Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CRIMINAL NO.09CR30101-MJR
)
WILLIAM BERRY, )
DERRICK COURTLAND, )
JOHN BACON, )
JULIUS JACKSON, )
JOSEPH ADDISON, )
JAMES H. MILBURN, III, and )
RICKY J. STRINGFELLOW, )
)
Defendants. )
)

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Comes now, A. Courtney Cox, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois,

and Jennifer Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, and hereby provides the Court with the

Government’s position regarding the sentencing of each of the above listed defendants.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

1. Sentencing Guideline Section 2E3.1(a)(2) applies giving each defendant a base

offense level of ten. This guideline was enacted at the time when Animal Fighting, Title 7, United

States Code, Section 2156, was a misdemeanor offense and has not been adjusted to reflect the

crime’s felony status or the increase in the maximum punishment from three to five years. (See

Pub.L. 89-544, § 26, as added Pub.L. 94-279, § 17, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 421, and amended Pub.L.

101-650, Title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub.L. 107-171, Title X, §§ 10302(a),

10303(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 491, 492; Pub.L. 110-22, § 3, May 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 88; Pub.L.
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 12

110-234, Title XIV, § 14207(a), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1461; Pub.L. 110-246, § 4(a), Title XIV,

§ 14207(a), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2223.)

2. Unlike those defendants sentenced under 2B1.1, the Animal Fighting Guideline does

not distinguish between offense specific conduct such as the number of dogs owned, the amount of

money earned breeding fighting dogs, whether the breeder advertises in a national magazine or on

the internet, the condition of the dogs, or even the number of dog fights or rolls in which the person

has engaged.

3. The lack of distinguishing characteristics within the guideline itself results in

sentencing disparity. For example, Alex, a long-time dog fighter who owns twenty pit bull dogs for

fighting purposes, brings Bob, his next door neighbor who has never previously attended a dog fight,

to a dog fight. In preparation for fighting his dog, Alex tells Bob that he must wash his dog to ensure

that no foreign substances are on the dog’s skin and asks Bob to wash the dog. Bob agrees. Alex

fights his dog against Chester’s dog. Alex’s dog wins and Alex wins the purse of $2000. Chester

asks Alex if he can buy a puppy from Alex’s dog’s current litter. Alex agrees and sells the puppy

to Chester for $1000. According to the Sentencing Guidelines, Alex and Bob deserve the same

offense level.

4. The Guidelines provide, in Application Note 2, that “[i]f the offense involved

extraordinary cruelty to an animal that resulted in, for example, maiming or death to an animal, an

upward departure may be warranted.” This application note provides an important distinction when

animals are maimed or killed as a result of the fight. To date, the Government has not located any

case law which might define “extraordinary cruelty.”

 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 3 of 12

TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 3553

5. In the absence of sufficient recognition of the distinction between those persons

involved in dog fighting, the Government turns to those sentencing factors set out in Title 18, United

States Code, Section 3553(a). Specifically, subsection (a)(1) indicates that courts should consider

“the nature and circumstances of the offense.” Subsection (a)(2)(A) indicates consideration should

be given to the need for the sentence “to reflect the seriousness of the offense” and “to provide just

punishment for the offense.” These subsections allow the court to consider the specific facts

attributable to each defendant and sentence them according to their conduct.

THE CONSPIRACY

6. By its very nature, Animal Fighting requires participation by more than one person.

In conspiracies such as this where the Cajun Rules are used, everyone knows the rules and what is

expected of them and their dogs during the fights. Moreover, “[a] conspirator is responsible for

offenses committed by his/her fellow conspirators if he/she was a member of the conspiracy when

the offense was committed and if the offense was committed in furtherance of and as a foreseeable

consequence of the conspiracy.” (Seventh Circuit Pattern Instruction 5.09).

7. Dog fighters, with limited exceptions, do not keep dogs who loose dog fights.

Typically, the losers are executed. Additionally, long fights often result in the death of both the

winner and the loser. The winner often dies from the injuries it receives during the fight or from lack

of hydration. Therefore, a dog fighter with even limited experience understands that the dog they

place into the ring may die.

8. Fighting dog breeders likewise understand that they make money when purchasers

believe their dogs’ bloodlines produce good fighters. Breeders understand that the puppies they sell

are not family pets, but fighters whom someone will place into a pit to see if the dog is game.
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 4 of 12

9. Therefore, everyone within this conspiracy could reasonably foresee death or maiming

of the fighting dogs.

INDIVIDUALLY

William Berry

10. William Berry sponsored dog fights and charged an entry fee, bred and sold pit bull

puppies, wagered, and fought pit bull dogs. Notably, on November 15, 2008, Berry did not provide

the referee, Joseph Addison, with his $2000 forfeit. A dispute arose regarding which dog won the

fight. The group attending the fight quickly chose sides; one group leaving with Berry after he

picked up his dog and ran from the scene. The other group pursued Berry. Had it not been for the

undercover law enforcement, this situation was poised to turn violent.

11. At the time law enforcement executed a search warrant at Berry’s kennel, Berry only

had five dogs. However, testing determined that Berry’s dogs were game and Berry’s kennel was

located next door to a day care facility.

12. The Missouri Humane Society had been given permission by the court in the civil

forfeiture case to treat, test, and house the dogs seized on July 8, 2009. In order to determine which

dogs were capable of rehabilitation, the Missouri Humane Society conducted a series of behavioral

tests to see how each dog reacted to various conditions the dog would encounter if adopted. All of

these tests were video taped. Several tests were used to determine “gameness.” These tests included

presenting the subject dog with non-aggressive male and female dogs and with a stuffed dog. Other

tests examined how the subject dog would respond to people.

13. One of Berry’s dogs was euthenized for medical reasons. The other four were

euthenized for their behavior. Notably, Dog Q905 showed fear of humans and even showed fear of

a doll.
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 5 of 12

Derrick Courtland

14. As seen in the videos, Derrick Courtland proudly wore his “Backstreet Truez” hat to

dog fights. Courtland also possessed two shirts advertising his partnership in Backstreet Truez

kennel. Courtland repeatedly has requested return of these items of evidence.

15. Courtland bred pit bull fighting dogs, refereed fights, sponsored fights, and fought

pit bulls. While currently vacant, the secure kennels on Courtland’s Mousette property remain intact.

16. On July 8, 2009, agents and the Humane Society seized eight dogs and later

welcomed seven puppies.

17. Courtland’s dogs underwent behavior tests. Ultimately, all of the adult dogs were

euthenized. Two of the dogs, R006 and R007, attacked the stuffed dog. R007 would not release the

stuffed dog even when presented with food, a pan was struck with a stick near her ear, and when one

of the handlers tried to pry her teeth away from the stuffed dog with a break stick she was

unsuccessful. R007 required a second handler to pry her mouth, with some blood shed, off of the

stuffed animal’s face. Worried that she might attack her puppies, handlers attempted to calm R007.

John Bacon

18. John Bacon housed his dogs on Ricky Stringfellow’s property. Together, twenty-four

dogs were seized from that property and ten puppies were born. Undercover agents recorded Bacon

on March 22, 2009, providing a tour of his dogs which were located along the back fence of the

Stringfellow property. The Government concludes that twelve to fourteen of the dogs belonged to

Bacon.

19. During the behavior tests, S099 showed aggression toward other animals, despite the

fact she was blind. During the tour, Bacon boasted that she would “hit” anything. Bacon used S099
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 6 of 12

for breeding and, in fact, several puppies were seized living with her in an elevated kennel. See

Exhibit 1.

20. During the March 22, 2009, tour, Bacon boasted of his dogs skill, the dog’s Mexican

bloodline, and his unwillingness to keep a dog that was not game. While admitting that he

accidentally killed a dog he only meant to strike with a stick, Bacon boasted that he pulled the tongue

out of a dog and killed it for the dog’s poor fighting.

21. Of the dogs seized along the back fence, six showed wounds from fly strikes. All of

the adult dogs belonging to Bacon were euthenized for either medical problems or behavior

observations.

Julius Jackson

22. Julius Jackson is on video engaging in dog fighting. Moreover, he is a well

established pit bull fighting dog breeder. Forty-two dogs, including twenty-one puppies, were seized

from his property on July 8, 2009.1 He is affiliated with Joseph Addison and Derrick Courtland who

advertise themselves as Backstreet Truez Kennel a nationally advertized kennel.

23. On July 8, 2009, one dog in particular drew the Humane Societies’ attention. A

veterinarian examined T820 and found that the dog tested positive for parvo and was virtually

comatose at intake. Dehydrated and moaning, T820 had maggots at her lips, nose, tail base, and

thigh. T820 was put to sleep within twenty-four hours. See Exhibit 2.

24. Most of Jackson’s puppies were deemed adoptable by rescue organizations.

However, three dogs, including T820, were euthenized for medical reasons and eighteen were

euthenized for behavioral observations. During the behavior testing, T810 attacked the stuffed dog

1
Jackson owned nearly 10% of the total dogs seized in the multi-state operation.
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 7 of 12

and, again, handlers had to use a break stick to pry T810 off of the stuffed dog. T810 was so “game”

that it then attacked the control object testers presented to him.2

Joseph Addison

25. Addison participated in every level of dog fighting including breeding, fighting, and

refereeing fights. Next to Jackson, Addison had the second highest number of dogs seized from him

during the search warrant on July 8, 2009.

26. Originally, agents and the Humane Society seized thirty-three dogs from Addison,

but three of the dogs were pregnant at intake. Twenty-six puppies were born after the search warrant.

Ultimately, Addison had the largest number of dogs forfeited, fifty-nine.

27. At intake, Humane Society veterinarians noticed that U316 showed severe facial

injuries. Even with bite marks to U316's facial bones and after being given a sedative, U316

continued to growl and act aggressively toward other dogs. The treating veterinarian concluded that

if U316 survived these injuries, U316 would be in constant pain and would be a constant threat to

the other animals. U316 was euthenized. See Exhibit 3.

28. In Addison’s case, the numbers speak for themselves. Six puppies died in their

kennel. Twenty of the remaining puppies were capable of being rescued. Seven adults were rescued.

Twenty-four others were euthenized for behavioral and medical reasons.

29. Addison’s dogs knew cruelty. At the March 22, 2009, fight, Addison boasted that

he did not have the chain space for dogs who would not fight. Later that night, he offered to

electrocute the undercover agent’s dog, Hammer, when Hammer lost a fight. The agents turned

down his offer. When Addison’s dog later lost, the entire crowd watched as Addison asked

2
The control object was usually a sheet draped over a metal chair.
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 8 of 12

Stringfellow for a line to electrocute his dog. As soon as Stringfellow returned, Addison killed his

dog.

James Milburn, III

30. Milburn was a breeder and dog fighter who advertized on the internet. At the time

his fifteen dogs were seized, P410, P411, and P414 showed signs of wounds. P415 had broken teeth.

P412's left eye was missing. See Exhibit 4.

31. During the testing, Milburn’s dogs demonstrated their gameness and fearfulness.

P414, in particular, at first, would not even stand up during the testing. Later, he demonstrated his

readiness to fight.

32. Ultimately, thirteen of Milburn’s fifteen dogs were euthenized.

Ricky Stringfellow

33. Stringfellow accepted money for housing Bacon’s dogs and hosting fights.

Stringfellow also bred his own pit bulls and handed the electrical chord to Addison so that Addison

could electrocute his dog.

34. On July 8, 2009, twenty-four dogs were seized from Stringfellow and Bacon. Ten

puppies were born on July 29, 2009, two of which died in their kennel shortly thereafter.

35. As previously stated, Agents were able to determine which dogs belonged to

Stringfellow and which belonged to Bacon based upon Bacon’s March 22, 2009, kennel tour. Based

upon that tour, the Government asserts that ten dogs belonged to Stringfellow. Of those ten dogs,

four were euthenized for behavioral observations. In fact, S088 required two handlers to hold him

by a separate leash. With those restraints in place, S088 still attacked the stuffed dog.
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 9 of 12

CONCLUSIONS

36. Joseph Addison’s electrocution of his dog is shocking to those not involved in dog

fighting. What is even more shocking is that the electrocution was accepted by the other dog

fighters. Not one attempted to stop Addison. Stringfellow voluntarily left to get an electrical chord.

No one said a word that a juvenile was present. The agents will testify that dog fighters uniformly

do not want to waste chain space on dogs who are not game. While it is unusual that Addison’s

actions were caught on tape, it is not unusual for the losing dog to be executed.

37. Application Note 2 states, “[i]f the offense involved extraordinary cruelty to an

animal that resulted in, for example, maiming or death to an animal, an upward departure may be

warranted.” As a member of the conspiracy present at the killing, Addison, Milburn, Stringfellow,

Bacon, Jackson, and Courtland share equally in a reasonably foreseeable death and should share

equally in elevated consequences.

38. Moreover, the 3553a factors take into account factors that the guidelines miss: a

maggot infested puppy, a blind dog, a dog with one eye, mass arguments over forfeit money, dog

owners with thirty, forty, or fifty dogs, national and internet advertisement.

39. Title 7, United States Code, Section 2156 allows for sentences up to five years

imprisonment. With the Sentencing Guidelines addressing a misdemeanor sentence, the logical

question raised by the statutory prison term is what is average, mitigated, or aggravated? What type

of dog fighter deserves 30 months imprisonment?

40. Each of the dog fighters within this indictment show characteristics which distinguish

them from a mitigated sentence. Specifically, Courtland is a proud member of Backstreet Truez.

While he had fifteen dogs, with the puppies, Courtland had the distinction of having one of the most

aggressive dogs seized. Stringfellow had a similar number of dogs, but willingly handed the
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 10 of 12

electrical chord to Addison so that a dog could be killed. Berry profited by charging admission and

caused a large disturbance which was poised to turn violent.

41. These dog fighters show characteristics which show them to be above the average dog

fighter. Addison’s confirmed execution coupled with his fifty-nine dogs demonstrate the aggravated

nature of his crime. Bacon proudly boasted the he, too, killed. Further, Bacon continued to use a

blind dog for breeding purposes knowing that he would make money from the puppies of the dog

who would hit anything. Jackson, a respected pit bull fighting dog breeder, had forty-two dogs. One

of which was infested with maggots. Finally, Milburn’s dogs showed signs of their fighting

activities. One even lost an eye.

THEREFORE, with the Guidelines and statutory factors in mind, he Government respectfully

requests that the Court sentence all defendants to terms of imprisonment for a term ranging from

twelve months to twenty-four months.

Respectfully submitted,

A. COURTNEY COX
United States Attorney

s/Jennifer Hudson
JENNIFER HUDSON
Assistant United States Attorney
Nine Executive Drive
Fairview Heights, IL 62208
(618) 628-3700
Fax: (618) 628-3720
E-mail: Jennifer.Hudson2@usdoj.gov
 Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 11 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CRIMINAL NO.09CR30101-MJR
)
WILLIAM BERRY, )
DERRICK COURTLAND, )
JOHN BACON, )
JULIUS JACKSON, )
JOSEPH ADDISON, )
JAMES H. MILBURN, III, and )
RICKY J. STRINGFELLOW, )
)
Defendants. )
)

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on May 26, 2010, I caused to be electronically filed GOVERNMENT’S

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will

send notification of such filing(s) to the following:

Turner A. Rouse Ronald E. Jenkins

trouselaw@peaknet.net rjenkins@jenkinskling.com
James M. Stern Michael S. Ghidina
jamesstern70@cs.com msghidina@aol.com
Phillip J. Kavanaugh, III Justin A. Kuehn
Phillip_Kavanaugh@fd.org justinkuehn@kuehnlawfirm.com
Todd M. Schultz Albert S. Watkins
todd_schultz@fd.org albertswatkins@kwmwlaw.com

and I hereby certify that on May 26, 2010, I caused to be mailed by United States Postal Service, the

document(s) to the following non-registered participants:

Stacey Grinnell and Linda Fletcher, Probation Officers

Case 3:09-cr-30101-MJR Document 170 Filed 05/26/10 Page 12 of 12

Respectfully submitted,

A. COURTNEY COX
United States Attorney

s/Jennifer Hudson
JENNIFER HUDSON
Assistant United States Attorney
Nine Executive Drive
Fairview Heights, IL 62208
Phone: (618) 628-3700
Fax: (618) 628-3720
E-mail: Jennifer.Hudson2@usdoj.gov