United States v. Anderson, No. 13-3132 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2008, an explosion and fire substantially damaged the Hereford House, a well-known restaurant in downtown Kansas City. Surveillance footage from immediately before the incident showed individuals entering with containers of gasoline and setting an ignition device. The suspects used the security code of a former Hereford House employee to deactivate the security system. Between the employee’s firing and the fire, the same code had been used twice by Anderson, a part owner of the Hereford House, in what appeared to be practice for the arson. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated Anderson, who had infused $380,000 into the business, from cash advances on personal and business credit cards, withdrawals from his mother’s IRA and his 401(k), and a loan from his brother-in-law. In an email, Anderson had stated: “We were unable to pay our payroll taxes of $50,000. Things are not getting any better.” Anderson, Pisciotta, and Sorrentino were convicted and sentenced to 180, 240, and 180 months’ imprisonment, respectively. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that conspiracy to commit arson cannot be a predicate to convictions for the use of fire to commit another felony under 18 U.S.C. 844(h); that the convictions constituted double jeopardy; that the trials should have been severed; and challenging evidentiary rulings.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendants had no good cause for their failure to raise their double-jeopardy argument before trial and the issue would not be considered; however, even considering the issue under plain error analysis, the court's prior cases about the lack of clarity of legislative intent with respect to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(h), the plain language of the section, and the novelty of a precedent from another circuit relied on by defendants does not convince the court that the district court committed plain error in determining that defendants' Sec. 844(h) convictions for use of fire to commit another felony created impermissible double punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause; no error in denying motion for severance; evidentiary challenges rejected; no Sixth Amendment error in limiting cross-examination of a witness since the incident defendant Sorrentino sought to cross-examine the witness about went to possible bias, an issue he had already covered at length in his cross-examination of the witness, his ex-wife; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Anderson's convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and arson, as well as aiding and abetting arson, mail fraud and use of fire to commit another felony; no error in denying motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence as the cell phone records defendants relied on would not have been likely to produce an acquittal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.