Friday, December 20, 2002
Majority saw him as innocent
Jurors give thoughts on Burrow

By JAY CONLEY
THE ROANOKE TIMES

During a six-day fraud trial that ended with a hung jury, Richard Burrow pulled off something that few defendants are capable of: In testifying for his own defense, he convinced a majority of jurors that he was innocent of defrauding banks and taxpayers while raising money for the National D-Day Memorial Foundation.

And even some of the jurors who voted to convict Burrow, 55, said they felt a great deal of sympathy for him.

That notion could weigh heavily on prosecutors' minds as they deliberate whether to launch a retrial against the former president of the National D-Day* Memorial Foundation. U.S. Attorney John Brownlee has said it will be at least January, and perhaps longer, before that decision is made.

The six-day trial ended Monday with a judge declaring a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 7-5 in favor of acquittal.

If the decision on a retrial was up to juror Mary Arthur, the prosecution would drop its case for good. During deliberations Monday, she voted not guilty on all the charges.

"I don't think they should have another trial," said the 63-year-old Madison Heights housewife. "I believed him wholeheartedly." Not all of the four jurors interviewed for this story agreed with her, however.

Burrow was charged with wire, mail, bank and loan application fraud in connection with more than $7.5 million he raised to get the $25 million memorial built in Bedford.

When he took the stand Dec. 13, he testified that he believed he was acting within the law and with the support of the D-Day foundation's board of directors and attorney when he sought the finances.

"His testimony was very impressive," said Patricia Dagenhart, a 39-year-old middle school secretary from Gladys. "I told somebody, 'If he was lying, he should go to Hollywood, because he's a good actor.' "

Assistant U.S. Attorney Pat Hogeboom said Burrow's demeanor on the witness stand surprised him.

"I think he was very well-prepared for cross-examination. I don't necessarily think he was credible," Hogeboom said.

Dagenhart never got to render a vote in the trial. Though she sat through the trial and heard all the evidence, she was one of two alternate jurors eliminated from the deliberations.

"To me he did some things he shouldn't have, but no more than what people do on their income taxes," Dagenhart said. "There was no clear-cut, 'This is illegal to do this.' The government didn't prove its case."

The fact that Burrow didn't personally take any of the money in question also swayed jurors.

"He didn't spend the money on himself," Arthur said. "I truly think he's not guilty. I'll never change my mind."

Jurors who voted to convict Burrow said they relied on documents entered as evidence during the trial to determine that Burrow was guilty.

They were presented with hundreds of pages of bank statements, spreadsheets and other documentation regarding how Burrow acquired $3.3 million in matching funds from the commonwealth of Virginia and a $1.2 million bank loan from the Bank of the James. Prosecutors said Burrow misrepresented the foundation's collateral to acquire the funds.

Gail Davis, 41, from Buena Vista, said her guilty vote was "based on looking at the evidence during deliberation."

But Davis admits if the trial had ended Friday following Burrow's testimony, she might have voted not guilty. That's because twice during his testimony, Burrow wept as he talked about building the memorial to honor World War II veterans.

"That softened me toward him," Davis said. "That's what got a lot of people. One lady next to me was crying. If we had to vote on Friday, I probably would have voted not guilty. But I had to get that out of my mind."

Ultimately, Davis said a look at the foundation's financial records proved to her that Burrow was doing something wrong.

"He lied to the state on the application," she said. "You had to have cash that was active to match the loan. But there wasn't active funds."

As for the Bank of the James loan application on which prosecutors alleged Burrow overstated donations to the memorial, Davis said Burrow "supplied them with pledges that were not coming in."

James Lee, 44, a cabinetmaker who lives in Forest and who served as the jury foreman, at first had voted in favor of Burrow's innocence.

"The first vote was just to see where everybody was at," Lee said.

But he said he changed his mind after Davis and other jurors in favor of a guilty vote told him to look at the documents.

"I changed my mind pretty quickly," Lee said Thursday.

He's now convinced Burrow misrepresented facts on the grant application to acquire state matching funds. Lee said Burrow stated on the application that he was going to use the funds for construction of the memorial. But instead, Lee said Burrow used the funds to pay off an earlier bank loan and other bills.

"He did break the law. There's no doubt in my mind," Lee said.

Davis said the seven jurors in favor of Burrow's innocence wouldn't look at the documents.

"We even gave them the papers and they wouldn't look at them. They had already made up their mind," she said.

But Arthur, who voted not guilty, said that's because, "He didn't take any money and anything he did, he did in good faith."

Jay Conley can be reached

at 981-3114 or jay.conley@roanoke.com.

Let any elected or appointed official know what you think and how you feel by CLICKING HERE.