this case of United States against Bailey proceeded to the Supreme court for the issues to be resolved in any case the appellants presented enough evidence that would help prove the presence of coercion in the trial procedure. At the Supreme Court, the sitting Judges concluded that the defenders did not correctly confirm the validity of their escape from the prison. Also, this case brief underlines the judgment point that in any case the defendants are forced to flee from jail as a result of inhumane conditions that would be meted on them by remaining in jail, then they should be brought back to the jail because the duress case has been solved.

It should be understood that duress only helps to excuse criminal behaviors where the defendant of the case was faced with an unlawful threat of a possible serious injury in the body or death, which caused the actor to engage in an activity or conduct that violates the criminal law procedures and literal terms (DeMatteo & Edens, 2006).

The primary issue at the Supreme Court was to confirm whether there existed enough evidence to allow constitution of duress in this case. The appellate court decidedly reversed the decisions holding that the evidence of the conditions presented by the defendants was relevant in determining whether or not they had the intention to escape from the prison. In the argument of the Appellate Court Judges, Bailey and his colleagues were not guilty of going against section 751(a) unless they left the prison to avoid the normal conditions within the jail as opposed to harsh conditions mentioned in the case. In this manner, any prisoner would take advantage of the duress process as eve a prisoner who is just threatened to act may be able to defend an escape charge mere grounds of duress or necessity (Schwartz, 2008).

In the case of United States vs. Bailey, there wasn't sufficient evidence to constitute duress because according to the proper interpretation of section 751(a), it strongly condemns escaping from physical custody knowingly. Therefore, whatever the justification that Bailey was putting forward for having escaped the prison, they presented no strong legally sufficient reason for remaining out for up to three and a half months before presenting themselves for trial.

The decision of the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment was in order because it has been noticed that the current cases try to prevent and fail to distinguish between duress and necessity clearly. The fact that one can claim for duress even with merely acting that they are under threat or undesirable conditions that a person of ordinary firmness would have been unable to resist to avoid harm makes the process look useless (Grewcock, 2012). However, to give strength to the duress as a criminal process, the Judges at the Supreme Court argued that in any case there existed an alternative way of breaking the law, then the Bailey and his colleagues should have undertaken that choice.

The Judges at the Supreme Court, therefore, argued that there was a possible chance for Bailey to refuse to engage in the criminal act alongside avoiding any threat of harm. In this case, the defense of duress and necessity failed to hold as there was no clear application of the two criminal processes as purported by the defendants (Schwartz, 2008). This decision was backed because, Bailey, as an escapee failed to table enough evidence to support his claim for his initial escape from the custody as well as their continued departure to enable the application of duress defense. As had been stated above, even if Bailey and his colleagues escaped to avoid the threats as claimed, their continued absence and failure to present their case beats the logic of a duress process and makes anyone think that they had intended to escape from the prison. They have to present evidence of their return to custody because the initial instance where duress could be applied had collapsed

Conclusion

In giving a dissent to this case, in my view, the decision of the defendants to abscond from returning does not elaborately show their inability to claim duress. This could have been a plan not to return to the prison and go through the same ugly conditions they escaped (Grewcock, 2012). However, it seemed likely that the defendants were not provided with a place of confinement that had required safety standards, and therefore it was also prudent to present the evidence of the conditions of the prison to the court for a full decision to be made.

Escape is the criminal offense of fleeing legal custody by an individual or group of people without authority or consent from the responsible people (Grewcock, 2012).

Reference List

DeMatteo, D., & Edens, J. F. (2006). The relevance and role of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in court: A case law survey of US courts (1991-2004). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(2), 214

Grewcock, M. (2012). The great escape: Refugees, detention and resistance. In State crime and resistance (pp. 67-80). Routledge.

Schwartz, S. S. (2008). Common Law a Necessity Defense in Federal Criminal Law? The University of Chicago Law Review, 75(3), 1259-1293.