This article has been updated to include a decision from the District Attorney’s Office that was made after original publication. It is reflected in the case timeline and appears at the bottom of the article.
- 13 Years of total incarceration
- 4 defense attorneys
- 4 Assistant District Attorneys
- 3 Indictments
- 3 Years, 4 months, and 22 days – Time Baillie spent in GDC custody after a judge granted his Motion to Withdraw his guilty plea, essentially vacating the sentence and restoring Baillie to a yet-to-be convicted individual
- 2 Elected DAs who itemized evidence to add charges to each superseding indictment, increasing the possible prison time from 40 years to 620 years in prison.
- 1 “fatally defective” search warrant
- 1 Public Defender who filed motions until the flaws in the process were flushed out of the case
The story of John Dennis Baillie is not one that can be succinctly articulated in a 500-word summary. His journey through the Bulloch County court system dates back to 2012 when he was arrested by the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office – just two weeks after moving to the area.
The mishandling of Baillie’s case cannot be attributed to just one person either, as there is enough blame to go around. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the procedural restraints of ‘the system’ pale in comparison to the near-abandonment of the case file by the Conflict Defender’s Office, the game of hot potato played by four different assistant district attorneys, and the wholly defective search warrant on which the entire case relied.
In year twelve, a public defender who had taken on Baillie’s case discovered issues with said search warrant – which included failure by law enforcement to comply with state law – as she advocated for resolution in a seemingly unending case. After thirteen years behind bars and a plethora of court proceedings, the charges in the third indictment in the case were dismissed.
But that’s not the end of the story because there is yet to be ‘an end.’ The District Attorney’s Office recently appealed the judge’s Order, leaving the case in a still-continuous limbo. Worse, the office sought to keep Baillie behind bars while the appeal is pending review by the Georgia Court of Appeals – a process that can take months, if not years.
Baillie’s case points out glaring issues in the flawed process that is the American justice system – “the best in the world.”
TIMELINE
June 4, 2012 – Law enforcement arrests John Dennis Baillie after a sex offender check allegedly discovered pornographic material, reportedly involving minors, on an electronic device. BCSO Investigator Jared Akins files warrants the following day for 1 count of Sexual Exploitation of Children and 1 count of Sexual Exploitation of Children by Computer (Computer Pornography). (Baillie was on the Sex Offender registry for a 2001 Gwinnett County conviction in which he was sentenced to serve 4 years in prison and 16 years on probation.) An interview with Baillie’s fiancée indicated that he had only lived in Bulloch County for two weeks.
August 6, 2012 – A Bulloch County grand jury indicts Baillie on 1 count of Sexual Exploitation of Children. The Computer Pornography charge was not presented to the grand jury. The case is assigned to then-Assistant District Attorney Michael Muldrew and Judge William Woodrum. Baillie is represented by Public Defender Robert Persse.
September 10, 2013 – Baillie is reindicted on 15 counts of Sexual Exploitation of Children, exposing him to upwards of 300 years in prison.
June 17, 2014 – ADA Michael Muldrew files a Notice of State’s Intent to Seek Recidivist Punishment, citing the 2001 Gwinnett County conviction and a 1996 Burglary conviction, which resulted in a probation-only sentence. This means that if Baillie pleads guilty or is convicted at trial, the State will seek the maximum punishment possible.
July 9, 2014 – Baillie enters an Alford Plea in Bulloch County on two counts of Sexual Exploitation of Children. An Alford Plea is a guilty plea in which a defendant maintains their innocence but admits that the evidence would likely result in a guilty verdict if brought to trial.
13 other counts are Nolle Prossed (dismissed) as part of an agreement with prosecutors. The plea was an ‘open-ended plea,’ meaning the sentencing parameters were solely up to the judge. At the recommendation of Muldrew, Judge Woodrum sentenced Baillie to serve 20 years in prison on the first count and 20 years on probation on the second count. ADA Muldrew subsequently submits a Nolle Prosse (dismissal) order on the August 2012 indictment, in addition to the 13 counts in the 2013 indictment. The official sentence was signed on August 1, 2014.
August 11, 2014 – Through Stephen Yekel, a public defender from the Conflict Defender’s Office, Baillie files a Motion to Withdraw his guilty plea. Yekel’s Motion does not include a request for a hearing or the document a judge would sign to set a hearing date.
From August 11, 2014 until August 15, 2017, no action is taken by Yekel, Baillie’s attorney, and no requests are made for a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw Baillie’s guilty plea. It is not until Judge Woodrum’s office places the case on the calendar that a production order for Baillie is sent to the Georgia Department of Corrections to bring Baillie to a hearing on October 10, 2017.
October 10, 2017 – 38 months after his motion was filed, Judge Woodrum hears the Motion to Withdraw. Baillie’s argument is that the sentence was void because a sentence that was not allowed under the law was imposed, thus entitling him to the right to withdraw the plea. It was improper by law for Woodrum to include the 20 years to serve sentence without at least one year of probation. The District Attorney’s Office objects to the request to withdraw the plea.
November 27, 2017 – Judge Woodrum grants Baillie’s Motion to withdraw his guilty plea due to the sentencing error. At this point, Baillie should be returned to the Bulloch County Jail (or have a bond set) but he remains in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Baillie will remain in GDC custody for 3 years, 4 months, and 22 days, despite his sentence being vacated and his status returning to that of an individual without a conviction.
January 19, 2018 – Judge Woodrum signs an order asking GDC to bring Baillie to the Bulloch County Jail for an arraignment on February 9, 2018 based on the 2013 indictment. Two weeks later, Judge Woodrum schedules the case for a Plea Day instead of an arraignment, but Baillie does not enter a plea. Muldrew has become a Superior Court Judge so ADA Catherine Sumner is handling the case. Despite not having a conviction, Baillie still in GDC custody.
August 7, 2018 – A Bulloch County grand jury returns a True Bill of Indictment on 31 counts of Sexual Exploitation of Children, exposing Baillie to 620 years in prison. This indictment, which alleges that Baillie had sexually explicit conduct involving minors on his laptop and flash drive, includes sixteen additional counts that were not included in the initial indictments in 2013 and 30 additional counts to the 2012 indictment. The ‘offense dates’ are listed as unknown, but include the time period “between 7/13/10 and 6/4/12” and “between 1/18/11 and 6/4/12.” Despite not having a conviction, Baillie is still in prison.
September 14, 2018 – Public Defender Karen Brown of the Conflict Defender’s Office files an Entry of Appearance to represent Baillie alongside Yekel.
December 17, 2018 – Baillie pens a letter to Judge Bennett and the Clerk of Court. Baillie tells the Court that his attorney “refuses” to give him a copy of his case discovery and “refuses to work with a key witness (name redacted) who has exculpatory evidence about [the] case.” Judges cannot correspond with defendants directly, but the letter is filed by the Clerk’s office.
January 9, 2019 – Judge Bennett dismisses motions filed by Baillie because the Georgia Constitution does not permit defendants to serve as pro se ‘co-counsel’ for themselves alongside an attorney.
April 22, 2019 – Baillie requests a copy of his case discovery from the Bulloch County Clerk of Court. The Clerk’s Office does not maintain discovery for defendants, so the Clerk’s office forwards Baillie a copy of his Indictment and directs him to Yekel for information on his case.
May 16, 2019 – Baillie’s case is placed on the plea calendar. It is continued because the ADA is out of the office. Additionally, the defense is still awaiting a report from a case expert, according to Yekel.
December 12, 2019 – Yekel files a Motion asking for Baillie to have the opportunity to view the evidence (the photos/videos) that law enforcement/prosecutors say exists against him. The photos and videos are not provided in traditional discovery files because the material is deemed ‘contraband.’ Yekel’s argument is that Baillie is entitled to see the evidence against him, including photos and videos, and that it is integral to the defense.
On the same date, Yekel files a Motion to Quash the indictment, citing the failure by the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the 2013 indictment, making the 2018 indictment null. He further argues that the state should not be allowed to proceed because the statute of limitations has run.
January 17, 2020 – A hearing is held on the Motion to Dismiss the 2018 indictment and Baillie’s right to review the evidence against him held by the District Attorney’s Office. The DA’s office argues that the 2018 indictment should not be quashed because the office intentionally kept the 2013 case open and the statute of limitations argument does not apply. Sumner also argues that the office didn’t add additional charges with new evidence, it simply itemized the previous evidence to add more charges (the increase from 15 to 31). She also contends that Baillee should not be allowed to view the photos/evidence against him, that only Yekel should, because allowing Baillie to do so would be ‘revictimization’ of the individuals in the photos.
September 14, 2020 – A status hearing is held via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Judge Bennett orders Yekel and the DA’s office to review the case and file briefs on the two pending motions within 30 days. Yekel files a brief on September 16, 2020. The DA’s office does not file a brief.
November 13, 2020 – Judge Bennett grants Baillie’s request to review evidence and denies the Motion to Quash the Indictment. In an Order, Bennett writes that despite the State’s concerns, “due process requires that the Defendant be afforded an opportunity to meaningfully review the critical evidence against him in order to prepare a defense.” He orders Baillie, Yekel, and an expert to be permitted to review the evidence at the DA’s office.
February 23, 2022 – 15 months after Bennett’s order, Baillie and Yekel review the photo/video evidence at the District Attorney’s Office.
May 7, 2021 – The Georgia Department of Corrections releases Baillie from custody and he returns to the Bulloch County Jail. This is almost 7 years after his Motion to Withdraw his plea and nearly four years after a judge granted his Motion to Withdraw his plea.
May 5, 2022 – District Attorney Daphne Totten’s Office submits an Order to Nolle Prosse (dismiss) the 2013 Indictment, 29 months after Yekel filed a Motion to Dismiss the 2018 Indictment because the DA’s office never dismissed the 2013 Indictment. The order to dismiss the 2013 case is signed and the 2013 charges are dismissed.
There is no movement on the 2018 case from November 13, 2020 until January 25, 2023. Neither the Conflict Defender’s Office nor the District Attorney’s Office make any notable progress toward resolving the case. Baillie remains behind bars in the Bulloch County jail.
January 23, 2023 – The case is on the calendar for a Status Hearing thanks to scheduling by the Judge’s office. Yekel is now a State Court Judge and no longer represents Baillie. Karen Brown is his legal counsel. Sumner is the Solicitor General of Bulloch County, so ADA Casey Blount is handling the case for the State.
March 1, 2023 – The case is scheduled for a Plea/Sentencing Hearing, but Baillie does not enter a plea.
August 25, 2023 – Baillie signs a Jury Trial Waiver for his case and asks for a Bench Trial before a judge. The case has now been pending for over 11 years.
September 4, 2023 – Public Defender Virginia (Ginny) Purdee files an Entry of Appearance and is now representing Baillee. She immediately files a Motion to Dismiss, citing specifically that:
Evidence provided by the State included reports from forensic exams of devices confiscated during a search. Baillie voluntarily handed over his computer and consented to a search of his apartment, but also handed over two thumb drives he located in a closet after he was told to hand over anything of electronic means. According to the forensic report, the contraband was accessed January 18, 2011 to January 31, 2011 – 17-months before Baillie resided in Bulloch County. An agent with the GBI later testified that the contraband images were located on the thumb drives.
Purdee argues that Bulloch County was not the proper venue for the charges and that the State never presented evidence that Baillie was in Bulloch County when the material was downloaded. She also argues that the thumb drives were never confirmed to be Baillie’s, they were merely in the closet and Baillie handed them over to police, and that the State failed to prove Baillie ‘knowingly possessed’ child pornography.
Read the filing to see the case law cited.
September 6, 2023 – Judge Bennett’s Office schedules a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss for September 29, 2023.
September 8, 2023 – Purdee files a Discovery Request seeking specific items held by the District Attorney’s Office that have not yet been turned over to the defense, including:
- Forensic copies from the 2 laptops that were taken as evidence
- Forensic copies from the 2 thumb drives that were taken as evidence
- Reports from any forensic examination of those 4 devices
- Audio recording of police interview with Baillie during compliance check/subsequent search
- Audio recording of police interview with Baillie’s significant other during investigation
- Copy of signed and executed search warrant with inventory list
- Any report written by Special Agent James Head
- State’s witness list
October 4, 2023 – Judge Bennett holds a hearing on the Plea in Bar Motion to Dismiss. Purdee once again relies on the State’s evidence to argue that the State lacks venue to pursue the case and that the burden rests solely on the prosecution.
“[It’s a physical impossibility that the State could prove at any point that Mr. Baillie accessed the contraband while in Bulloch County, which of course is a material element of the charges. Their own evidence proves it wasn’t accessed since seventeen months before his arrest when Mr. Baillie lived in Gwinnett County. There is no evidence to show he was here, he had never been to Bulloch County at that point, seventeen months prior, and the State has lacked the ability to prove venue for over a decade. They can’t prove it today.”
“[t]he Defense’s position is that possessing a thumb drive or a computer in general is not knowing possession of exactly what’s in the unallocated folders in those devices especially if the State has zero evidence they were downloaded, accessed, or viewed during the period of time that Mr. Baillie resided in this jurisdiction.”
Contrarily, ADA Casey Blount argues that when Baillie downloaded the content is irrelevant and that the State must prove he knowingly possessed the contraband. He said the State could do that.
Read the transcript.
November 29, 2023 – Judge Bennett denies Baillie’s Plea-In Bar & Motion to Dismiss. Bennett’s Order cites case law that says “the Court cannot resolve disputed questions of fact pertaining to venue, which are reserved for the jury. Therefore, in order to prevail on its pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, the Defendant must show that it would be impossible as a matter of law for the State to prove venue in Bulloch County beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis added)
Bennett says a jury must decide the matter of venue, in part, because the State and the Defense offered conflicting information on their factual proffers. “The Court cannot resolve these questions without invading the province of the jury.”
February 22, 2024 – Purdee files a Motion to Dismiss Based on Constitutional Speedy Trial Violations on Baillie’s behalf. This time, Purdee argues that the DA’s office has still failed to provide to the defense all of the evidence it has against Baillie. She argues that 11 ½ years have elapsed with Baillie spending 4,280 behind bars, still awaiting trial. She contends that the DA’s office has violated Baillie’s right to a speedy trial with no legitimate explanation for the delay. She cites case law that states Baillie the responsibility was not Baillie’s as an accused has ‘no duty to bring himself/herself to trial.’
In terms of consequences of being held for more than 11 years without resolution, Purdee says Baillie experienced ‘loss of livelihood, loss of possessions, loss of his health, devastation to a planned marriage, death of friends and family members, and an inability to continue with normal familial relationships.’
February 23, 2024 – Judge Bennett’s Office schedules a status hearing on the case and time to hear any arguments on outstanding motions for February 28, 2024.
March 31, 2024 – Purdee files a Motion to Suppress Illegally Obtained Evidence. She cites issues with the initial search warrant used to search Baillie’s residence, including electronic devices, after Baillie was arrested. She notes that the warrant was signed on June 4, 2012 and gave the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office 10 days to return to Baillie’s residence for the execution of the search warrant. By law, search warrants are required to have a Return of Service, indicating if the warrant was actually executed and when. In 11 year’s time, BCSO never provided a Return of Service detailing the result of the warrant, which means the search warrant did not meet the statutory requirements. Further, she says, the evidence had no proper chain of custody or inventory documenting what was seized, which is to be signed under oath.
Purdee’s Motion also argues that BCSO’s warrant relied ‘almost entirely’ upon hearsay with no apparent nexus between the alleged crime and the scope of the warrant, which included limitless searches of the electronic devices.
The DA’s office response to these assertions was that the search warrant errors were mere ‘technicalities’ and the substantial rights of the defendant were not affected.
View the Motion to Suppress & the search warrant.
April 2, 2024 – The District Attorney’s Office files a Brief in Opposition of the Speedy Trial Argument by Baillie.
ADA Casey Blount contends that attorneys for Baillie did not previously request a speedy trial and ‘no assertion of the Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was made’ before August 2023. He further attributes the delays to the defense. He says that from 2014 to 2017, Yekel and Brown should have made the effort to ensure Baillie had a hearing on his Motion to Withdraw his plea.
Read the Brief in Opposition.
June 27, 2024 – Judge Bennett denies Baillie’s Motion to Dismiss on Constitutional Speedy Trial Violation, but grants the Motion to Suppress. Bennett writes in his Order that the statutory legal requirements of a search warrant were not met by investigators and rejected the DA’s office argument that the issues were ‘technicalities.’
“[t]he Court finds that the errors here are an accumulation of many errors, and that they are more than technical irregularities. The Court further finds that the substantial rights of the accused certainly have been affected, given the defendant’s incarceration based on the fruits of this search warrant for more than a decade.”
As a result, ‘any and all’ evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrants is deemed to be fruit of the poisonous tree and cannot be used.
The District Attorney’s Office, led by DA Daphne Totten, contends that the search warrant does not preclude their continued prosecution of the case.
July 31, 2024 – Purdee files a Constitutional Speedy Trial Demand on behalf of Baillie because the District Attorney’s Office, led by DA Daphne Totten, contends that the search warrant does not preclude their continued prosecution of the case. They plan to keep moving forward.
December 30, 2024 – Judge Bennett files a Motion granting a Motion to Suppress and Dismissing the Case, clarifying that “all of the evidence gathered in this case was illegally obtained and is fruit of the poisonous tree. The Court, in finding that all the State’s evidence was either a product of involuntary consent or a fatally defective warrant, dismisses this case in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons set out below.”
The same day, the District Attorney’s Office, under Daphne Totten, expresses its intention that it will appeal Bennett’s Order. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office seeks to keep Baillie behind bars while the appeal is pending before the Georgia Court of Appeals, a process that can take months, if not longer.
January 3, 2025 – Despite the State’s opposition, Judge Bennett sets bond for Baillie and he is released on his own recognizance. Conditions of Baillie’s bond include:
- Prohibition from using illegal drugs and alcohol and cannot violate new laws
- Adhere to ‘standard sex offender conditions,’ including no contact with minor children or going within 100 yards of schools, daycare centers, or churches.
- Banishment from the Ogeechee Judicial Circuit, including I-16 and I-95 unless appearing for court or to meet with his attorney
- Prohibited from using any internet web browser or a cell phone with internet access
- Prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition, or dangerous weapons.
This article was published on January 5, 2025. On January 6, 2025, District Attorney Robert Busbee, who was sworn in less than a week ago, issued a press release indicating that the office would no longer be pursuing an appeal in the Baillie case. From the press release:
“After a thorough review and consideration of all circumstances surrounding this case, the Ogeechee Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office has informed Judge Lovett Bennett, Jr. and the defense that it will not appeal the court’s ruling in Mr. Ballie’s case.”
