Personal Attention.
Aggressive Defense.

Photo of Thomas C. Mooney

How prosecutors prove arson

On Behalf of | Feb 7, 2024 | Criminal Defense

In just a few minutes, a fire can cause extensive damage to property. Arson, the deliberate act of setting fire to another person’s property, can lead to severe legal consequences for those found guilty. With sentences ranging from hefty fines to years in prison, the stakes are considerably high for a person facing arson charges.

Still, defendants can counter and present their arguments in court, even when the prosecution asserts that it has substantial evidence. Understanding how prosecutors work is one step to building a solid defense.

Finding the origin of the fire

Proving arson requires meticulous and thorough investigation. Prosecutors often collaborate with fire investigators to collect evidence that may determine the cause of a fire and the extent of property damage. Some fires are accidental, often resulting from faulty wiring or someone’s careless behavior. However, if evidence suggests that the fire was deliberate, prosecutors may use this information to establish that arson took place.

Presenting circumstantial evidence

When direct proof is absent, prosecutors may resort to using circumstantial evidence. This type of evidence may not be compelling on its own, but when combined with other indirect proof or facts of the case, it can weave a story that strongly suggests the defendant’s involvement and intent.

For example, the defense may need to present a solid alibi and counterarguments if the prosecution has witnesses who saw the defendant buying large amounts of gasoline, upgrading their insurance policy, issuing threats to burn property or behaving suspiciously near the crime scene before the incident.

However, the prosecutor’s case must be compelling enough for the court to determine that the accused is, without a doubt, guilty of arson. Individuals accused of arson may benefit from careful preparation and legal representation. Criminal defense lawyers can use their knowledge and experience to find flaws in the prosecution’s argument and devise a strategy to combat the charges.