Your case brief should follow the format below: �Title: Title of the selected case
�Facts: Summary of the events, court timeline, evidence, and so forth
�Issues: Issues that were present in this case
�Decisions: The court�s decision and the conclusion to the case
�Reasoning: The rationale behind the final decision
�Dissenting opinions: Any dissenting opinions, and an explanation of what they were and why they were
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 2
In this paper, the case by the title United States v. Bailey 444 U.S. 394 (1980) will be
addressed by exploring more information such as the facts, decisions, and opinions concerning
the case (Swaim, 2014). The respondents, in this case, were indicted for having escaped the jail
in District of Columbia thus violating 18 U.S.C. 751 (a).
Summary of the events, court timeline, evidence,
The law is used in governing of escape from the prisons commonly known as the federal
custody. The respondents, in this case, were the walker, Cooley, and Bailey (Swaim, 2014). They
had crawled out of the federal prisons and escaped through the window. The three respondents
had been at large for about three months after escaping the prison but were recaptured and
charged with the violation of the law. The respondents gave some of their reasons as to why they
had escaped the hospital by highlighting horrible living conditions, threats of murder or beatings
and also frequent cases of fires as some of the major reasons (Yu, 2014). The evidence provided
by the defendants in the case proves that there were instances where the prisoners were beaten
and threatened with death. The prison conditions are said to have adduced duress. The jury of
instructions of the duress was not submitted to the trial court. The convictions were thus reversed
by the court of appeal due to improper preclusion of the considered respondent’s juries.
Adducing the evidence to the prison’s events and conditions made them give reasons that
necessitated their escape (Swaim, 2014).
The main issue, in this case, was whether there was enough evidence that could be used
for constituting duress during the submission of the jury. The trial court had demanded that the
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 3
defendants provide sufficient proof that they were ready to surrender as an attempt. The attempt
to surrender is said to be after escaping and freeing themselves from the described conditions.
The court held that the prisoners were indicted for escaping the prison and not the failure to
surrender after fleeing themselves from custody (Webb, 2014). Escaping from the federal
custody was the issue presented as it’s an offense to leave and fail to come back after initial
departure from prison.
Decision and conclusion to the case
There were decisions made and ruling that was given by the court after the presentation
of the issues concerning the case between United States v. Bailey (Webb, 2014). The criminal
conduct was excused by the duress as the actor was under threat of imminent death which is
unlawful in nature. The risk of getting serious bodily harm and other reasons led them to violate
the literal terms as per the criminal law. The court of appeal decision and ruling was reversed on
the basis that the respondents failed to submit enough evidence required by the court. The
defenses necessary to the juries and also the duress did not meet the sufficient evidence to
support themselves fully (Braithewaite, 2013). The proper instruction of the juries had occurred
during the ruling of the court on the case.
The rationale behind the final decision
When the respondents had failed to provide the sufficient evidence required in court to
rule the case in their favor. By the law, the court decided that the defense had failed to provide
the necessary information as support for the duress. The failure of the defense to come back to
the prison could not be seen as the inability to claim the necessity for escape entirely
(Braithewaite, 2013). They could have avoided returning to the prisons so as not to undergo the
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 4
same atrocities they had faced previously. The failure to return was to be investigated and
decided by the jury. The convictions were reversed by the appellate court. The jury
considerations of the evidence provided by the respondent had been precluded improperly.
The modern cases in court usually blur the line between necessity and duress. When one
acts under some conditions that cannot be tolerated or threats, one can claim duress of the act
they commit leading to the violation of the law (Braithewaite, 2013). The act or criminal action
may have prevented more harm and serious implications that necessitate the one to go ahead and
do some actions due to inability to cope or resist. The defense of the duress failed when there
was a better alternative to undertaking rather than commit the crime while trying to escape
threatened harm. In this case, breaking the law should not be used as the defense for the criminal
actions. In the case of the USA vs. Bailey, the defense is supposed to offer the initial defense for
escaping (Swaim, 2014). When the initial duress element is subsided, more sufficient and present
evidence have to be provided again.
Title Edwards vs. South Calorina(1963)
In this case, which occurred in the South Carolina of USA, there were protest
demonstrations by the African-Americans. The protests were against the government offices by
compelling them to end discriminations and fully restore the citizens’ privileges(Webb,2014).
The protestors were 187 in number while the case was handled by the Supreme Court, 1963,
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 5
Breach of peace was the charge imposed on the protestors after the incident had occurred.
Based on the 14 amendments to the law process, they went on to appeal the conviction imposed
on them (Swaim, 2014). The defendants believe that the court does not have sufficient evidence
to convict them of breach of peace.
The initial trial in the court led conviction of the participants in the protests where they
also attracted some sentence. The convicted faced up to $100 fine for 30 days or $10 penalty
fines in 5 days. The convictions were however reversed Mr. Stewarts, who like the appeal judge
for the case (Swaim, 2014). Mr. Justice thus had a dissenting opinion regarding the reversed
The basis of convictions as the original charges leveled against the protestors which are
the breach of peace. Judge Stewart made a review of some 17 cases to make the decision. He
came up with the ruling that the charge did not warrant a conviction due to insufficient evidence
(Webb, 2014). In this case, the prosecution lacked enough evidence to support the conviction.
Justice Clark gave a dissenting opinion based on that the government offices were in
session, and also the city manager took the action of arresting the protestors to avoid the
unnecessary chaos. In this case, Justice Clark affirmed the convictions. He was of the opinion
that rage would be evoked on the citizens once the riots were uncontrollable.
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 6
Title Wise Vs USA (2000)
In this case, John Cain reported a case to the FBI by his member’s actions within the
Texas Republic. Cain prepared some evidence of the terrorist behavior since March-July
1998.The compiled evidence included the threat to harm others, developing threats to the
government through emails by Oliver Dean Emigh and also Johnie Wise.
Sending of the threatening messages which occurred through emails is the main issues in
this case. The emails were then sent to the government officials. Cain as able to direct the FBI to
the prepared plan by Wise (Yu, 2014).The decision by Wise regarding the threatening messages
was reported to Sharkey, the agent. The involvement of the agent occurred when the action plans
by Wise to hurt somebody was reported to him.
Counts 5 and 6 were used in the conviction of Grebe and Wise during the original trial.
Emigh was acquitted on all counts that were leveled against him during the case (Braithewaite,
2013). Wise was of the thought that the court had insufficient evidence to carry on with the
conviction. Wise appealed as he believed that the court was provided with inappropriate
instructions. The poor conduct by the case prosecutor was the main basis of argument.
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 7
The court of appeal agrees and credits the evidence as enough to convict Grebe and Wise
(Yu,2014). The Conspiracy to commit crimes against the government of USA was the charge.
The case had no dissenting opinions presented during all its stages.
Title Florida (USA) vs. Adderley
In this case, 32 students were arrested and convictions leveled against based on the
charge, trespass with mischievous intent (Yu, 2014). The protest had occurred outside the
government custody in Florida.
The main issues raised in this case were right to petition, fourteenth amendment and also
freedom of assembly. The issues were the due process as the freedom of speech factors was also
The law interpretation and enforcement statue in the statue provided the court with
sufficient evidence to prove the defendants guilty of their charges(Braithewaite,2013). The court
was thus convicted Adderly and other 31 students. Judge Black upheld the convictions by the
court during the appeal process.
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 8
The Edwards vs USA case was referenced by Adderley during the petition on the basis of
protests. However, the basis of arrest for the both cases was not similar in nature to the breach of
peace and trespass laws differ significantly (Swaim, 2014). The protests, in this case, did not
involve the public property as compared to the referenced case. Adderley thus had insufficient
reasons to win during the petition.
Judges Fortes and Douglas gave their dissenting opinions that the convictions were unjust
(Braithewaite, 2013). They justified the protest by regarding the jail property as common ground
to trigger the actions by the students.
The disorderly act will constitute of the unruly acts that attract the criminal charges
depending on the law statues of a given state or country (Larkin, 2013). Behaving in a disruptive
manner could lead to charges regarded as disorderly conduct. The interpretation of the disorderly
act makes the court determine whether to uphold the protests of one group or another. The type
of evidence provided that is beyond any reasonable doubt could be used in setting up a group if
found to have violated any law (Braithewaite, 2013). In this case, the determination of the extent
of violations and reasons for protests makes one group to be upheld and the other not.
Sufficiency of evidence could be used by the government to convict the two students with
the bomb threats. In the case where the weapon is not found, the witness credibility could depend
upon during the conviction of the students in questions. If the witness is by any chance believed,
the defendant could in such a case be convicted. It will not be easy for the government to convict
the students as the prosecution bears a big burden to proof that the students are guilty (Swaim,
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 9
2014). The students can only be found to be guilty if the evidence is presented to the jury. The
prosecution is only relying on the email to convict the students and bind them in the trial court.
In this case, the government might only be successful to convict the students if there is sufficient
evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.
More punishment can be handed to a prisoner who is found to have taken alcohol. The
correctional facility has to confirm if he is guilty. It was a capital punishment when the inmate
was found to have been drunk. The prisoner could be convicted in a court of law as it is illegal to
be found in possession of products such as alcohol (Larkin,2013). The sufficient evidence will be
used to convict the inmate where a punishment will be levied on him. Confinement is one of the
punishments that the inmate will face and also forfeiture of benefits and allowances might also
come his way.
CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC 10
Braithwaite, J. (2013). Inequality, Crime and Public Policy (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.
Larkin Jr, P. J. (2013). Stops and Frisks, Race, and the Constitution. Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 82, 1.
Swaim, J. A. (2014). Bailey v. United States: the Supreme Court’s Futile Attempt at Setting
Boundaries around a Borderless Rule. Loy. L. Rev., 60, 355.
Webb, E. B. (2014). Aiding and Abetting Section 924 (C) Offenses: An Analysis of Rosemond
v. United States’ Withdrawal Rule. Geo. Mason L. Rev., 22, 1.
Yu, B. (2014). Criminal Ambiguity: Redefining the Clean Water Act’s Mens Rea Requirements.
Seton Hall Cir. Rev., 11, 327.