A Delaware court has ruled against David Yarborough in his motion to have seized funds returned to him. The ruling, issued on October 6, 2026, comes after a lengthy legal battle over money that was taken during a police investigation into theft-related charges. The decision affects Yarborough, who is currently incarcerated, and raises questions about the handling of seized property in criminal cases.
The case revolves around a series of theft-related charges against David Yarborough and his nephew, Kenneth Yarborough. In 2012, both were arrested on multiple counts of burglary and theft, with the police seizing a total of $4,307.22 during their investigation. Yarborough's motion for the return of this money was denied by the court, which found that he did not have a legitimate claim to the funds.
The background of the case dates back to April 2012 when David and Kenneth Yarborough were charged with 23 theft-related offenses. During the investigation, both made incriminating statements about each other's involvement. The situation escalated when David attempted to hire a hitman to attack his defense counsel and the prosecutor, leading to further charges against him. In 2015, he pled guilty to several counts, receiving a 36-year sentence, which was suspended after 20 years.
Yarborough filed several motions for the return of property, with the most recent one submitted on May 27, 2025. He claimed that the Delaware State Police seized the funds during his arrest. However, the State opposed his motion, arguing that the money was not seized from Yarborough himself but from Kenneth's residence during the execution of a search warrant.
The court's ruling was based on several factors. Commissioner Martin B. O'Connor stated, "Defendant did not prove standing in the seized funds by a preponderance of the evidence." The court found that the funds were located in Kenneth's home, and David was not present when they were seized. The State presented evidence that the money was recovered from Kenneth's master bedroom, undermining David's claims to ownership.
During hearings, David Yarborough attempted to establish that the money belonged to him, claiming he had worked for it and had been living with Kenneth at the time of the seizure. However, his testimony was inconsistent, and he failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. The court noted that Yarborough's attempts to add additional parties to the case, including Kenneth and a third party named LaTishia Stafford, further complicated his position and cast doubt on his credibility.
The ruling emphasized the importance of establishing a lawful possessory interest in seized property. The court concluded that Yarborough's claims were speculative and lacked factual support. It also highlighted the credibility issues surrounding Kenneth's testimony, which was described as hostile and unresponsive during cross-examination.
The impact of this ruling is significant for individuals seeking the return of seized property in similar circumstances. It underscores the need for clear evidence of ownership and the challenges faced when the property in question is linked to criminal activity. The court's decision reinforces the legal principle that a defendant must prove a lawful claim to any seized funds.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether David Yarborough will appeal the decision. The court's ruling effectively closes the chapter on his motion for the return of the funds, but it does not preclude the possibility of future legal actions related to the case. Yarborough's ongoing incarceration and previous criminal history may complicate any further attempts to reclaim the seized property.