No verdict reached in former Code Enforcement Officer’s trial

by Barbara Atwill
A hung jury verdict was handed down following a two-day trial July 30 and 31 for Bobby Keith Curlin. The trial was the result of charges following a suspicious fire in Fulton on June 13. A hung jury verdict was handed down following a two-day trial July 30 and 31 for Bobby Keith Curlin. The trial was the result of charges following a suspicious fire in Fulton on June 13.

A trial July 30-31 ended with members of the Fulton County jury unable to reach a verdict for former Fulton Code Enforcement Officer Bobby Keith Curlin.

Charges filed against Curlin included one count of tampering with a witness, one count of menacing, one count arson – 2nd degree, one count criminal mischief – 1st degree, eight counts wanton endangerment – 1st degree, and one count official misconduct – 1st degree.

The jury of five men and seven women, deliberated just shy of three hours, and returned without reaching a verdict, resulting in a hung jury. A hung jury is the result of 12 individual jury members unable to agree on one verdict.

A pretrial conference has been set for Sept. 12, where Commonwealth Attorney Mike Stacy will decide whether to continue prosecution and take the case back to another jury, or the defendant could opt for a plea bargain.

Curlin was a suspect in a suspicious fire which occurred at 805 Walnut St., Fulton on June 13, 2018. He was suspended from his employment as Code Enforcement officer on June 14. He was officially terminated by the Fulton City Commission, following his placement on suspension without pay, and was indicted by Fulton County Grand Jury on July 12, 2018.

The Grand Jury convened on Nov. 8, and indicted Curling after a five month investigation into the suspicious structure fire in Fulton.

His arrest was associated with his contact with a witness in the investigation, when he allegedly questioned her about what color the vehicle was that was seen at the scene of the fire. The warrant states “during the questioning, he practiced fraud and deceit by suggesting other vehicle colors to her with the intent to affect or alter her testimony”.

The warrant stated the witness “felt threatened by the defendant’s demeanor while he was questioning her.”