## Facts

- John Veysey engaged in a years-long course of insurance-related crimes involving staged residential fires, inflated claims, and efforts to obtain life-insurance proceeds.
- In 1991, he set fire to his house and submitted an inflated insurance claim; the insurer paid and the house was rebuilt.
- After marrying Kemp, he increased insurance coverage, removed valuables, and caused a gas explosion that destroyed the home, then exaggerated claimed losses.
- Using fraud proceeds, he acquired another house; he later killed Kemp (after a failed drowning attempt) and collected life-insurance proceeds.
- He pursued relationships while attempting to secure large life-insurance policies naming him as beneficiary and continued fire-loss schemes, including another residential fire with an inflated claim.
- After marrying Beetle, she obtained substantial life insurance naming him as beneficiary; in 1998, he allegedly drugged her and set fire to a rented house while she and their infant (also insured) were inside; both survived.
- He later induced Hilkin to move in after she obtained significant life insurance naming him as primary beneficiary; he was arrested before any planned homicide occurred.
- A federal jury convicted him of mail fraud, wire fraud, arson, and using fire to commit a felony; the district court imposed an aggregate 110-year sentence by running multiple counts consecutively.

## Issues

1. Whether an aggregate 110-year term imposed through consecutive sentences violated statutory maximums or *Apprendi* when no single count authorized life imprisonment.
2. Whether burning a rented residence satisfied the federal arson statute’s interstate-commerce requirement.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying severance of counts given the number of schemes and episodes.
4. Whether admission of expert statistical testimony asserting extreme improbability of multiple accidental house fires was improper and, if so, whether it required reversal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and the 110-year sentence.
- The court held there was no statutory-maximum or *Apprendi* problem because each count’s sentence stayed within its own maximum and consecutive sentencing was permitted.
- The court held the federal arson statute applied because rental property is part of a market that affects interstate commerce.
- The court upheld denial of severance because the offenses reflected an interrelated pattern and much of the evidence would have been admissible across separate trials.
- The court held that any error in admitting the “1 in 1.773 trillion” probability testimony was harmless given the strength of other evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Consecutive sentences may be imposed to reach a very long aggregate term so long as each individual count’s sentence does not exceed its statutory maximum; *Apprendi* is not violated on that basis alone.
- Property used as rental housing can satisfy the federal arson statute’s interstate-commerce element because the rental market is treated as affecting interstate commerce.
- Severance is not required where multiple counts are connected as part of a continuing scheme and evidence is substantially cross-admissible to prove matters such as motive, intent, and pattern.
- Extremely low-probability “improbable coincidence” expert testimony may be methodologically suspect; even if admitted in error, reversal is not required where the error is harmless in light of overwhelming independent evidence.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Veysey’s convictions and consecutive 110-year sentence, ruling that sentence-stacking within count-specific maxima did not violate *Apprendi*, that arson of a rented home satisfied the interstate-commerce requirement, that joinder was proper for interconnected schemes, and that any error in admitting statistical probability testimony did not affect the verdict.


United States v. Veysey, 334 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2003)