February 6, 2019
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 3-16-cr-00175-001)
District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion.
K. Hinkley Office of United States Attorney, Attorneys for
Brandon R. Reish Attorney for Appellant.
Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
HARDIMAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
appeal presents a question of first impression in this Court:
does an inmate's placement in administrative segregation
while he is under investigation for a new crime trigger his
right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment or the
Speedy Trial Act? We hold it does not, so Bailey-Snyder was
not entitled to dismissal of his complaint. Nor was there
improper vouching or cumulative error in Bailey-Snyder's
trial. We will affirm.
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution,
Schuylkill, James Bailey-Snyder was moved to administrative
segregation after officers found a seven-inch homemade
plastic weapon (shank) on his person. United States v.
Bailey-Snyder, 2017 WL 6055344, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 7,
2017). He remained in isolation in the Special Handling Unit
(SHU) pending further investigation by the FBI. Id.
months later, Bailey-Snyder was indicted in June 2016 on one
count of possession of a prohibited object in prison.
Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2),
(b)(3). He pleaded not guilty and filed a number of motions
for extension before filing a motion to dismiss in November
2017. Bailey-Snyder, 2017 WL 6055344, at *1.
Focusing on his placement in administrative segregation as
the start of the speedy trial clock, Bailey-Snyder moved to
dismiss his indictment, alleging violations of his
constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial.
District Court denied the motion to dismiss without an
evidentiary hearing, reasoning that placement in the SHU does
not constitute an arrest or accusation that would trigger
speedy trial rights. See id. at *2. The case went to
trial a month later.
trial focused on the credibility of the two officers who
testified that they found a shank on Bailey-Snyder's
person when they searched him in a staff bathroom that was
not equipped with cameras. In an effort to undermine the
officers' credibility, defense counsel cross-examined
them regarding the Bureau of Prisons incentive programs for
recovering contraband. On redirect, the Government elicited
that the programs do not reward individual contraband
recoveries and that one of the officers did not receive any
award for the search of Bailey-Snyder. The other officer had
made similar points during the defense's
cross-examination. Neither officer discussed the potential
consequences they would face for planting a shank on an
inmate and then lying about it. The Government's only
other witness was the FBI agent who investigated the case.
The defense rested without offering testimony or evidence.
the Court's charge to the jury, both parties gave closing
statements. The Government's closing and rebuttal drew
two defense objections relevant to this appeal. During
summation, the prosecutor concluded: "I feel as if
I'm not up here long enough. There really isn't much
to say. The defendant is guilty of his crime and we're
asking you to find him guilty of it. Thank you, your
Honor." App. 232. The defense objected on the basis that
the prosecutor expressed personal belief in the
defendant's guilt; the District Court agreed, so the
prosecutor had to make a corrected statement to the
jury. The defense's closing focused on the
searching officers' "believability." App. 234.
After tying "policy incentives of the Bureau of
Prisons" to the searching officers' motives, the
defense claimed: "[a]nd I wouldn't buy the home on
the word of either of the two people that were on that stand
if I were you." App. 234-35. In response to that
challenge to the officers' credibility, the Government
argued in rebuttal: "[i]t's conjecture to say that
these correctional officers would put their jobs, their
careers, their livelihoods on the line to possibly plant a
shank on this defendant to maybe, maybe, have a little notch
to get a promotion." App. 237. The defense objected,
claiming the Government was "arguing a fact not in
evidence," but the Court overruled the objection. App.
jury convicted Bailey-Snyder and he was sentenced to 30
months' imprisonment to run consecutively to his
underlying offense ...