United States of America v. Jeffrey Bailey

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1945
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeffrey Bailey
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: May 12, 2025
Filed: July 1, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Jeffrey John Bailey of conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
court1 sentenced him to 144 months in prison. He challenges his conviction. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Bailey believes the court erred in providing a willful blindness instruction to
the jury because “the government lacked sufficient evidence to warrant” it. This
court reviews challenges to jury instructions for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Joiner, 39 F.4th 1003, 1010 (8th Cir. 2022). A “district court has wide discretion
in formulating appropriate jury instructions.” United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884,
887 (8th Cir. 2011). “A willful-blindness jury instruction is particularly relevant in
a case where the defendant asserts a lack of guilty knowledge in the face of immense
evidence supporting an inference of deliberate indifference.” United States v. Burns,
990 F.3d 622, 628 (8th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “Ignorance is deliberate if the
defendant was presented with facts” that put him “on notice that criminal activity
was particularly likely” and yet he “intentionally failed to investigate those facts.”
United States v. Florez, 368 F.3d 1042, 1044 (8th Cir. 2004).
At trial, the government presented evidence of Bailey’s deliberate
indifference. Co-defendant, Vonda Hand, testified that she paid Bailey to drive her
from South Dakota to Arizona (where Hand’s meth supply was located). She gave
him “user amounts” of meth to “get high” when they stopped along the way. Asked
about the purpose of the trips, Vonda advised Bailey that, “It was best you did not
ask any questions.” On their second trip, Bailey saw Hand with 13.5 pounds of meth.
Bailey also saw Hand repackage the meth into bags of salt. Although he was “very
angry,” he agreed to drive her back to South Dakota with it. Stopped by police on
the way home, Bailey told officers he had “traveled to Hot Springs to get fuel for the
vehicle.” He never mentioned Arizona. He told officers there were no drugs in the
car. “Because the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish that [Bailey] either had
actual knowledge of the methamphetamine or deliberately failed to inquire about it,
the willful blindness instruction was appropriate.” United States v. Trejo, 831 F.3d
1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
1090, 1095 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding that if defendant was not aware of meth
distribution, “it was only because she chose not to investigate the facts suggesting
that criminal activity was afoot”). See United States v. Atkins, 881 F.3d 621, 627
(8th Cir. 2018) (upholding a willful blindness instruction where there was sufficient
evidence that the defendant “deliberately turned a blind eye to … clearly illicit
activity”).
* * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --