Bailey murder trial hinges on self-defense claim

PALMER — Over the last few weeks, two wildly different accounts have emerged in Superior Court of what led to Dale Prater’s death.

In one, his killer, Phil Bailey, was angry with Prater because he thought he was fooling around with his wife or plotting to steal money for him. So, on Oct. 1, 2011, when Prater left for about a half-hour to buy Bailey cigarettes, he strapped on his pistol, told his daughter not to be afraid, waited for Prater to return, shot him in the back of the head and then calmly waited for the police.

In the other account, Prater, a convicted murderer who bragged about killing a second person while serving time for killing the first, cornered Bailey in his kitchen. Earlier that day he’d put a knife to his throat. Bailey had no idea where that knife was, but there were plenty of weapons at hand. There was no way out, so he shot him.

The difference between those two accounts is the difference between Bailey being convicted on a charge that carries up to 99 years in prison or walking away a free man.

Assistant District Attorney Kerry Corliss outlined Thursday what it means for a person to claim he acted in self-defense. The defendant has to have acted in a way that any reasonable person would have.

But Prater was facing away from Bailey. He was leaving the room. He didn’t have a gun or a knife on him that Bailey knew of, and Prater didn’t attack Bailey. Even if he still thought Prater was a threat, he could’ve brandished the gun instead of shooting it. He could have ordered Prater out of his house. He also could have shot him in the shoulder instead of going for the kill shot.

“There’s a long list of what the defendant could have done in that situation,” Corliss said. “No reasonable person would have done what the defendant did.”

She said it was an ambush, plain and simple, one Bailey planned and executed on a man that used to be his friend.

Actually, argued public defender Hannah King, very little of that is true.

She said that a half-hour before the shooting, Prater had been demonstrating how to kill a person with a knife. He’d put a large Bowie knife up to Bailey’s throat, told him how he could stab him before Bailey could grab a gun, how he could put the knife into Bailey without Bailey’s daughter hearing anything in the next room.

And Bailey knew all about how a man had sold Prater some bad methamphetamine in Oklahoma and how Prater had beat him to death with a tow chain and buried his body across state lines. He also knew that Prater had killed another inmate while serving his sentence.

King noted Bailey’s testimony when he took the stand at trial and was asked if he’d do it again.

“He said, ‘If I was faced with the same situation, I think I would have to,’” Bailey said.

King also disputed that Prater was unarmed, saying he might have had that same Bowie knife he put to Bailey’s throat in his belt. If he didn’t, Bailey had a good reason to think he might. And there was a large, heavy, sharp sword within arm’s reach.

Corliss pointed out that neither the sword nor anything else on the counter was in disarray, indicating no one had grabbed for it. She pointed out that how long Bailey had to think about the threats Prater had made, time he used to plan his murder rather than come up with some other way out.

And, she said, just because Prater had extreme violence in his past didn’t mean he wasn’t entitled to the protection of the law in Alaska. She told the jury it’s up to them to decide Bailey acted reasonably, whether society should condone what he did.

“You tell us what level of violence is acceptable to you and in what situation,” she said.

Closing arguments occupied most of the afternoon Thursday. Jurors will likely begin their deliberations today.

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.