United States v. Bailey

Bryan Bailey (defendant) and his parents, Calvin and Sandra Bailey (defendants), were charged with healthcare fraud based on their allegedly convincing Medicare patients to purchase medical equipment they did not need. The Baileys’ scheme relied in part on prescriptions from Dr. Matthew Presson, which the Baileys allegedly paid Presson to write. Presson admitted his role to Richard Haines, a government investigator. There was a lengthy three-month continuance partway through the Baileys’ trial. Haines testified on the prosecution’s behalf before the continuance. Presson was the last witness to testify before the continuance. He denied ever being paid to write prescriptions, rendering his testimony inconsistent with his earlier confession to Haines. Consequently, immediately after the continuance, the prosecution recalled Haines to impeach Presson’s testimony. The government then recalled Haines a second time at the end of the trial to summarize the evidence, as the government had always intended to do. The Baileys objected to that second recall, arguing that the prosecution was entitled to recall Haines once, but not twice. The district court allowed the second recall, reasoning that it was permissible based on the extended continuance, the lack of prejudicial effect to the Baileys, and the relevance of Haines’s testimony. After the Baileys were convicted, they appealed, arguing that the district court erred by allowing Haines to testify three times.