United States v. Bailey
444 U.S. 394 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The prosecution for escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) only requires proof that the defendant knowingly left confinement without permission. To raise an affirmative defense of duress or necessity, an escapee must produce evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed threat has passed.
Facts:
- Clifford Bailey, James Cogdell, Ronald Cooley, and Ralph Walker were federal prisoners housed at the District of Columbia jail.
- During the summer of 1976, they experienced what they described as inhumane conditions, including frequent fires, poor ventilation causing smoke to fill the cellblock, and inadequate medical attention.
- Specifically, Cooley and Bailey claimed they were subjected to beatings and death threats by prison guards.
- On August 26, 1976, the four inmates escaped from the jail by climbing through a window and down a knotted bedsheet.
- The men remained at large for periods ranging from one month to three and a half months.
- During their time as fugitives, none of the men surrendered to authorities, though some later claimed they had their 'people' contact officials or that they feared being killed by the FBI upon recapture.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifford Bailey, James Cogdell, Ronald Cooley, and Ralph Walker were charged in U.S. District Court with escape from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).
- At their separate trials, the respondents offered evidence of inhumane conditions at the D.C. jail as a defense of duress or necessity.
- The District Court judge ruled that the respondents had failed as a matter of law to present sufficient evidence for the defense because they did not surrender after escaping.
- The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the duress/necessity defense, and the juries subsequently convicted all four respondents.
- The respondents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, reversed the convictions, holding that the District Court had improperly prevented the juries from considering the respondents' evidence.
- The United States, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the affirmative defense of duress or necessity for the crime of prison escape require a defendant to present evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity has lost its coercive force?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. In order to be entitled to a jury instruction on duress or necessity as a defense to a charge of prison escape, an escapee must first offer evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity has lost its coercive force. The Court first held that the crime of escape under § 751(a) does not require a specific intent to avoid confinement; it merely requires proof that the defendant acted knowingly in leaving custody without permission. Turning to the affirmative defense, the Court reasoned that escape is a continuing offense. Therefore, any justification, such as duress or necessity, must account not only for the initial departure but also for the continued absence from custody. Once an escapee reaches a position of safety away from the immediate threat, the coercive force is lost, and the only reasonable, legal alternative is to surrender. Requiring this showing as a threshold element is essential to the defense and prevents trials from becoming general inquiries into prison conditions where the defendant had no intention of returning to lawful custody.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. The Court's requirement that an escapee must promptly surrender is unrealistic and improperly removes a question of fact from the jury. The 'coercive force' that prompted the escape does not automatically cease once a prisoner is outside the prison walls, as the escapee faces the high probability of being returned to the same, or worse, life-threatening conditions. The rationale of the necessity defense is a balancing of harms, and a jury should be permitted to weigh the harm of remaining at large against the harm of returning to an intolerable situation. The credibility of the defendants' 'self-serving' testimony about their fears and reasons for not surrendering is a classic jury question. By ruling on the defense as a matter of law, the Court usurps the jury's role as the conscience of the community, especially in a case where society itself is at fault for creating the coercive conditions.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. The evidence offered by the defendants of a bona fide effort to surrender was plainly insufficient to present a question of fact for the jury. While acknowledging the serious problem of poor prison conditions, the proper remedy is the formulation of enforceable, objective standards and guaranteed access to the courts, not encouraging self-help by convicted felons. Although Walker's testimony that he called an FBI agent was a closer question, his failure to surrender for two months after his last alleged call demonstrated his effort was inadequate as a matter of law. Therefore, the majority's conclusion is correct on the facts of this case.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent by defining a strict, indispensable element for the duress and necessity defenses in federal prison escape cases. By requiring a threshold showing of a bona fide effort to surrender, the Court makes it substantially more difficult for defendants to get this defense before a jury, effectively filtering out claims where the escapee remained at large indefinitely. The ruling solidifies escape as a continuing offense and clarifies that the justification for the escape must persist throughout the entire period of absence. This holding narrows the availability of the defense and simplifies prosecutions by focusing on the objective act of surrender rather than subjective motivations for escape based on prison conditions.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Bailey