United States v. Michael Wayne Bailey

Bailey · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 23, 2026 · No. 25-5255

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Michael Wayne Bailey’s convictions and concurrent 300-month sentences for two drug-trafficking conspiracies under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The court rejected his challenges to the jury instructions, admission of gang-affiliation evidence, disciplinary records, and a recorded telephone conversation. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported Bailey’s knowledge of and participation in the conspiracies.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Joan L. Larsen; Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge; Joan L. Larsen, Circuit Judge; Stephanie Dawkins Davis, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decision date
March 23, 2026
Docket number
25-5255
Procedural posture
Bailey appealed his convictions and concurrent 300-month sentences for two drug-trafficking conspiracy offenses under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He challenged the jury instructions, admission of evidence, and sufficiency of the evidence. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the unpreserved instructional claims for plain error, evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, and sufficiency de novo.
Standard of review
Jury-instruction challenges were reviewed for plain error because Bailey did not object before the jury retired. Evidentiary rulings were reviewed for abuse of discretion. Sufficiency of the evidence was reviewed de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Michael Wayne Bailey v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurejury instructionsevidenceappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Federal criminal lawCriminal procedureEvidenceAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court plainly erred by instructing the jury on the elements of a drug-trafficking conspiracy using a two-element instruction rather than the later-amended three-element pattern instruction.
  2. Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to give, sua sponte, a specific instruction concerning the credibility of law-enforcement witnesses.
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Bailey's gang affiliation.
  4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Bailey's prison disciplinary records concerning possession of contraband cell phones.
  5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting a recorded telephone conversation after the government authenticated it.
  6. Whether sufficient evidence supported Bailey's convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury that the government had to prove that two or more persons agreed to possess drugs with intent to distribute and that Bailey knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy. The instruction accurately stated the governing law, and the later amendment to the pattern instruction merely recast the same substantive requirements as three elements.
  2. The district court did not plainly err by failing to give a specific instruction that law-enforcement testimony should not receive greater or lesser weight solely because of the witnesses' status.
  3. The district court properly admitted evidence of Bailey's Aryan Nation gang affiliation because it was relevant to demonstrate the relationship among the alleged coconspirators, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
  4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting disciplinary records showing Bailey's possession of cell phones during the conspiracy because the records were admissible for purposes such as identity, opportunity, and knowledge rather than to prove character.
  5. The district court properly admitted the recorded conversation because the government produced sufficient evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 to support a finding that Bailey was the speaker.
  6. Sufficient evidence supported Bailey's convictions because a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement to violate drug laws existed, that Bailey knew of the agreement, and that he voluntarily joined or participated in it.

Key quotations

“Although differently phrased, each of these instructions accurately states the law.” (p. 6)
“So, despite being incarcerated, Bailey was the linchpin.” (p. 12)

Factual background

Bailey was incarcerated while allegedly directing an approximately nineteen-week drug-distribution conspiracy through contraband cell phones. He communicated with James Payne and other participants, directed the acquisition, weighing, movement, and distribution of methamphetamine and fentanyl, and arranged for proceeds to be transmitted or used for his benefit. Investigators recovered drugs from Rebecca Lustre's vehicle and from a storage unit leased by Bailey's mother at Bailey's direction; recorded calls and testimony connected Bailey to the conspiracy.

Procedural history

A jury found Bailey guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and 40 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture. The district court sentenced him to 300 months on each count, concurrently, and denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial. Bailey timely appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Sixth Circuit