FA-78 / June 1988

ARSON PROSECUTION:

ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

Federal Emergency Management Agency

United States Fire Administration
This document was scanned from hard copy to portable document format (PDF)

and edited to 99.5% accuracy. Some formatting errors not detected during the

optical character recognition process may appear.
ARSON PROSECUTION:

ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

UNITEDSTATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

This publication was supported by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency/United States Fire

Administration grant No. EMW-86-C-2080. Its contents

do not necessarily represent the policy of the funding

agency. Moreover, the opinions and views expressed

herein should not be construed to represent the policy

of Abt Associates or the International Association of

Fire Chiefs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .........................................................

ARSON INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION CAN BE SUCCESSFUL ..........

THE KEY ISSUES OF ARSON PROSECUTION ................................

ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR IN ARSON INVESTIGATION ....................

Examining the Fire Scene ...........................................

Legal Issues Regarding Fire Scene Search ...........................

Cause-and-Origin Determination .....................................

Documenting the Fire Scene .........................................

Collecting and Analyzing Samples of Fire Debris .......................

Developing the Criminal Case ........................................

Identifying and Interviewing Witnesses .............................

Developing Evidence of Motive ....................................

Developing Investigative Reports ..................................

Timing of Arrests ...............................................

ARSON PROSECUTION ...................................................

Arson Prosecution Structure .........................................

Prosecutorial Case Screening ........................................

Determining the Mode of Charging: Grand Jury Versus

Preliminary Hearing ................................................

Statutes Applicable to Arson Prosecutors ..............................

State Arson Statutes .............................................

Other Laws .....................................................

Preparation of Witnesses ............................................

Trial Tactics ......................................................

Selecting the Jury ...............................................

Making Broader Use of Jury Selection ..............................

Opening Statement ..............................................

Order of Witnesses and Evidence Presentation .......................

Tactics for Particular Witness Types ...............................

Physical Evidence from the Fire ...................................

Tape Recordings, Photographs, Videotapes,

Diagrams and Architectural Models ................................

1

1

2

4

6

6

8

10

11

12

13

14

16

17

17

18

19

21

22

23

23

24

25

26

27

27

28

29

33

34
TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Page

Meeting Defenses ............................................... 35

Closing Argument ............................................... 38

JUVENILE CASES ........................................................ 38

APPENDIX A: MATRIX OF ISSUES AND SOURCES .......................... 40

REFERENCES ........................................................... 44
INTRODUCTION

This document is intended to provide concise practical and technical guidance

on arson prosecution. It draws heavily on state arson prosecutors’ guides and other

literature, and on presentations made at the first in a series of conferences for arson

prosecutors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Clynco, Georgia in

November 1985 which was jointly sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ),

U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF),

U.S. Department of the Treasury. These presentations have been separately

summarized in an NIJ report (Hammett, 1987).

This document also contains a guide to key literature on arson prosecution.

This guide, found in Appendix A, suggests specific readings for prosecutors desiring

additional information on the topics discussed in this document. Full citations to

materials cited in the text and in the guide to sources by topic may be found in the

references at the end of the report.

ARSON INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION CAN BE SUCCESSFUL

Many prosecutors believe that arson cases are heavily circumstantial and very

hard to win without specialized legal and technical expertise. Many arson cases do rely

on circumstantial evidence and involve technical issues of fire behavior. However,

research shows that prosecutorial success is eminently achievable in arson cases. On

the other hand, prosecutors may encounter particular difficulties in arson cases. Jurors

may have difficulty understanding the cases and judges may even be hostile to them,

believing that, absent death or injury, such cases belong in civil court with the

insurance company or property owner as plaintiff. As a result of these perceptions, it

may be difficult to get arson cases accepted for prosecution. Inexperienced prosecutors

may be particularly reluctant to accept arson cases,

Eyewitnesses to arson are rare and arson motives are often difficult to

identify and substantiate. Moreover, the incendiary origin of the fire is often difficult

to prove. Arson is unique in that the prosecutor must not only prove that a crime was

committed (by establishing incendiary origin) but also disprove other possible

explanations (by eliminating all accidental causes) (Maryland State’s Attorneys

Coordinator, 1981).

At first glance, the statistics of arson investigation and prosecution suggest

that arson is a difficult crime to investigate and prosecute. A National Institute of

1
Justice study of four cities found that suspects were identified in less than one-third of

the cases studied and in only four percent was any adult convicted of a crime.

(Hammett, 1984). Many of the unsolved fires occurred in vacant buildings with no

witnesses and no other information available to investigators. Such cases may be

essentially unsolvable.

Uniform Crime Reporting figures from the FBI show that only 19 percent of

reported arsons were cleared by arrest in 1985. This is comparable to the clearance

rates for property crimes such as burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft, but

much lower than rates for other violent crimes such as murder, rape, and aggravated

assault.

On the other hand, research in some cities shows that once an arson case is

accepted for prosecution, the conviction rate is at least as high as for other felonies.

While many of the cases accepted for prosecution in the NIJ study were simple and

straightforward, many others that resulted in prosecution and conviction were complex,

circumstantial cases. More than one-third of all convictions in this study were based

entirely on circumstantial evidence -- that is, cases with neither eyewitness testimony

nor a confession (Hammett, 1984).

There are many examples of entirely circumstantial arson cases that went to

trial and resulted in convictions, The following brief case summary suggests the kinds

of evidence that can bring a conviction in the hands of a skilled prosecutor:

On the basis of three key pieces of circumstantial evidence, the owner

of a house was convicted of burning it down: 1) through his own

admission, he was placed at the scene shortly before the fire; he

claimed he was washing dishes and someone threw a firebomb through

the window; 2) the prosecutor showed that no curved pieces of glass,

as would come from a broken bottle, were found in the room--only flat

pieces of glass; and 3) most important, pieces of ceiling tile burned on

the top but not on the bottom and a nail used to secure the tile in the

ceiling not burned on the head but with soot along its shaft, together

suggested that the ceiling had been pulled down prior to the fire to

facilitate its spread. This conflicted with the defendant’s contention

that the ceiling was intact at the time of the fire. (Contributed by

James Larkin, Assistant District Attorney, Suffolk County [Boston],

Massachusetts.)

THE KEY ISSUES OF ARSON PROSECUTION

Convictions can be obtained in arson cases if prosecutors and investigators

work cooperatively, and pursue cases with imagination and aggressiveness. The key

issues for arson investigators and prosecutors are how to develop and maintain such

2
cooperation, imagination, and aggressiveness. Some of the specific questions to be

explored in this document are the following:

when and how should the prosecutor become involved in the arson

investigation?--e.g., should prosecutors attend fire scenes and, if

so, which fire scenes?

what are the legal and constitutional requirements of a proper fire

scene search?

how can the prosecutor help ensure that a careful and thorough

scene examination is conducted?

how much detailed knowledge of fire cause-and-origin

determination must prosecutors possess to do their jobs properly?

what are the best ways to document the fire scene?

what are the key types of witnesses to identify and interview?

what are the best types of motive evidence and how can they be

developed?

what is the optimum degree of specialization in arson prosecution?

what are appropriate screening criteria for arson cases?

what is the most effective mode of charging--preliminary hearing

or grand jury?

what statutes are applicable to arson case charging?

what are the most effective ways of preparing witnesses for trial?

what types of jurors are likely to be most responsive to the

government’s arson case?

how can the prosecutor make best use of the opening statement

and closing argument?

What is the best sequence of prosecution witnesses?

What interrogation tactics are most effective for particular

witness types?

How can the prosecutor most effectively meet the most common

defenses in arson cases--e.g. alternative theory of cause-andorigin, alibis, intoxication, mental incapacity, insanity?

What procedures apply to juvenile arson cases?

On many of these issues, there appears to be broad consensus among experts,

while on others significant disagreement exists. This document presents the key points

of agreement and summarizes the key arguments where there is disagreement.

3
ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR IN ARSON INVESTIGATION

Perhaps the most important ingredient in successful arson prosecution is

effective cooperation and coordination between arson investigators and prosecutors.

Each brings a unique and critically important perspective and set of technical skills to

bear on a case. The investigator understands fire and arson investigation and the

prosecutor understands the legal requirements of arson prosecution. Failure to take

account of these perspectives or to mesh these skills can spell doom for an arson case.

Too often, however, this cooperation and coordination have been missing. The

NIJ study found that, in most jurisdictions, prosecutors are rarely involved in arson

cases until their formal presentation, In other words, the prosecutor normally does not

even see the case until it is fully developed and presented for screening (Hammett,

1984). At the same time, researchers have discovered rather low rates of investigative

success in arson cases. The NIJ study discovered that suspects were identified in only

29 percent of a four-city sample of arson fires (Hammett, 1984), while another found

that nearly twenty percent of a sample of cases drawn in eight cities were aborted due

to errors or oversights by investigators IMcClees, 1983). Both studies found that arrests

generally occurred early in an investigation, if they occurred at all. The one city of

those studied in which prosecutors were regularly involved in arson cases prior to arrest

exhibited high arrest and conviction rates compared to the other cities in the sample.

By contrast, the city in which arson investigators had the least contact with prosecutors

prior to case screening also exhibited the lowest conviction rates (McClees, 1983).

These findings point up the need for early coordination of effort between investigators

and prosecutors.

But what is the proper scope of such coordination? Should prosecutors

attempt to take control and supervise investigations from the start? This would likely

dissatisfy investigators. Alternatively, should prosecutors limit their involvement to

consultation and rendering of legal advice upon request?

State arson prosecution guides generally agree that the prosecutor should be

involved early in the case, ideally by attending the fire scene (e.g. California District

Attorneys Association, 1980; Burnette and Smith, 1980). Attendance at fire scenes and

other forms of early involvement in arson cases help the prosecutor in the following

ways (California District Attorneys Association, 1980 and Toscano in Hammett, 1987):

allows the prosecutor to see the evidence when it is fresh;

4
prepares the prosecutor for effective description of the fire to the

jury;

provides information for effective direct and cross-examination of

cause-and-origin witnesses;

helps the investigators at the scene “think like prosecutors” by

exposing them to the prosecutor’s evidentiary needs and concerns;

makes the prosecutor available to answer investigators’ legal

questions regarding

--search and seizure

--interrogation of witnesses

--arrest procedures, and

--evidence chain of custody;

helps ensure that all necessary evidence is collected and preserved;

helps ensure that all appropriate witnesses are identified and

interviewed;

helps ensure all relevant reports are obtained;

helps to maintain the continuity of case development;

ensures that cases are screened for weaknesses at an early point;

ensures that every effort is made to remedy identified evidentiary

problems before the case reaches trial;

helps ensure that proper priorities are established among

competing cases; and

helps ensure that all suspects and leads receive timely followup

action.

Clearly, prosecutors cannot, and probably need not, attend all fire scenes. It

is particularly important for the prosecutor to be involved from the very beginning in

complex arson-for-profit cases--to begin building such cases for trial starting at the

fire scene and to evaluate evidence in the field with a constant view to its ultimate

presentation in court (Connecticut Fire Inspector Joseph Toscano in Hammett, 1987).

Some objective criteria for prosecutor call-out should be established based on the

following:

fire seriousness (death, injury, number of alarms, estimated dollar

loss);

5
early assessment of case complexity (e.g. possibility of fraud or

profit motive, complex scene examination issues);

presence of challenging legal issues (search and seizure, security of

the fire scene);

identification of important witnesses; or

possibility of a confession.

Moreover, jurisdictions should define the scope of prosecutors’ involvement in

investigations. Based on organizational and experiential factors, jurisdictions should try

to specify the prosecutor’s role at the fire scene. Should they:

direct the investigation?

participate in the investigation? or

merely act as legal advisors on evidentiary and search-and-seizure

issues?

Examining the Fire Scene

The success or failure of an arson case may depend on the quality of the fire

scene examination. As legal advisor to the investigator, the prosecutor can and should

play an important role in this process. According to North Carolina state arson

investigator David Campbell, “if you don’t have a good cause-and-origin determination,

you don’t have corpus delecti, and if you don’t have corpus delecti you don’t have

anything” (Campbell in Hammett, 1987). If a quick confession is obtained, investigators

may neglect to conduct a thorough scene examination. This is extremely risky,

however, since the confession will be useless absent proof that a crime was committed.

Many arson cases have failed because the prosecutor could not convince the

jury that the fire was an arson. An effective scene examination requires that

investigators work cooperatively with prosecutors and firefighters to secure the scene

and conduct the search according to current legal requirements, and carefully develop

evidence of the fire’s cause and origin.

Legal Issues Regarding Fire Scene Search

When securing the fire scene and conducting their search, fire investigators

must understand and act in accordance with current caselaw. The two leading cases in

this area are Michigan v. Tyler [436 U.S. 499 (1978)] and Michigan v. Clifford [464 U.S.

6
287 (198], The major points in these cases are summarized in Figure 1. These cases

clarified some legal points regarding fire scene search but, as Figure 1 shows, left other

key points still unclear. Prosecutors must stay abreast of current caselaw in this area.

Several state arson prosecution guides contain good discussions of the Tyler

case and guidelines for conducting fire scene searches in accordance with the Tyler

doctrine (Texas District and County Attorneys Association, 1980; and Burnette and

Smith, 1980). The following ‘rules of thumb” are drawn from the Texas guide and from

the recommendations of experienced arson prosecutors (Texas District and County

Attorneys Association, 1980; ATF Regional Counsel Martin in Hammett, 1987):

Investigators should get to the scene as quickly as possible and stay

as long as possible.

Continuous security of the scene should be maintained so there can

be no later suggestion of tampering with evidence.

Investigators should conduct as thorough a search as possible as

quickly as possible so as not to overrun the “reasonable” period

permitted under caselaw.* If the investigators must leave the

scene before the examination is completed, the same personnel

should return to continue the investigation.

Investigators may wish to start the search in the area of the

building considered least likely to have been the origin of the fire

and finish with the areas considered most likely to have been the

origin. Thus, it may be possible to search virtually the entire

premises before encountering evidence requiring a warrant.

If the investigators must leave the scene before the cause-andorigin determination is completed, they should obtain an

administrative warrant before they return, rather than rely on the

uncertain “continuing investigation” theory. If they do attempt to

return without a warrant, the same personnel should return.

If investigators have to leave after discovering evidence of arson,

they should obtain a criminal evidentiary search warrant before

returning. Due to the uncertainty regarding the definition of

probable cause, investigators should assume that it exists when the

nature of the investigation changes from general fire investigation

to collection of arson evidence.

One way to avoid legal problems in a fire scene search is to obtain

a clearly drawn owner’s consent. It is important that the consent

document be very clear as to who is permitted to conduct the

search and what period of time is covered. Finally, in order for

the consent to be proper, all owners with a right to privacy in the

*For a discussion of caselaw on this point, see 4 ALR 4th 194.

7
Figure 1: The Tyler and Clifford Decisions

During Fire

suppression

“Reasonable time”

after extinguishment

of firea

After expiration of

“reasonable time”

“Continuing”

Investigation

Tyler Clifford

No warrant required Same as Tyler

Investigators may remain to search for evidence of fire cause

Investigators may seize

evidence in “plain

view” (such evidence

will be admissible)

Warrantb or written

consent of owner required to continue

search

Definition unclear --

first warrantless return

was proper but subsequent returns were

improper absent a

warrant

Discovery of evidence

constituting “probable

cause” of arson c

Not applicable

Same as Tyler

Same as Tyler

Same as Tyler

If investigators

ever leave, they

cannot return

without a warrant

When such evidence

is discovered,

warrant or consent

is required

a

 Definition of “reasonable time” is unclear. For a discussion of caselaw on

this point, see 4 ALR 4th 194.

b

 Type of warrant required is unclear, Generally speaking, an administrative

warrant should be obtained in order to continue a cause-and-origin

investigation and a criminal warrant should be obtained for additional

investigation after evidence of arson has been discovered at the scene.

c

 Definition of such evidence is unclear.

7 a
building must be identified and must sign the document.

Connecticut fire investigator Joseph Toscano notes that he has

never been refused when he asked an owner’s consent (Toscano in

Hammett, 1987).

The safest approach is to obtain a warrant at the outset.

Prosecutors' offices and investigative agencies should work together to

develop policies for fire scene security and evidence collection that take account of the

key caselaw in this area. This is an evolving area which requires regular attention if

potentially damaging investigative errors are to be avoided.

One final legal issue regarding scene examination should be mentioned.

Prosecutors must avoid becoming witnesses at the scene, and thus disqualifying

themselves from prosecuting cases (Gelband, 1980). This situation may be avoided if

the prosecutor is always accompanied by an investigator at the scene, in which case the

investigator can always testify to any necessary fact or point of evidence.

Cause-and-Origin Determination

Prosecutors should be familiar with the key technical aspects of fire causeand-origin determination. This enables them to:

properly evaluate the case;

offer guidance to the investigators on strengthening the evidence

of incendiary origin; and

present this evidence clearly and understandably in court.

Incredibly, there have been instances in which an arsonist confessed but the

case was dismissed because a cause-and-origin determination had never been done on

the fire.* An informed and involved prosecutor would probably have prevented this

from happening.

The following summary of the essentials of cause-and-origin determination is

intended to familiarize prosecutors with key aspects of cause-and-origin

determination. (North Carolina fire investigator David Campbell in Hammett, 1987).

Investigators should “read the scene” from the outside in--that is,

they should begin with examination of windows and doors for signs

of forcible entry and the exterior of the building for evidence of

unusual fire load or burn patterns and then move to the interior to

*State v. Brown, 308 NC 181, 301 S.E. 2d 89 (North Carolina, 1983).

8
search for the fire’s point(s) of origin and ignition factor.

Investigators should concentrate their search on the floor level

which is most protected from fire damage and thus most likely to

yield evidence of the presence of accelerants.

Investigators must conduct their cause-and-origin determination in

light of the basic principles of fire behavior, i.e.,

--the need for heat, fuel and oxygen, and

--the tendency of fire to burn up and out, following the path of

least resistance.

Investigators should watch for the following types of unnatural

burning which strongly suggest that an accelerant was used:

(Campbell in Hammett, 1987):

--deep charring. Standard depth is one inch for every 45

minutes of freeburning. (This guideline refers to white pine

or similar wood; it should be adjusted for harder or softer

woods.)

--“alligatoring” (char patterns) on wood. The size of the blister

suggests intensity of the heat, Alligatoring low with large

welts is an unnatural burn pattern.

--“v-patterns” up and out on the wall or other surface above the

point of origin. A wide sweeping v-pattern indicates a slower

burn based on available combustibles while a narrow or

inverted V indicates a much faster burn based on an

accelerant.

--holes in the floor, especially with edges bevelled out

(indicating the wicking effect of a flammable liquid), are

almost always suspicious, considering fire’s natural tendency

to burn up and out.

--the condition of glass, which can show where the fire was

most intense. Different types of marking or breaking are

associated with different temperature ranges and the

presence of different types of flammable materials. For

example, a light soot present on a window may represent

hydrocarbons from a petroleum product.

investigators should also watch for other important indicators of

incendiary origin, such as:

--multiple points of origin (although investigators should be sure

to consider the possibility of a natural “flashover” in the

course of a fire),

--evidence of “trailers” or pours of flammable liquid, and

9
--ignition devices.

As noted earlier, arson cases are unique in that “the prosecutor bears not only

the burden of proof but also the burden of disproof.” That is, the prosecution must

establish, within a reasonable doubt, not only that the fire was incendiary but also that

it was not accidental. This means eliminating all accidental causes to the satisfaction

of the jury (Maryland State’s Attorneys Coordinator, 1981). This is one of the areas of

the prosecution’s case that is most often vulnerable to defense attack, and the

prosecutor should go over this in detail with the investigator at an early point in case

development. In their scene examination, investigators must pay particular attention to

the following possible elements of accidental cause:

flammable liquids which may be legitimately present;

the configuration and condition of electric service and appliances;

and

the possibility that careless disposal of smoking materials was

involved.

Documenting the Fire Scene: Photographs and Videotape

Investigators should carefully document their observations at the fire scene

with still photographs and, if the scene examination is complex, with videotape.

Photographs and videotapes should:

be able to tell the story of the fire from beginning to end; and

be carefully shot to present the clearest view possible of the

factors leading to the investigator’s conclusion regarding the cause

and origin of the fire.

Photographs may also help to clarify investigative terms and techniques for

the jurors (Burnette and Smith, 1980). A prosecutor at the fire scene may be able to

recommend particular views and camera angles that will present the evidence to best

advantage in court. However, investigators and prosecutors should be aware that, in

some jurisdictions, telephoto and wide angle shots may be excluded unless their use can

be specifically justified. Prosecutors may be able to provide legal guidance on the

sufficiency of the justification for employing such photographic shots.

There is some disagreement on the relative value of color versus black-andwhite photographs of the fire scene. Some investigators and prosecutors believe that

color photographs are most effective, while others believe that black-and-white

10
provides better contrast and shows burn and fire patterns to best advantage. One

experienced prosecutor believes that both color and black-and-white photographs should

be taken of fire victims. Thus, if the judge excludes the more dramatic color

photographs as prejudicial, the prosecutor will still have the black-and-white pictures as

a backup (New Haven Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Calvin in Hammett, 1987).

Collecting and Analyzing Samples of Fire Debris

Laboratory analysis of fire debris may yield powerful evidence of incendiary

origin. However, there is some question as to how frequently samples are even

collected or analyzed in arson investigations. A recent study of arson prosecution

discovered a “surprisingly” low reliance on laboratory analysis of fire debris in

establishing incendiary origin. Only about 7 percent of the cases studied included such

evidence. Samples should be collected and analyzed in as many cases as possible, in

order to:

buttress the prosecution case; and

demonstrate that a complete and professional fire scene

examination was conducted (Hammett, 1984).

Investigators should employ proper techniques to collect and preserve samples

of fire debris. Much effort may be wasted at the fire scene if investigators do not know

where to look for the best samples. Experienced arson investigators believe that the

most promising areas may be the following (Campbell in Hammett, 1987):

low places such as beneath carpets, carpet pads and baseboards,

and

since flammable liquids are lighter than water, samples should be

taken from the surface of standing water in a basement using a

gauze pad or similar absorbent.

Samples must be packaged and preserved so that none of the liquid or vapor is

lost or adulterated either before laboratory analysis or between analysis and

presentation of the sample to the jury in court. For example, the ATF laboratory

prefers the following (ATF Laboratory Director Daniel Garner in Hammett, 1987).

clean paint cans,

glass jars (mason jars), or

polyester nylon bags.

11
Investigators must insure that the proper chain of custody is maintained and

documented for samples of fire debris and all other evidence. All too often, important

evidence is excluded because the prosecution cannot document chain of custody. Early

involvement by the prosecutor can be helpful in ensuring that the chain of custody is

preserved and properly documented.

The laboratory analysis of fire debris is a highly technical scientific field.

While prosecutors probably need not possess detailed knowledge of all aspects of fire

debris analysis, they should know enough of the essentials to be knowledgeable in

examining and cross-examining witnesses on the subject. (For a concise discussion of

the subject, see Gaensslen and Lee, 1986.) The director of the ATF laboratory

estimates that, in about 85-90 percent of arson cases, gas chromatography is sufficient

to identify the substance in a sample. However, in the remaining l0-15 percent of the

cases, computer-assisted gas chromatography/mass spectrometry is necessary because

the presence of pyrolysis products (products created by the process of burning) in the

sample render the chromatogram uninterpretable. While the ATF laboratory generally

can make a fairly specific identification of the substance (i.e. gasoline, light petroleum

distillate, medium petroleum distillate, heavy petroleum distillate), some other

laboratories may not be able to be so specific. However, investigators should inform

laboratory staff of their views or suspicions concerning the identity of the substance,

since analyses can be set up to seek out specific substances (Garner in Hammett,

1987).

Developing the Criminal Case

At the fire scene and during the criminal investigation, the prosecutor can

assist the investigator in building a case which will be effective in the courtroom. It is

important to emphasize at the outset that the criminal investigation and the cause-andorigin determination are not separate stages. Rather, the chances of investigative and

prosecutorial success will be maximized if they proceed simultaneously and, indeed,

interdependently. The scene examination may yield important clues for the criminal

investigation and vice versa. For example, a particular type of fire may suggest or

eliminate a particular motive or class of suspects (Pisani, 1982). Building the criminal

case involves:

identifying and interrogating witnesses;

developing evidence of arson motive;

12
preparing complete and well-organized investigative reports; and

timing arrests to best advantage.

Identifying and Interviewing Witnesses

Key witness types include:

firefighters; (especially “first-in” firefighters)

eyewitnesses;

property owners;

spectators at the fire;

victims;

neighbors; and

business associates.

It is desirable to interview as many witnesses as possible at the fire scene. There are a

number of reasons for this:

some witnesses may be reluctant to talk later;

the information is fresher; and

suspects have less opportunity to plan possible alibis.

Witnesses at the fire scene should be asked about any suspicious people or suspicious

behavior observed at or near the scene immediately before or during the fire.

“First-in” firefighters should always be interviewed. They can often provide

valuable information on the appearance of the fire and the condition of doors and

windows.

Alibi witnesses should be interviewed as quickly as possible after they are

identified. These interviews should probe the account in detail, thus providing as many

opportunities as possible to check the internal consistency of these witnesses’

statements. * Finally, investigators should record their interviews with suspects and

*The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has developed standard

questions for various witness types at fire scenes, including firefighters, property

owners, insurance personnel, neighbors, and general observers.

13
potentially hostile witnesses. Recordings are often useful in catching and documenting

inconsistencies in a witness’ story (Galvin and Toscano in Hammett, 1987).

Prosecutors should encourage investigators to keep track of the subsequent

whereabouts of all witnesses. This will facilitate recontacts for additional questioning

as well as notification and followup regarding court appearances.

Developing Evidence of Motive

Motive is not normally a required element of the crime in arson cases.

However, motive evidence has very important persuasive value in many prosecutions.

This importance is heightened in arson cases because of the frequent lack of direct

evidence linking the defendant to the crime (Texas District and County Attorneys

Association, 1980).

A wide range of evidence types have been held admissible by courts in the

establishment of arson motive. In commercial arsons, evidence of motive may include:

depleted inventories;

overvalued stock;

poor business conditions;

change in character of the neighborhood; or

overinsurance.

In residential arsons, motive may be shown by:

physical condition of the property (deterioration or other

indications of disinvestment);

problems in selling the building;

owner’s desire to move from the area; or

evidence of domestic problems.

The Florida arson prosecutors’ guide presents a useful summary of caselaw on the

admissibility of these types of motive evidence (Burnette and Smith, 1980, pp. 4B-9 to

4B-11).

Insurance Evidence. Evidence of arson motive may be developed from many

different sources. Perhaps the most promising source is the insurance industry.

14
Insurance companies may have a significant advantage over public investigators in the

examination of the fire scene and the collection of information and documents from the

insured because of the terms of the insurance contract. The contract explicitly grants

the company the right to enter the premises to investigate fire cause and to examine

the insured under oath (Attorney David Strawbridge in Hammett, 1987). Moreover,

insurance companies may often have more resources than public agencies to apply to an

arson investigation once they are convinced that it is worth pursuing.

Several potentially valuable types of materials may be available from

insurance companies:

policies (including all declarations and endorsements);

applications;

risk inspection reports;

photographs of the property;

records of premium payments;

claims history;

statements under oath; sworn proofs of loss;

underwriting files;

loss prevention reports; and

investigative reports (Bruce Bogart, American Insurance

Association, in Hammett, 1987).

Public officials are likely to be most successful in obtaining these documents

from insurance companies if they work through the company’s legal department and

make all requests for materials in writing (Strawbridge in Hammett, 1987).Furthermore,

all fifty states have now passed some form of Arson Reporting-Immunity Law. These

laws are intended to encourage information exchange between insurers and public

investigators by freeing companies of liability associated with releasing information on

their insureds. Immunity laws have facilitated many arson investigations. However,

many companies and public investigative agencies continue to be very cautious about

sharing information (for a full discussion of immunity laws, see Hammett, [1987a]).

Insurance information may be useful not only in establishing motive, but also

in uncovering inconsistencies useful to the state’s case in any aspect of the suspect’s

account. Careful examination may often detect contradictions between information in

15
insurance documents and the defendant’s interview statements. Moreover, any false

statements found in insurance applications (e.g., regarding previous fires, valuation of

property) may also be useful to the prosecutor (Galvin in Hammett, 1987).

Other Evidence Sources. There are a number of other useful sources of motive

evidence for the development of arson cases. The following types of documents may be

particularly valuable: (Panneton in Hammett, 1987).

bank records: mortgage information, loan applications, payment

records;

property conveyances: ownership history, recent ownership

transactions, sales prices;

property tax records: property valuation, arrearages, abatements,

tax liens, tax foreclosures;

income tax returns: under-reporting of income;

incorporation records: information on corporations, partnerships,

annual reports versus sales tax reports;

court records: litigation, bankruptcy, divorce;

code inspection reports: violations, citations, photographs and

plans, building permits;

fire department records: fire history, safety code violations.

licensing records: liquor license applications, names of corporate

officials/partners; and

utility records: payment history, service interruptions.

Developing Investigative Reports

The value of an arson investigative effort--no matter how well it was

conducted--may be seriously reduced if it is not effectively documented in reports

presented to the prosecutor. In the preparation of their reports, investigators should

try to think like prosecutors and consider the most effective way to present the

evidence in court. By laying out the case logically and clearly in their reports,

investigators will maximize the likelihood that it will be accepted for prosecution

(Hammett, 1984). Arson investigation units should consider providing training on the

preparation of effective case reports. Prosecutors should certainly play a key role in

such training, explaining to investigators how their reports can be made most useful in

the case preparation process.

16
Prosecutors may also ensure that all critical investigative tasks are assigned

and accomplished, so that all evidence, exhibits and witnesses are fully prepared for

trial.

Timing of Arrests

There is a particular need for coordination between prosecutors and

investigators in the timing of arrests, especially in complex arson-for-profit cases. It

may be risky to rush the arrest in an arson-for-profit case. Instead, the prosecutor

should probably wait at least until the property owner files an insurance claim, so that,

if he or she inflates the loss, it becomes possible to charge insurance fraud in addition

to, or instead of, arson.

Moreover, it may be important to “turn” the torch into a state’s witness and

“wire” him so that incriminating statements made by the target of the investigation

may be captured on tape. It takes time and patience to develop a case in this fashion

and a premature arrest may irreparably harm a carefully and painstakingly developed

investigation. (Bronx Assistant District Attorney Barry Kluger in Hammett, 1987).

Another potential advantage of delaying arrest is that it allows repeated interviewing

of suspects, thus increasing the probability that they will make false or inconsistent

statements (Calvin in Hammett, 1987).

ARSON PROSECUTION

As stated at the outset, convictions can be obtained in arson cases despite the

peculiar difficulties often associated with them. For example, a recent study of arson

prosecution found that once an arson case was accepted for prosecution, the conviction

rate was 79 percent--at least as high as for other felonies--although the conviction rate

in cases reaching trial was only 58 percent, somewhat below equivalent rates for other

felony case categories in most jurisdictions (Hammett, 1984). Another study discovered

that 61 percent of the charged defendants were convicted (McClees, 1983). The first

study attributed its high conviction rates to the fact that most cases accepted for

prosecution were simple and straightforward. Complex fraud cases accounted for only

nine percent of the prosecuted cases in the study.

This section discusses the major issues in arson prosecution, including:

degree of specialization;

prosecutorial screening;

17
charging modes;

preparation of witnesses; and

trial tactics.

Arson Prosecution Structure

The major issue regarding the organization of arson prosecution is the degree

of specialization necessary for effective prosecution of cases. If it can be

accommodated within the overall structure of the office, a certain degree of

specialization is probably desirable (Hammett, 1984). The California arson prosecutors

guide argues that every office, no matter how small, should assign and train at least one

attorney to handle arson cases. Moreover, the guide recommends vertical prosecution

of arson cases--i.e., the same attorney or attorneys prosecute the case from start to

finish (California District Attorneys Association, 1980). There are a number of

arguments in favor of specialization (Hammett, 1984):

the complexity and technical challenges presented by some arson

cases;

the greater likelihood of specialized prosecutors developing close

and regular working relationships with arson investigators;

the desirability of improving relatively low trial conviction rates;

the increasing skill and experience of the defense bar in arson

cases;

the opportunity for specialized prosecutors to become familiar

with the arguments and strategies used by defense cause-andorigin experts; and

the opportunity for prosecutors to develop and maintain close

working relationships with insurance companies.

Hammett (1984) identifies the following basic typology of arson prosecution

structures:

Non-Specialized/Horizontal, in which there is no specialization by

case type and a different attorney handles each major stage of the

case. This is the most economical structure for criminal

prosecution but it affords no opportunity for the development of

the specialized expertise or ongoing relationships with

investigators which may be very important in complex arson cases,

1 8
Specialized/Vertical, in which the same prosecutor or unit in the

office handles all arson cases and each case is handled by a single

attorney from start to finish. This organization allows for the

maximum specialization, but it may in fact constitute “overkill”

since many arson cases are simple and straightforward and really

do not require a specialized prosecutor.

Non-Specialized/Vertical, in which a single prosecutor handles

each case from start to finish but there is no specialization by case

type. The major weakness of this system is that complex arsonfor-profit cases may receive no specialized handling and there is

ostensibly little opportunity for expertise to develop. However,

informal arson specialization may develop under this approach.

“Hybrid” prosecution, in which a designated attorney or unit

screens all arson cases, vertically prosecutes all complex cases and

other cases presenting challenging legal or technical issues, and

passes the rest on to the office’s general crimes processing

stream. Although this approach may only be feasible in fairly

large off ices, it seems to offer the best of both worlds--

specialization and efficiency (Hammett, 1984). The hybrid

structure also affords the greatest potential for developing

consistent and realistic screening of arson cases and for building

close productive relationships between prosecutors and

investigators.

Prosecutorial Case Screening

The major issues regarding prosecutorial screening of arson cases are:

the criteria for case acceptance;

the timing of screening; and

the structure of screening,

According to two recent studies, most arson cases presented to prosecutors were filed

in court. One study found that 66 percent of all arson arrestees in the sampled cases

were charged while, in another, 76 percent of adult arson cases presented for

prosecution were accepted (McClees, 1983; Hammett, 1984). Thus, it might appear that

there is little to fault in the screening process and that the most severe problems arise

in the investigative phase--that is, developing a case to the point that it is worthy of

presentation to the prosecutor.

However, upon further consideration, it appears that there may be some

deficiencies in the screening of arson cases. Although prosecutors may disagree on the

correctness of this approach, they generally take a very conservative approach to

screening arson cases (Hammett, 1984). Fully sixty percent of filed cases in this study

19
included direct evidence (in the form of a confession or eyewitness testimony) and the

vast majority included circumstantial evidence in all three key categories: incendiary

origin, motive, and opportunity. Rejected cases tended to .include circumstantial

evidence but no direct evidence. However, one city in the study (Cleveland) represents

an instructive exception. Here, a much higher percentage of filed cases were based

entirely on circumstantial evidence, yet this city exhibited the highest conviction rate

in the study. Based on this evidence, the study urges prosecutors to adopt a more

venturesome approach in accepting and trying “marginal” cases which rest on

circumstantial evidence (Hammett, 1984).

In addition, the adoption of formal and specific screening criteria for arson

cases can help to reduce subjectivity and inconsistency in the screening process. Such

criteria should constitute a systematic method of

evaluating evidence in key areas such as incendiary origin, motive,

and opportunity;

assessing the reliability and credibility of witnesses and the

evidence corroborating co-conspirator testimony; and

taking account of categorical factors such as the seriousness of the

fire (Hammett, 1984).

Some experienced arson prosecutors echo the call for more venturesome

screening, while others urge a more cautious approach. The authors of the California

arson prosecutors guide recommend that a case should be declined outright only if the

commission of a crime cannot be established or the evidence is irreparably weak

(California District Attorneys Association, 1980). Some prosecutors’ offices accept a

case if there is a “reasonable probability of conviction,” meaning credible evidence of

incendiary origin and one of the following: documented lies by the defendant, evidence

of motive, or evidence of opportunity (Galvin in Hammett, 1987). However, in some

jurisdictions, such an evidence combination is not considered to produce a reasonable

likelihood of conviction. Obviously, prosecutors must always act in accordance with the

standards applicable in their jurisdictions.

A common argument for venturesome screening is that it might help to deter

arsonists--especially arsonists-for-profit. Many prosecutors believe that they have a

responsibility to the public to heighten this deterrence by accepting--and winning--

difficult cases (Calvin in Hammett, 1987). Moreover, this will produce more guilty

pleas.

20
Interestingly, it is sometimes argued that a circumstantial case may be

stronger than a case with direct evidence from an informant or a “torch” turned state’s

evidence because there is no problem with the evidence being tainted by ulterior

motives. In other words, facts do not lie the way people can lie. (Kluger in Hammett,

1987).

On the other hand, prosecutors must be careful not to jeopardize their

credibility with judges by prosecuting cases that are too weak, More importantly, they

should never lose sight of their responsibility to protect potential defendants from

unreasonable prosecution. In short, ventursome screening should never become reckless

screening, and should always adhere to legal and prosecutorial standards of ethics.

It seems particularly useful to have prosecutors informally evaluate cases

prior to their formal presentation so that investigators may take appropriate action to

correct deficiencies. Based on a thorough review of potentially applicable offenses and

their elements, the prosecutor may be able to suggest untapped avenues of investigation

and additional statutes to explore in charging the defendant (California District

Attorneys Association, 1980).

Finally, jurisdictions should develop a structure for arson case screening that

best meets their organizational requirements while addressing the technical issues

posed by arson cases. Recent research shows that development of close working

relationships between investigators and prosecutors may be facilitated, and more

effective and consistent case screening, by employing a centralized/specialized or at

least a centralized system--that is, in which all cases are screened by the same

attorney or unit in the prosecutor’s office (Hammett, 1984).

Determining the Mode of Charging: Grand Jury Versus Preliminary Hearing

Statute and case law differ widely regarding modes of charging, Some states

are essentially preliminary hearing/information states, some are essentially grand

jury/indictment states, while others require both a preliminary hearing and a grand jury

indictment, and still others leave substantial discretion in this matter to the prosecutor,

Most experts urge prosecutors to avoid the preliminary hearing in arson cases,

if at all possible, and to take their case directly to a grand jury. The grand jury has the

following advantages:

the secrecy of the grand jury proceeding helps to protect the

prosecution’s case from exposure or damage. This is particularly

important in delicate cases resting on the testimony of “turned”

co-conspirators,

21
the investigative powers of the grand jury are particularly well

suited to the development of complex arson-for-profit cases

requiring numerous witnesses and substantial documentary

evidence (California District Attorneys Association, 1980).

On the other hand, if a prosecutor must go to a preliminary hearing, the

following potential advantages should not be overlooked. The preliminary hearing may:

screen out weak cases that should not go further;

encourage better early evaluation of cases;

induce pleas;

test prosecution and defense witnesses;

discover defense theories of cases; and

preserve evidence; for example, if an eyewitness testifies and is

cross-examined at the preliminary hearing and then fails to show

up at the trial, his or her preliminary hearing testimony will

probably be admissible.

It appears that one school of thought favors aggressive use of the preliminary

hearing to test witnesses. On the other hand, some experts argue that only the

minimum necessary to satisfy the burden of proof should be presented at a preliminary

hearing so as not to provide the defense with early discovery. This is an important

tactical choice for the prosecutor to make (California District Attorneys Association,

1980).

Statutes Applicable to Arson Prosecutions

Whatever mode of charging is dictated or selected, the prosecutor must be

thoroughly familiar with all applicable statutes. The California arson prosecutors guide

notes that charging philosophy differs from place to place, but generally urges charging

the most serious and provable offense, together with other offenses the proof of which

will tend to strengthen the case on the lead charge (California District Attorneys

Association, 1980). Obviously, the range of available and applicable laws differs from

jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This section discusses the types of laws that tend to be

available in most jurisdictions (Hammett, 1987):

2 2
State Arson Statutes

Previous studies have strongly recommended that arson laws be toughened,

that loopholes be removed, and that the profit be taken out of arson” by statutory

means. These legislative changes have largely been accomplished. It remains for them

to be aggressively implemented by investigators and prosecutors. Hammett notes that

arson statutes in the four jurisdictions studied had been considerably tightened in recent

years, particularly with respect to arson-for-profit. Another study of eight cities

concludes that "[e]xisting loopholes neither drastically interfere with arson

investigations nor regularly undermine prosecution. Far more important is the quality

and quantity of the investigations that do take place, and of the prosecutions that

follow.” (Hammett, 1984; McClees, 1983)

The state arson prosecution guides cited in this report all contain god

discussions of their states’ arson statutes and the required elements of proof.

Summaries of caselaw are also provided in these state guides.

Other Laws

Other laws besides the basic arson statutes may be useful in prosecuting

arson. These include the following (Hammett, 1987):

Insurance fraud statutes: These may be included in basic arson

statutes or be separately enacted. They generally cover making

false statements on applications, filing false claims, and the like.

Mail fraud statutes: Federal mail fraud statutes may be applicable

if any false statement or fraudulent document, such as an

insurance application, proof of loss or claim was sent through the

mail. Even if the document was hand-delivered or sent by a

private delivery service, mail fraud may apply if a confirmation

copy was returned to the sender by regular mail.

Reckless endangerment statutes: In New York and some other

states, reckless endangerment laws may be used if an arson charge

is not possible for lack of evidence of intent. In addition, courts in

some states have applied the reckless endangerment law to the

situation of firefighters, thus circumventing the “firemens rule.”

This held that no one could be held liable for death or injury to a

firefighter unless it was the result of an intentional act.

Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes:

State and federal RICO laws may apply to arson-for-profit

conspiracies. The civil (treble damages) provisions, although often

difficult and complex to apply, may offer a promising strategy for

taking the profit out of arson and having a more lasting impact on

the arsonist (Maryland State’s Attorney Coordinator, 1981).

2 3
Criminal and civil forfeiture provisions: Under the federal

Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the assets of certain

arsonists may be forfeitable.

Depending on the legal environment in their states, prosecutors may be able to employ

other types of laws in arson cases,

Preparation of Witnesses

There is strong agreement among prosecutors on the need for thorough pretrial preparation of all witnesses in arson cases. This should occur individually as well

as collectively. Individual preparation can

iron out weaknesses in the testimony of weaknesses; and

prepare witnesses for particular lines of cross-examination.

It may also be helpful to gather all witnesses together in one room to explain how all

their testimony fits together. Such group sessions may also bring out new information.

Careful preparation is particularly important for witnesses whose testimony

will be technical or unusually complex, such as investigators testifying on the cause and

origin of the fire and laboratory chemists testifying on the analysis of fire debris.

Thorough pretrial preparation should:

ensure that the prosecutor knows what the witness is and is not

prepared to say on the stand; and

prevent any unfortunate surprises at trial.

During preparation, each witness should be led through his or her testimony, ideally

proceeding from point to point by means of photographs and other exhibits. This

evidence will help the witness keep the overall theory of the case, as well as key

details, firmly in mind. (California District Attorneys Association, 1980; Galvin,

Garner, Kluger, and Toscano in Hammett, 1987).

Evidence on fire cause and origin can be complicated and confusing,

Moreover, these complexities may be exploited by defense counsel to induce doubt in

the minds of jurors regarding the incendiary origin of the fire. Thus, prosecutors should

prepare their cause-and-origin witnesses:

“to make their court presentations as clear and intelligible as

possible” (Hammett, 1984). The prosecutor should ensure that the

expert witness can speak effectively in layperson’s terms--that is,

24
avoiding technical jargon (California District Attorneys

Association, 1980).

to be an entertaining witness who can tell the story effectively and

hold the jury’s interest (Burnette and Smith, 1980).

The prosecutor should also obtain from all expert witnesses full resumes of

their qualifications well in advance of trial. These should include:

formal degrees;

other education and training programs attended;

publications;

job experience, and

court qualifications as an expert witness (Campbell in Hammett,

1987).

This information will assist prosecutors in qualifying experts at trial. Prosecutors

should pay particular attention to the witness’ practical experience in fire investigation,

which is often more extensive and important than the individual’s formal educational

background.

Trial Tactics

The following are general recommendations for approaching an arson trial

(California District Attorneys Association, 1980):

develop a theme or short phrase for repeated use in describing the

case;

identify a victim with whom the jury will sympathize: an injured

firefighter; elderly tenant; child’s pet; but not an insurance

company;

get excited about the case;

get organized--e.g., break the presentation of the case down into

major “acts”; repare detailed outlines of the testimony of each p

witness cross-referenced to relevant documents;

stress the seriousness of the crime of arson throughout the court

presentation. As noted earlier, many potential jurors and even

judges consider arson to be primarily a property crime in which the

main victim is the insurance company;

25
assemble and use at trial a list of basic facts and statistics on

arson that clearly demonstrate its devastating human, economic,

and social impacts;:

--deaths and injuries to civilians and firefighters;

--lost tax revenues;

--urban decay and deterioration;

--lost housing stock;

--lost jobs and earnings;

--increased insurance premiums for everyone.

Make the point should be made that arson ultimately effects

everyone in the community;

Plan ways to “transport” the jury to the scene of the fire. One

experienced arson prosecutor stresses the importance of presenting

evidence in all sensory dimensions--sight, smell, sound and touch--

that evokes the fire scene as persuasively and graphically as

possible;

Use to best advantage a powerful hero figure-the firefighter

(Calvin in Hammett, 1987).

Selecting the Jury

Prosecutors should give careful consideration to selecting types of jurors most

likely to be responsive to the state’s arson case. Obviously, jury selection must be

tailored to each particular case. Ironclad principles cannot be enunciated. However,

prosecutors may wish to consider the following list of potentially desirable juror types

in arson cases (Galvin in Hammett, 1987; Burnette and Smith, 1980):

fire victims or relatives/friends of fire victims;

residents of the neighborhood where the fire occurred or of

neighborhoods with serious fire problems;

people who have read about the arson problem;

applied scientists (they will be likely to identify with the causeand-origin investigator);

firefighters or relatives of firefighters (they are part of a

“brotherhood that sticks together”);

insurance company employees;

2 6
people with accounting or banking backgrounds, particularly in

complex arson-for-profit cases;

well-educated people (because arson evidence is often complex);

political liberals, particularly in landlord arson-for-profit cases

(because they are extremely hostile to slumlords).

elderly women living alone, particularly in spite-and-revenge

cases.

Some prosecutors have expressed concern that several of these juror types--in

particular, victims and their relatives/friends and firefighters and their

relatives/friends--are likely to challenged by the defense. Moreover, there is some

disagreement about the desirability of selecting scientists or persons with a scientific

bent to arson juries. One arson prosecution guide suggests that such individuals may

tend to second-guess and be suspicious of the government’s cause-and-origin witness.

This guide also recommends that any prospective jurors who express reservations about

cases built on circumstantial evidence and cases built on co-conspirator testimony

should be peremptorily challenged (California District Attorneys Association, 1980).

Making Broader Use of Jury Selection

If it is permitted in their jurisdiction, prosecutors should also take a broader

view of the jury selection process. It should be considered not only as a means to select

jury members but also as an opportunity to educate the jurors about arson and cases

relying on circumstantial evidence. The following points should be made:

arson is not just another category of fire, but rather a violent

crime;

circumstantial cases are often stronger than cases resting on

direct testimonial evidence; and

(in cases relying to any degree on co-conspirator testimony) anyone

is capable of lying or telling the truth--whether the person is a

police officer or a convicted drug dealer--and that decisions

regarding the veracity of a particular witness should not be based

on blanket predispositions.

Opening Statement

According to an experienced arson prosecutor, the opening statement should

never be waived. This is the opportunity to have “first crack at the jury.” The

statement should (Galvin in Hammett, 1987; California District Attorneys Association,

1980; Burnette and Smith, 1980):

2 7
summarize in “understandable terms” the key testimony that will

be offered by firefighters, cause-and-origin investigators,

laboratory chemists, insurance officials and other witnesses;

tell “a good story” that keeps the jury’s attention;

never confuse the jury. This would be a serious blow to the

government’s case at its very outset;

avoid legal and law enforcement jargon;

begin “personalizing” the victims;

“get the jury’s attention” by “making them see fire and smell

smoke.” Show the jury photographs of the fire and its victims and

samples of fire debris (if exhibits can be marked in advance and

the judge will allow their use during the opening statement),

exhibits can be marked in advance and the judge will allow their

use during the opening statement,

appeal to the fear of fire which is so prevalent in the United

States.

In sum, the opening statement is a time to give the story some drama. On the

other hand, the strength of the case should not be overstated in the opening, as the

jurors will quickly recognize the discrepancy later on. This can call the credibility of

the prosecutor’s entire case into question (California District Attorneys Association,

1980).

Order of Witnesses and Evidence Presentation

There is some disagreement among experienced arson prosecutors as to who

should typically be the first witness and the decision must be based on the situation

presented by each case. Again, it is not possible to enunciate ironclad principles. Some

argue for ordering the prosecution witnesses according to the elements of arson--that

is, first witnesses establishing that a fire occurred, followed by witnesses establishing

that the fire was incendiary, and finally witnesses establishing the defendant’s

connection with the fire (California District Attorneys Association, 1980). Compatible

with this theory is the advice offered by one prosecutor: “firefighters first.”

Firefighters are the “last American heroes” and their appearance on the stand in

uniform, using their terminology to carry the jury “from the firehouse to the inferno”

can “make your case.” According to this view, firefighter witness can effectively set

the stage for the cause-and-origin expert, by providing a general description of the fire

scene and the first observed indications of incendiary origin (Galvin in Hammett, 1987).

2 8
On the other hand, California arson prosecutors guide recommends putting the

victim on the stand first. The most lasting impression of the case should be presented

first, according to this argument. The most telling question of this witness should be

the last one asked: “how many people were asleep in this building when the fire

started?” (California District Attorneys Association, 1980).

In other cases, it may be desirable to call neither a firefighter nor the victim

first. For example, if the defendant told a particular witness of his intention to burn

his building, it might be advisable to call this witness first,

There are several other considerations which affect the ordering of witnesses

and introduction of evidence. For example, if a confession is to be introduced, the

corpus delecti of the crime must first be proven. However, the Florida prosecution

guide offers some good practical advice on introducing evidence that simultaneously

establishes corpus delecti and links the defendant with the fire. This will almost

inevitably be necessary because the arson investigator will offer testimony not only on

incendiary origin, but also on the agency of the defendant--such as the defendant’s

purchase of a flammable liquid (Burnette and Smith, 1980, pp 4B-8 to 4B-12).

Another issue concerns co-conspirator witnesses. Because of the perception

that their testimony may be tainted by ulterior motives, co-conspirators should be

“sandwiched” by more credible witnesses (Galvin in Hammett, 1987). Finally, the

California prosecutors guide recommends that the last witness be a civilian to

‘rehumanize” the case after “impersonality” of government witnesses (California

District Attorneys Association, 1980).

Tactics for Particular Witness Types

Firefighters. Experienced prosecutors emphasize that firefighters should

appear in full uniform at trial and sentencing. This takes full advantage of their “hero

image” and helps to distinguish them from police officers who may be distrusted by

jurors. Firefighter witnesses should:

Describe all of their activities at the fire scene in their own

words. They may become confused or flustered if pressured to use

other, more technical or scientific terms; and

Explain any obscure or unclear terminology.

Firefighters can sometimes offer very effective testimony on the cause and

origin of the fire, based simply on their observations of the color of the smoke and the

2 9
intensity of the fire and the condition of doors and windows. Key observations to elicit

from firefighter witnesses include (Burnette and Smith, 1980, 5F-1 to 5F-3):

wind conditions;

color of smoke;

rapidity of spread;

initial observations of people at the scene;

means of entry;

number of areas of fire;

intensity of heat;

unusual odors);

condition and contents of the building (furniture, closets, holes in

floor, sprinkler system operation, fire doors);

possible ignition devices;

trailers; and

condition of appliances and electrical system.

Firefighter testimony regarding the use of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to

revive children overcome by smoke and “covering exposures” (i.e., preventing the fire

from spreading to neighboring properties) may also be very helpful to the prosecution,

particularly if these buildings are occupied by elderly or otherwise vulnerable persons.

Such testimony may help capture the sympathy of the jury and establish endangerment

to others and/or other property where this is an element required by the criminal

charge in the case (Galvin in Hammett, 1987), but it may be inadmissible as irrelevant

and prejudicial in some cases.

Cause-and-Origin Investigators. The first and most important step with causeand-origin witnesses is to qualify them as experts. We have already discussed steps to

prepare for this process, such as submission of full resumes to the prosecutor. The

California and Florida arson prosecutors guides provide useful lists of questions to use

in qualifying cause-and-origin experts (California District Attorneys Association, 1980,

pp X-16 to X-23; Burnette and Smith, 1980, pp. 5G-1 to 5G-2). These cover:

formal training and education;

extent of actual investigative experience (e.g. number of fires

investigated);

previous expert testimony;

knowledge of:

30
--specific fire causes,

--accelerants,

--burn patterns, and

--technical terminology of fire scene examination.

Once qualified, witnesses testifying on the cause and origin of the fire should

present an logical and intelligible (to the layperson) explanation of fire behavior and of

the steps involved in fire scene examination. Ideally all evidence relied on in the causeand-origin determination should have been introduced before the cause-and-origin

expert is called. His testimony should then move carefully and logically toward the

cause determination. The California guide offers examples of question sequences

covering the process of cause-and-origin determination, elimination of accidental

causes, and opinions as to fire cause. These should be carefully prepared and rehearsed

in advance (California District Attorneys Association, pp X-23 to X-24).

The cause-and-origin witness should use photographs, videotapes, diagrams,

and models if such exhibits unequivocally support his opinions. The prosecutor’s use of

such exhibits should be carefully planned and orchestrated so that the government

effectively controls the sequence in which evidence goes to the jury.

It may be useful to the prosecutor to have an “advisory witness” available for

consultation during the entire trial, or at least those portions relating to the cause and

origin of the fire. Depending on state law or court rules, this may be the same person

who testifies for the state on cause and origin or another expert in the field. This

advisory witness may be able to assist the prosecutor both in presenting the state’s case

to best advantage and in rebutting the defense’s theory of cause and origin (Hammett,

1984).

Victims. The most important role of a victim witness is to humanize the

effects of the fire. This should be done through testimony on their discovery and

reporting of the fire and their description of the fire. The latter might help buttress

the state’s case regarding incendiary origin (Calvin in Hammett, 1987).

Victims might also be able to offer valuable testimony on the activities of the

defendant in the period before the fire. If the victim observed the defendant removing

valuable items or fixtures before the fire, this can help to link the defendant to the fire

(Calvin in Hammett, 1987).

31
Co-Conspirators. Co-conspirator witnesses may be indispensible to the state’s

case but they also pose serious credibility problems for the prosecution. In general,

they are probably the least believable government witnesses. The following guidelines

may assist the prosecutor in maximizing the value--and avoiding the pitfalls--of coconspirator testimony (Calvin in Hammett, 1987):

Obtain from the co-conspirator a written agreement to testify, but

one which commits to no specific sentence recommendation. If

the witness’ credibility is questioned, this agreement can be

produced in court.

The co-conspirator must clearly admit that “he’s a bad guy” whose

only hope for a break depends on being “100 percent truthful.”

Claims of having “gotten religion” are usually not believable.

The co-conspirator should testify only to facts that can be

independently corroborated by other witnesses.

The prosecutor should not be friendly to the co-conspirator

witness, but rather should treat this individual with professional

detachment.

Laboratory Chemists. A key issue for prosecutors is the advisability of

presenting evidence of laboratory analysis with negative or unclear results. Some

prosecutors advise investigators against sending samples for laboratory analysis unless

they are quite sure the samples will yield positive results. According to this view, it is

easier to defend a failure to send samples for analysis than to defend a negative or

unclear test result (Kluger in Hammett, 1987). Other prosecutors argue that it is safer

to present the negative or unclear results and have the laboratory expert explain the

possible reasons for these results than to allow the defense to make the point that the

state did not even bother to have samples analyzed. The fact that samples were taken

and analyzed helps to show the jury that a through and professional scene examination

was conducted (Calvin in Hammett, 1987).

If the prosecutor decides to put a chemist on the stand, this witness must be

qualified as an expert. The Florida arson prosecution guide provides a checklist to

assist in qualifying chemists (Burnette and Smith, 1980, pp 5G-3 to 5G-4). This covers:

job position;

specialization;

certifications;

length of experience;

education and degrees;

3 2
specific related experience;

publications; and

previous expert testimony.

In his or her testimony, the laboratory chemist should:

explain the tests and procedures used to analyze the fire debris in

terms understandable to the layperson;

make clear what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from the

tests. Most laboratory chemists will be unwilling to testify that a

sample definitely contained gasoline or any other particular

flammable liquid. Rather, they will testify that the sample

contained a liquid “consistent with” or “similar to” that flammable

liquid. The reasons for this apparent hesitancy should be clearly

explained to the jury (Hammett, 1987).

Insurance Witnesses. The most common insurance witnesses are the insurance

agent and the private cause-and-origin investigator hired by the company. If the case is

alleged to involve an insurance fraud, the agent may testify to the defendant’s false

statements on the insurance application and attempts to overinsure the property. The

insurance company’s investigator can be used to corroborate the public investigator’s

theory of the fire’s cause and origin, assuming that the two coincide. However, when

the reports of the two investigators are inconsistent, the prosecutor may face serious

problems in convincingly presenting the state’s case (Hammett, 1987).

Physical Evidence from the Fire

Physical evidence may be the key to the prosecutor’s effort to have the jury

experience the fire as closely as possible, understand the cause, and link the defendant

with the crime. Possible items include:

samples of fire debris;

ignition devices;

fingerprints; and

defendant’s clothing.

It may be effective to pass a sample of debris from the fire that retains a strong odor

of gasoline or other flammable liquid; if such a sample is available. Samples of fire

debris should be passed in closed metal paint cans rather than clear plastic bags. The

cans create more of a sense of mystery and they must be opened to view the contents.

3 3
This gives the jurors the opportunity to smell the fire and the vapor from the flammable

liquid. A clear plastic bag need not be opened to view the contents and thus the

opportunity to have the jury smell the fire and flammable vapors may be lost (Galvin in

Hammett, 1987).

The ignition device, if found, is a critical piece of physical evidence. The jury

should be given the opportunity to look at the device and, if permitted by the court, the

prosecutor should conduct a practical demonstrations of its workings. This will help the

jury to understand the prosecution’s theory of incendiary origin (Calvin in Hammett,

1987). An even more advantageous approach is to take the jury to the actual fire scene

and conduct test recreations of the fire.

Proper chain of custody must be demonstrated for all physical evidence

introduced at trial. “Predicate” problems may also arise in the case of evidence found

and collected at the fire scene on a visit subsequent to the original scene examination.

The defense might argue that the scene was not necessarily in the same condition at the

time the evidence was collected as it was at the time of the fire and initial search.

These issues again underline the need to maintain security of the fire scene for as long

as possible (Texas District and County Attorneys Association, 1980).

In addition, locked doors and windows can be good evidence against forced

entry and in favor of fraud arson by the property owner (California District Attorneys

Association, 1980). In order to meet any defenses alleging forced entry by an arsonist,

the prosecutor should know exactly which doors and windows were broken and entered

by firefighters in a locked building. This should be supported by testimony from the

firefighters involved.

Tape Recordings, Photographs, Videotapes, Diagrams and Architectural Models

Although there may be restrictions on their use in some jurisdictions, tape

recordings can be the prosecutor’s most important real evidence. They can prove that

the defendant lied and/or made inconsistent statements. Recordings of the fire being

reported, particularly if they reveal panic or fear on the part of victims, may also be

very effective in convincing the jury of the seriousness of the crime (Galvin in

Hammett, 1987).

Photographs and videotapes may be very useful in presenting the state’s case

on the incendiary origin of the fire, However, they also may serve as important tools in

appealing to the emotions of jurors. Some prosecutors believe that black-and-white

34
photographs are best for documenting the critical aspects of the fire’s cause and origin,

while others argue that color photographs are preferable when trailers must be

documented; color is more sensitive to shadings on a surface than is black-and-white. It

is generally agreed that color photographs are more effective in showing overall views

of the fire and of the firefighters working to contain it. Color photographs are also

best for “poignant scenes” involving victims and firefighters (Galvin in Hammett,

1987). As noted earlier, however, some jurisdictions may exclude wide-angle or

telephoto shots unless specific reasons for their use can be presented to the court.

Investigators and prosecutors should also offer diagrams and models of the fire

scene, particularly if government’s theory of incendiary origin is complex. These

models and diagrams may be useful both in explaining the cause and origin of the fire

and in helping the jury to visualize the state’s case regarding the conduct of the

defendant. Architectural models can be more effective than diagrams in conveying the

physical environment of the fire scene. Moreover, the fact that the prosecution took

the trouble to build a model helps to convince the jury of the importance of the case.

Models may often be obtained at fairly reasonable cost from small architectural firms

(Galvin in Hammett, 1987). Of course, it is very important that all diagrams and

models be absolutely accurate. There should be no opportunity for the defendant or a

defense witness to expose inaccuracies in these exhibits. (California District Attorneys

Association, 1980).

Meeting Defenses

Defense Cause-and-Origin Witness. In the federal system and many states,

experts are quite easily qualified. However, in some jurisdictions, the best way to

meeting the defense’s theory of cause and origin may be to attack the qualifications of

their witness. Prosecutors should ask pointed questions of the witness, such as the

following (Calvin in Hammett, 1987; California District Attorneys Association, 1980--

see pp X-27 to X-31 for an extensive list of questions for cross-examination):

What is your training in cause-and-origin determination?

How many complete cause-and-origin investigations have you

done?

Have you ever given testimony on the entire cause-and-origin

determination of a fire rather than simply on the elimination of

one accidental cause?

3 5
Have you ever testified as to cause-and-origin without personally

examining the fire scene?

Cross-examination based on such questions may disqualify (or at least call into question)

many defense cause-and-origin witnesses (Galvin in Hammett, 1987).

Even if the defense witness does qualify as an expert, his testimony can often

be challenged by the following strategies:

Testing their knowledge of the details of fire investigation and

laboratory analysis. If they make errors, their credibility in the

eyes of the jury may be undermined.

Pinning down if and when they personally examined the scene

(defense cause-and-origin experts usually do not see the fire scene

until much later than the state’s investigators, if at all). If there

was no immediate examination of the scene, the witness will

probably have to admit under questioning that a proper cause-andorigin determination cannot be done based only on photographs,

which may be misleading, or on a later examination, after the

condition of the scene may have changed.

Determining whether they personally interviewed any witnesses--

firefighters, police officers, victims, others-- in this case. (Galvin

in Hammett, 1987; California District Attorneys Association,

1980).

As noted earlier, an “advisory witness” who is a qualified cause-and-origin

expert may be able to assist the prosecutor in attacking the testimony of the defense’s

witness. This advisory witness may be the state’s cause-and-origin witness or another

expert familiar with the case, depending on state law or court rule regarding the

presence of witnesses in the courtroom during the testimony of others (Hammett, 1987).

Finally, some prosecutors keep “libraries” of transcripts of the testimony of

defense cause-and-origin witnesses, The number of these witnesses is relatively small,

and they tend to appear in many cases and often to rely repeatedly on the same theories

of fire cause. Having transcripts of previous testimony available helps the prosecutor

to prepare cross-examination strategies and to combat defense attacks on prosecution

witnesses.

Alibi Witnesses. Tactics for meeting alibi defenses in arson cases should be

the same as employed in other criminal cases--the key should always be repeated

questioning on details so as to demonstrate inconsistencies in various versions of the

story given by the witness. Repeated tape recorded interviews prior to trial are critical

to this strategy. Prosecutors may be able to show that the alibi witness is unshakable

36
on areas that have been rehearsed with defense counsel but may dramatically lose

accuracy and consistency when the questioning ventures into unrehearsed parts of the

story (Galvin in Hammett, 1987). A potentially effective strategy is to establish that

the defendant developed an alibi before he or she knew the exact dates and times that

had to be covered (California District Attorneys Association, 1980). Prosecutors should

also stress any relationship between the witness and the defendant and closely question

any delays in the witness’ coming forward with his or her story (Galvin in Harnmett,

1987).

Intoxication. A common defense in arson cases is that the defendant

accidentally started the fire while intoxicated. Prosecutors can often effectively meet

this defense by demonstrating that an intoxicated person could not have done the things

necessary to set the fire or, at least, could not have done so without suffering a severe

injury in the process (Galvin in Hammett, 1987).

Pathological Firesetting and Mental Responsibility Defenses. In many arson

cases, defenses based on mental condition will be advanced. The California prosecution

guide provides a detailed discussion of the legal and psychological concepts involved in

such defenses and suggests strategies for effectively meeting them (California District

Attorneys Association, 1980). This includes

discussion of pyromania as mental disease;

mental impairment (which might include intoxication, or

unconsciousness);

mental incapacity to form general criminal intent (actus reus);

substantial mental impairment; and

insanity defenses.

Prosecutors can successfully meet defenses based on mental impairment or

mental incapacity by demonstrating that the defendant was able to perform “customary

and usual social functions.” Relative to setting the fire, the prosecutor should try to

show that the defendant

understood the physical nature and meaning of the act and its

consequences--for example;

planned the firesetting act in advance;

pursued a plan in a goal-directed way, used suitable materials;

37
selected a place to set the fire that was not immediately visible;

and/or

took steps to avoid apprehension (California District Attorneys

Association, 1980).

Many of the same showings can be used to meet an insanity defense. For

example, evidence that the defendant consciously sought to avoid apprehension implies

an appreciation that the act was wrong and illegal and can be used to rebut an insanity

defense, even if the defendant cannot be shown to have specifically addressed the

illegality or wrongness of the act (California District Attorneys Association, 1980).

Closing Argument

In the closing argument, the prosecutor has another important opportunity for

the prosecutor to exercise persuasiveness. It should be used to

summarize and emphasize the evidence of incendiary origin

(particularly the sensory physical evidence);

catalogue the defendant’s lies or inconsistent statements; and

reemphasize that absolute proof is not necessary to convict, only

proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Calvin in Hammett, 1987).

All experienced prosecutors recognize the importance of finishing the case in a strong

and persuasive manner.

JUVENILE CASES

Juvenile arson is a serious problem. A substantial number of arson fires are

probably set by persons classified under the law as juveniles. It is difficult to discuss

the handling of juvenile arson cases from a national perspective because juvenile justice

systems differ so widely across jurisdictions. However, most systems recognize four

gradations in the processing of juvenile offenders (Hammett, 1984):

“lecture and release” by police;

informal diversion” through counseling, education, or other

programs;

prosecution in juvenile system--outcomes include counseling,

supervised probation, and confinement in a youth facility; and

bindover for prosecution in adult court--this is usually reserved for

serious offenses.

3 8
Most prosecutors see juvenile arson as a problem requiring different responses

from those applicable to adult arson. Indeed, in most jurisdictions, juvenile cases are

assigned to an entirely different prosecutorial unit. Prosecutors involved in juvenile

cases should be sensitive to youths’ normal lack of sophistication and frequent lack of

understanding of the implications of their actions, At the same time, prosecutors must

be vigilant for possible relationships between juvenile and adult arson cases. In

particular, if a “torch” is being prosecuted in juvenile court and the individual who hired

the torch is being prosecuted in adult court, it is important that the prosecutions be

closely coordinated so that valuable evidence is not lost to either effort (Hammett,

1984).

3 9
APPENDIX A:

GUIDE TO ISSUES AND SOURCES

4 0
Issues

Role of the Prosecutor in

Arson Investigation

Examining the fire scene

Legal issues

Cause-and-Origin

determination

1-9.1-10

x-2

35-44,95,117-125

XIII-1 to XIII-2

Documenting the scene

Collecting samples of

fire debris

Developing the Criminal

Case

Identifying and interviewing witnesses

Developing evidence of

motive

Developing investigation

reports

Timing arrests

Hammett, 1984

135-139.247

101-106

106-109

246-247

153-154

Figure A.1

ARSON PROSECUTION : MATRIX OF ISSUES AND SOURCES

Sources of Further Information (See References for Full Citations)

McClees, 1983

4-89 to 4-92

3-37 to 3-45

3-37 to 3-45

3-46 to 3-59

3-102 to 3-109,

4-93 to 4-95

Burnette and

Smith, 1980

1 B-1

1 B-2

Sec. 1C

1B-2 to 1B-6, 1B-8

5A-1 to 5A-5

1B-9 to 1B-11

1B-6 to 1B-8

5A-6

Calif. District

Attorneys Association. 1980

Ch. V

Maryland State

Attorneys Coord,

1981

73-78

44-49

125-145

Texas District

and County

Attorneys Assoc.

1980

Ch. VII

Ch. VI., esp.

pp. 53-59

Ch. VIII

Ch. VIII

Ch. IX, esp. pp.

89-105,114-115

ATF/NIJ

Arson for Prosecutors, 1985

Toscano, Arson

Investigators

Checklist; CampbeII, Cause-andOrigin Determination

Toscano, Arson

Investigators

Check1ist

CampbelI Causeand-Origin Determination; Garner,

Gas Chromatography

Toscano, Arson

Investigators

Checklist; Panneton, Sources of

!nterview Information

Toscano, Arson

investigators

Checklist; Strawbridge, How to

Handle an Arson

and Fraud Case
Sources of Further Information (See References for Full Citations)

Issues

Arson Prosecution

Structuring arson prosecut ion

Screening cases for prosecution

Determining the mode of

charging

Applicable statutes

Preparing witnesses

tactics:

Selecting juries

Opening statement

Order of witnesses

Tactics for wit ness types:

Firefighters

Cause-and-origin

investigators

Victims

Co-conspirators

Laboratory chemists

Hammett, 1984

237-239

145-199

28-38

253

253

McCIees, 1983

4-96 to 4-106

Section 4.1

Burnette and

Smith, 1980

Sec. 3A

Sec. 2A,2B

3C-2

4A-1

48-1

4B-5 to 4B-6,

4B-8 to 4B-12

5F-1 to 5F-3

3C-2, 4B-7 to

4B-9, 5G-1 to

5G-2

5G-3 to 5G-4

Calif. District

Attorneys Association, 1980

l-6 to l-8

Ch. VII

Ch. VIII-IX

Ch. IV

X-2, XIII-6

Ch. X

X-13

X-13

X-14 to X-15

X-2, X-14

XIII-6

Maryland State

Attorneys Coot-d,

1981

66-70

Ch. VII

99- 103

103-112

Texas District

and County

Attorneys Assoc,

1980

Ch. X

Ch. X

ATF/NIJ

Arson for Prosecutors, 1985

Galvin, Trial

Techniques,

PP. 1-2

Galvin, Trial

Techniques, p.2

Galvin, Trial

Techniques, p.5

Galvin, Trial

Techniques,

pp. 2-3

Galvin, Trial

Techniques,

pp. 3-4

Galvin, Trial

Techniques, p.4

Galvin, Trial

Techniques,

pp. 5-6

Galvin, Trial

Techniques, p.6
Sources of Further Information (See References for Full Citations)

Issues

Insurance witnesses

Physical evidence from

fire

Recordings, photographs,

videotapes, diagrams

and models

Meeting defenses

Defense cause-andorigin witness

Alibi witnesses

Intoxication

Mental responsibility

defenses

Closing argument

Juvenile cases

Hammett, 1984

App. B

McClees, 1983

Burnette and

Smith, 1980

4B-14 to 4B-17

Calif. District

Attorneys Association, 1980

VIII-8, X-15 to

X-16

X-16

X-25 to X-31

X-34 to x-35

XlI l-37 to Xll-38

Ch. XII

Ch. VI

Maryland State

Attorneys Coot-d,

1981

112-115

Texas District

and County

Attorneys Assoc.

1980

119-120

ATF/NIJ

Arson for Prosecutors, 1985

Galvin Insurance Wtnesses

Galvin, Real,

Demonstrative,

and Documentary

Evidence

Galvin, Real,

Demonstrative,

and Documentary

Evidence

Galvin. Trial

Techniques,

pp. 7-8

Galvin, Trial

Techniques

pp. 9-10

Galvin, Trial

Techniques, p.8

Galvin, Trial

Techniques, p.11
REFERENCES

The following reports, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department

of Justice, are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, P.O.

Box 6000, Rockville, Maryland 20850.

Abt Associates Inc. (1980). Program Models: Arson Prevention and Control.

Hammett. Theodore M. (1987). Cracking Down on Arson: Issues for Investigators

and Prosecutors. This document summarizes presentations by the following

speakers at the NIJ/ATF Arson Prosecution Conference, Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Georgia, November 1985:

Bruce Bogart, American Insurance Services Group

David Campbell, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation,

Arson Div.

Mary Galvin, Assistant State’s Attorney, Judicial District of New

Haven, Connecticut

Dr. Daniel Garner, Chief, Forensic Laboratory, ATF National

Laboratory Center

Michael Martin, ATF Regional Counsel’s Office, Atlanta

Barry Kluger, Assistant District Attorney, Bronx County, N.Y.

John P. Panneton, United States Attorney’s Office, Sacramento,

Calif.

David R. Strawbridge, Esq., Cozen and O’Connor, Philadelphia

Joseph P. Toscano, Inspector, New Haven (Connecticut) State’s

Attorney’s Office

Hammett, Theodore M. and Kimberly A. Wylie (1987a). Issues and

Practices: Toward Comprehensive Arson Control Programs.

Hammett, Theodore M. (1984). Arson Investigation and Prosecution: A

Study of Four Major American Cities.

Ku, Richard, Theodore M. Hammett, et al., 1980. Arson Control: A

Synthesis of Issues and Strategies Based on the Arson Control Assistance

Program.

McClees, Hugh C., Andrew J. Decker, and Daniel J. Carpenter (1983).

Managing Arson Control Systems: Executive Summary (Daniel Ford, 

ed.). (The full report--Managing Arson Control Systems: Arson

Detection (vol. 2), Arson Investigation (vol. 3,) Arson Prosecution (vol.4),

and Appendices (vol. 5)--is available on loan.)

44
New York City Arson Strike Force (1983). A Study of government

Subsidized Housing Rehabilitation Programs and Arson: Analysis

Programs Administered in New York City, 1978-1981.

Tauber, Stephen J. (1978). Arson Control: A Review of the State of the

Art with Emphasis on Research Topics.

Webster, Stephen H., and Kenneth E. Matthews, Jr. (1979). A Survey of

Arson and Arson Response Capabilities in Selected Jurisdictions,

The following state arson prosecution guides are also available through the

National Criminal Justice Reference Service:

Burnette, Jr., Guy E. and Lawrence W. Smith (1980). Florida Arson

Prosecution: A Trial Manual for Florida Prosecutors.

California District Attorneys Association (1980). Arson Prosecution.

Maryland State’s Attorneys Coordinator (1981). Maryland State’s

Attorneys Arson Investigation and Prosecution Manual.

Texas District and County Attorneys Association (1980). Arson

Prosecution.

Other Materials

American Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division, Arson Committee. The

Comrnittee publishes the Arson Reporter (current caselaw) and has issued an

Arson Legislative Reference Manual and an Arson Legal Resource Directory.

For information, contact the Committee at 750 North Lakeshore Drive,

Chicago, Illinois 60611.

Factory Mutual System, A Pocket Guide to Arson Investigation (2d

edition: Norwood, MA, 1979). Available from Factory Mutual Engineering and

Research, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, Massachusetts 02062.

Gaensslen, R.E. and Henry C. Lee, Physical Evidence and Forensic Science,

(2nd ed.: American Insurance Association, 1986).

Gelband, Barbara (1980). “The Prosecutors Role in Fire Investigation.”

Presented at National College of District Attorneys Seminar on Arson

Investigation and Prosecution

Pisani, Angelo (1982). “Identifying Arson Motives, ” Fire and Arson Investigator

2l(June 1982), pp 18-24.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

Arson Case Briefs (Washington, November 1985). Available from BATF

Explosives Division, Arson Enforcement Branch, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20226).

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and

45
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Arson for

Prosecutors. Materials assembled for the NIJ/ATF Arson Prosecution

Conference, Glynco, Georgia, November 1985.

4 6 *U.S. Government Printing Office: 1994 - 520-381/81079