Top of Form
Instructions
Sometimes, fires that you have determined to be incendiary in nature will also meet the requirements for the prosecutor to charge someone with arson. This type of case is the ultimate test for a fire investigator as all aspects of your investigation will be challenged by the defense, and you may go through the process of being qualified as an expert witness.
The following assignment will help you to become familiar with that process. Follow the instructions below:
· Provide basic information about what occurred.
· Identify which of the six key elements from the lesson this case falls under.
· Identify possible motives.
· Determine what led to the suspect being charged.
· Identify what the outcome of the criminal case was.
· State whether you believe the outcome was appropriate.
· Discuss what you believe could have been done differently to ensure a positive outcome in this case.
Your case study should be a minimum of two pages in length, not counting the title and reference pages. You must use a minimum of two sources, one of which may be your textbook. The other source should be found within the CSU Online Library. All sources used must be properly cited. Your case study, including all references, must be formatted in APA style.
Criminal No. 3:
1
7-cr-29-00
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
United States v. Taylor
Decided Oct 10, 2017
Criminal No. 3:17-cr-29-004
10-10-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VERDON
TAYLOR, VERSHAWN JACKSON, SYLVIA
MITCHELL, MARIE TAYLOR, DOREL
WATSON, AND EUGENIA FLEMING,
Defendants.
Robert E. Payne Senior United States District
Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANT
MARIE TAYLOR’S MOTION TO SEVER (ECF
No. 100). For the reasons set forth below, the
motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
Defendant is one of six defendants named in a
seven-count Indictment filed on March 8, 2017.
ECF No. 3 (Under Seal). She was only charged in
Count One, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud—
the sole count naming all six defendants. Id. at 36.
The Indictment discussed approximately 33 fires
involving the defendants, but the United States
only alleged that Defendant was involved in 6 of
those incidents.
Defendant moved to quash the Indictment on June
28, 2017, on the grounds that the conspiracy
charge as against her was barred by the statute of
limitations because the United States *2 had only
alleged multiple separate conspiracies between
each defendant and Verdon Taylor, and had not
alleged facts showing any connection between
Defendant and the other co-conspirators. ECF No.
80. The Court denied that motion on June 29, in
part because “whether there were multiple
conspiracies is, at most, a question for the jury
based upon evidence presented at trial and that
issue must be considered at that time.” ECF No.
82 at 1. Defendant now moves to sever her trial on
a similar basis.
2
DISCUSSION
“If the joinder of offenses or defendants in an
indictment . . . appears to prejudice a defendant or
the government, the court may . . . sever the
defendants’ trials . . . .” Fed. R. Crim. P. 14.
Nonetheless, the Fourth Circuit has recognized as
a “general principle that when defendants are
indicted together, they should be tried together,”
so “severance pursuant to Rule 14 is rarely
granted” if defendants are properly joined. United
States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 368 (4th Cir.
2012); see also United States v. Medford, 661 F.3d
746, 753 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is a
presumption in favor of joint trials in cases in
which defendants have been indicted together.”).
Moreover, “[j]oinder is highly favored in
conspiracy trials,” such as this one. United States
v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629, 639 (4th Cir. 2012). *3
3
Given these principles, “a district court should
grant a severance . . . only if there is a serious risk
that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial
right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury
from making a reliable judgment about guilt or
innocence.” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534,
539 (1993). This type of risk “might occur when
evidence that the jury should not consider against
a defendant and that would not be admissible if a
defendant were tried alone is admitted against a
1
https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-appendix/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure/title-iv-arraignment-and-preparation-for-trial/section-14-relief-from-prejudicial-joinder
https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-18-appendix/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure/title-iv-arraignment-and-preparation-for-trial/section-14-relief-from-prejudicial-joinder
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-dinkins#p368
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-medford-14#p753
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-lawson-34#p639
https://casetext.com/case/zafiro-v-united-states#p539
codefendant.” Id. And “[w]hen many defendants
are tried together in a complex case and they have
markedly different degrees of culpability, this risk
of prejudice is heightened.” Id. At the same time, a
defendant “must ‘establish that actual prejudice
would result from a joint trial . . . and not merely
that a separate trial would offer a better chance of
acquittal.'” United States v. Shealey, 641 F.3d 627,
632 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v.
Reavis, 48 F.3d 763, 767 (4th Cir. 1995)).
Defendant points to two kinds of prejudice that
will result from a joint trial here. First, she
contends that the conspiracy alleged in the
Indictment is analogous to the hub-and-spoke
conspiracy discussed in Kotteakos v. United
States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946), because the United
States has only alleged separate conspiracies
between Verdon Taylor and each co-defendant,
and *4 there are no facts connecting Defendant
with any of the other defendants besides Verdon
Taylor. As a result, there is a risk that the jury will
judge Defendant by her co-defendants’ actions
rather than her own. Mot. at 3-5. Second,
Defendant argues that the “evidentiary prejudices”
in her Motion in Limine also apply here—namely,
that the jury will hear evidence of the
approximately 27 fires not involving Defendant
even though such evidence would not be
admissible against her if she were tried alone. That
prejudice is heightened for the 4 fires alleged to be
purposeful or arson. Id. at 6-7.
4
Neither kind of prejudice is sufficient to justify
severance of Defendant’s trial. The first type of
prejudice depends entirely on the alleged
similarity of this case to Kotteakos. But whether
the two cases are, in fact, analogous is a fact
question that should not be resolved before trial.
The Court noted as much in its June 29 order
denying the motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 82 at
1. Furthermore, the number of defendants in
Kotteakos, 32, is far greater than the 5 co-
defendants being tried jointly here, so the scale of
the potential prejudice is reduced here.
The second type of prejudice is also an insufficient
basis for severance. As the United States notes, the
spillover prejudice from the admissibility of
evidence against other *5 defendants must be very
high to serve as a basis for severance. See United
States v. Qazah, 810 F.3d 879, 891 (4th Cir. 2015)
(evidence of co-defendant’s prior illegal conduct
and evidence recovered from search of co-
defendant’s house, which would have been
inadmissible if defendant seeking severance had
been tried alone, held “nowhere close” to
satisfying severance standard); United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 189 (4th Cir. 2007) (“Without
a strong showing of prejudice, severance is not
justified based on the mere disparity of the
evidence adduced against individual defendants.”).
At best, Defendant can show that there is some
disparity in the evidence admissible against the
co-defendants and against her specifically, but she
has not made any showing beyond that. And
Defendant plainly ignores the best, and most
practical, solution to the risk of prejudice she has
raised: a limiting instruction that the jury shall not
consider certain evidence against her. See Zafiro,
506 U.S. at 539 (“[L]ess drastic measures, such as
limiting instructions, often will suffice to cure any
risk of prejudice.”). *
6
5
6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, DEFENDANT MARIE
TAYLOR’S MOTION TO SEVER (ECF No. 100)
will be denied.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge Richmond,
Virginia
Date: October 10, 2017
2
United States v. Taylor Criminal No. 3:17-cr-29-004 (E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2017)
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-shealey-3#p632
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-reavis-3#p767
https://casetext.com/case/kotteakos-v-united-states-regenboge-v-same
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-qazah-5#p891
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-allen-54#p189
https://casetext.com/case/zafiro-v-united-states#p539
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-taylor-746
3
United States v. Taylor Criminal No. 3:17-cr-29-004 (E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2017)
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-taylor-746
FIR 4305, Fire Investigation and Analysis 1
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
4. Explain the legal foundation for conducting incendiary fire investigation and case preparation.
4.1 Explain the key elements involved in an arson scene investigation.
Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes
Learning Activity
4.1
Chapter 11
Unit IV Case Study
Chapter 11: Arson Crime Scene Analysis
Unit Lesson
Arson and Incendiary Fires
Arson is a serious problem in the United States and around the world. In the United States, a major problem
in determining the true extent of the problem is that most of the statistics are voluntarily collected, and for
many other reasons, arson is often not determined as the cause in incidents where it should be. Some of the
reasons for this are listed below.
• Some areas lack resources to investigate fires properly.
• Fire and suppression activities can destroy evidence.
• Prosecutors are sometimes reluctant to prosecute arson because of the difficulty of obtaining a
successful verdict.
Despite all of this, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that over one billion dollars a
year are lost due to intentionally setting fires in the United States (NFPA, 2017).
Arson is defined as the willful and deliberate destruction of property by fire. Although establishing a motive for
firesetting is not a legal requirement of the elements of the criminal offense, it can help focus investigative
efforts and aid in the prosecution of the arsonist. Motives for firesetting usually include one or more of the
following general categories: vandalism, excitement, revenge, crime concealment, profit, and political
terrorism. Arson without motive, also referred to as or pyromania, is not considered as an identifiable
classification.
Figure 4.1 below is a good illustration of some factors that may lead you, as the investigator, to develop a
working hypothesis involving an incendiary fire cause.
The investigator conducting the cause and origin investigation must not automatically assume that the fire is
incendiary just because one or more of these factors are seen; rather, the investigator should proceed with
the investigation while keeping in mind that an incendiary fire is a possibility. Preconceived ideas on the
cause or biases can derail an investigation before it has a chance to get going, so be sure to guard against
these traps. Some of these potential indicators will be discovered by the investigator, and others will be
UNIT IV STUDY GUIDE
Arson and/or Incendiary Fires and Their Investigation
FIR 4305, Fire Investigation and Analysis 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
passed along from bystanders, suppression crews, and witnesses, but all are just pieces of the puzzle that
the investigator must consider in a balanced and professional cause and origin investigation.
Arson Involving Multiple Fires
Arsonists are often involved in starting multiple fires; some fires may be started in different locations, some
may involve several fires at the same location, and some may involve fires being set with time between each
one. Below are the ways that these types of arsonists are classified.
A mass arson is an arsonist who sets three or more fires in one location with no cooling-off period.
A spree arson is an arsonist who sets three or more fires at separate locations with no cooling-off period.
A serial arson is an arsonist who sets three or more fires with a cooling-off period between fires.
Arson and incendiary fires are often confused. Arson fires are almost always incendiary, but incendiary fires
are frequently not arson. The difference lies in the motive, as both fires are set by people who know that the
fires should not be set (NFPA, 2017). The criminal act of arson is usually divided into three categories, which
are listed below (Icove & Haynes, 2018).
1. Burning of property is present: This must be shown to the court to be actual destruction—at least in
part; scorching or sooting alone would not qualify as destruction (although some states include any
physical or visible impairment of any surface). As used here, burning includes destruction by
explosion.
Figure 4.1: Factors for an incendiary fire or explosion
(Icove & Haynes, 2018, p. 666)
FIR 4305, Fire Investigation and Analysis 3
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
2. Burning is incendiary in origin: Proof of the existence of an effective incendiary device—no matter
how simple it may be—is adequate. Proof must be established by exhaustively considering all
hypotheses using the scientific method.
3. Burning is started with malice: The fire is started with the intent of destroying property (i.e., a person
starts a fire or causes an explosion with the purpose of destroying a structure with fire). The degree of
the arson charge in most jurisdictions has to do with the occupancy; first degree corresponds to an
occupied structure, second degree corresponds to an unoccupied structure, and third degree
corresponds to other property.
Examine the two examples below to help solidify the differences between incendiary and arson fires.
Scenario #1: An 8-year-old boy who is playing with matches catches a wastebasket on fire in his bedroom.
• Taking the subject’s age, motive, and intent into consideration, which fire cause classification would
you find the cause fits? (Remember the four fire cause classifications—accidental, incendiary,
natural, and undetermined).
• What are some possibilities in regard to motive for setting such a fire? What would you consider the
intent of the child in examining this fire?
• Finally, would age have any bearing on your conclusion as the cause classification of this fire?
Scenario #2: A homeowner begins to heat a pot of food on the stove, and then she leaves. Soon afterward, a
fire is noticed coming out the kitchen window and called in by a neighbor. Looking into the background of the
homeowner, you find several red flags, such as being several months behind in house payments as well as
several police reports of domestic incidents prior to the fire that might suggest a pending divorce.
• Which motive classifications can you think of in this situation?
• How would you classify the cause of the fire? How would you prove intent?
Motive and Classifications
Motive refers to the state of mind that exists when someone acts or fails to act in a given situation (Rider,
1980). It may be the reason that an individual or group may decide to act or not act. NFPA 1033: Standard for
Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator stresses the importance of determining motive, but it is not an
absolute necessity for prosecuting an arson case (NFPA, 2014). It does go a long way in ensuring the
evidence is complete and meets the evidentiary requirements for the jurisdiction in which you work. An axiom
from the world of prosecutors and defense attorneys is that motive in an arson case is the mortar that holds
the elements in place (Icove & Haynes, 2018).
To assist the investigator in determining motive for the crime of arson, a widely accepted set of ideas on
motive classifications has been synthesized into NFPA 921 where the following list of motive classifications
are available for the fire investigator to look into further, and these classifications are also covered in Chapter
11 of the textbook:
• vandalism,
• excitement,
• revenge,
• crime concealment,
• profit,
• extremist beliefs, and/or
• other.
To bring all of this together, every fire should have at least a basic cause and origin investigation done for
several reasons—one of which is to ensure that criminal activity is discovered and handed over to the
prosecutor so that justice can be done. We have established that arson is a very serious issue in America and
around the world. Arson is also widely accepted as one of the most difficult crimes to prosecute, so these
cases will test the fire investigator and the investigative processes like no other, as every step will be
scrutinized by the defense side of the case. By using the scientific method; following NFPA guidelines; and
adopting a consistent, thorough, and methodical approach to every fire, the investigator gives himself or
herself and the victims involved the best chance of finding the cause of the fire. Then, depending on the
FIR 4305, Fire Investigation and Analysis 4
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
jurisdiction, but generally working with law enforcement and the prosecutor’s office, the investigator will help
to see that justice is served and those responsible are held accountable.
References
Icove, D. J., & Haynes, G. A (2018). Kirk’s fire investigation (8th ed.). Pearson.
National Fire Protection Association. (2014). NFPA 1033: Standard for professional qualifications for fire
investigator.
National Fire Protection Association. (2017). NFPA 921: Guide for fire and explosion investigations.
Rider, A. O. (1980). The firesetter: A psychological profile. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49(6), 7–13.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/68373NCJRS
In order to access the following resource, click the link below.
For more in-depth information about arson fire statistics, you are encouraged to review the resource below.
Campbell, R. (2017, July). Intentional fires. https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-
statistics-and-reports/US-Fire-Problem/Fire-causes/osintentional
https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/US-Fire-Problem/Fire-causes/osintentional
