Political prisoner #EricKing has his first evidentiary hearing this morning in #Colorado Federal Court for a charge while in prison for allegedly "assaulting" a Bureau of Prisons officer in 2018. According to King, he was the one who was assaulted that day by a prison guard.
Presiding Judge William J. Martinez made a motion prior to the hearing that it would be closed to the public because the court "became aware of information which causes it to be concerned of a potential disruption of the hearing."
The Judge admitted on record that U.S. Marshals and others looked at social media accounts and saw discussions that people were going to be at the hearing. He didn't share specific details or say if there was talk of a "disruption" on social media.
Therefore, members of the media, the community, and one of his family members were not allowed to enter the courtroom. Only his partner was allowed to go in.
The prosecution is currently questioning a witness who used to work at Leavenworth Prison in Kansas, where King was incarcerated for some time.
They are asking her about the disciplinary hearing reports she put together for Eric King from the incident at Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Florence in Colorado.
She just read aloud what she wrote down after interviewing King about the incident. King mentioned the mop closet to her and how he was brought in there instead of the lieutenant's office.
The defense attorney didn't want to approach the lectern to cross examine, and the Judge said if she didn't then she wouldn't be able to cross examine. She then went to the lectern to being her questioning.
She asks the witness where she would get the information to fill out certain parts of the disciplinary hearing report.
There were two reports, and one said the FBI and the AUSA declined to press charges, and one said they accepted to prosecute.
The defense attorney asks about hole punches that were visible on one of the reports, but not the other. The reports were photocopied, and the dots still show. The witness says it doesn't mean anything to her.
"Exhibit 9 is, I'm sure, 100% sure I drafted." The lawyer then asks if she drafted the other exhibit also, and she says 'no,' and then walks back on her previous statement saying that she cannot say 100% if she drafted either of them because there are too many she drafted.
The Judge jumps in and asks similar questions to the witness. He asks if her electronic signature is available to others and she says "yes." He asks if she had a secretary and she says "no."
The defense asks how the witness mentions to the inmate who is prosecuting them, the witness says she doesn't say anything specifically to the inmate. She tells them the FBI and/or AUSA are in processing.
The Judge jumps in and asks for clarification--if the phrase that the FBI and/or AUSA are released for administrative processing means that the hearing can proceed, and she says "yes."
The defense brings up how the BPO may have decided not to move forward with the hearing.
The Judge agrees with the prosecution that they don't have time to do a dry run of the trial, and that they need to move on.
The defense brings up defense exhibit A. The witness says it looks familiar. It pertains to the inmate disciplinary program.
The defense asks if this disciplinary program from 2011 is the same that guided her in 2018. She says "yes."
The prosecution steps in and asks that just one paragraph of the program be submitted into evidence. The Judge agrees because the defense doesn't have clear need for the whole document.
The defense asks the witness if she is aware of the process to sign the document when you deliver it to an inmate. She says "yes." The lawyer then asks if that document has her signature, which it doesn't.
Defense asks if her signature on Exhibit 8 means that King got a copy of that full report including whether or not he was being prosecuted? The witness says King got a copy.
Defense is done with cross examination of the witness who used to be a Disciplinary Hearing Officer. Prosecution declines to redirect. 10 minute break.
In the meantime, check out our coverage about #EricKing --> unicornriot.ninja/2016/eric-king…
This article is from June 2016 when King was sentenced to 10 years for his involvement in an attempted molotov cocktail attack against a congressman’s office in September 2014. unicornriot.ninja/2016/eric-king…
In Colorado, advocates from across the state used noise-makers and other party supplies on New Year's Eve in 2020 to bring holiday cheer to prisoners inside the Englewood Federal Correctional Institution (FCI Englewood), including Eric King. unicornriot.ninja/2020/prison-ab…
Court is back in session. The prosecution is questioning a current employee at the FCI Prison.
The witness explains that one day he brought King into the lieutenant's office and the witness and the lieutenant said they would read King his Miranda rights and would interview him. They then turned on a video camera.
King had his wrists restrained and connected to a stomach chain. The prosecutor asks if the witness caused King any harm or drew his weapon, he says "no."
The prosecutor offers the advisement of rights form from August 2019, it is submitted into evidence. He also brings up the video. The Judge says it's already in evidence and that they don't have to play it now.
Cross examination begins. The Judge says at first that defense can play parts of the video if they want.
Defense asks where they worked in the prison, and asked if they worked weekends. He didn't work weekends. Defense asks if the witness saw King having any injuries. He says "no." She asked if he saw him with a black eye. He says no and that he "doesn't remember."
Defense asks if the witness knew why King was in the SHU (solitary confinement) prior to the interview. Prosecutor objects. Judge asks reason for questioning, allows it to continue.
Lieutenant Silva, who is the current witness, is King's current lieutenant in the SHU at FCI Englewood.
Defense asks prior to the interview with King, if Silva was aware that King wanted his attorney present, and he says "no." She asks if Silva was aware that his lawyer was trying to contact King, he says "no."
She also asks if he was aware of the feces overflowing in King's cell, and he says no.
Defense shows Silva a screen grab of the video, and she asks if this helps him recollect if King has a black eye or not. Silva says he can't tell because it's a black and white photo. The prosecution says they'll allow the fact that King had a black eye to be in the record.
The Judge is saying he doesn't understand the "utility" of asking the lieutenant what he remembers or not because they have the video evidence.
Defense asks if King was asserting the right to council in the interview, how would that be accommodated. Prosecution objects. Judge overrules. Lieutenant says if King asked for a lawyer then the interview would have been stopped.
The lieutenant says King didn't ask for an attorney during the interview.
The defense asks if King was in custody or free to leave during the interview, Silva says he was in BOP custody. Cross examination complete. No redirect. Now on the stand is Richard White.
White worked at FCI Englewood in 2018. The prosecution asks if White helped restrain King. White says yes. He says there were other officers helping. He says he asked King to put his hands behind his back, and he complied.
August 17, 2018, White says they put King into the stryker chair (which is similar to a wheelchair).
Prosecution offers a video of King in the stryker chair into evidence. The defense says that they have a longer version of the video that they want to submit. Prosecution says full video is fine.
Judge allows the short version of the video to be put into evidence. It plays.
White says the clip is from the special housing or SHU hole region of the prison. After the video is cut, they cut his clothes off, except his boxers, and put him in the 4 point restraint.
There was a medical assessment, and White says he didn't notice any injuries on King. Prosecutor asks if he or anyone else threatened or pulled weapons on King, White says no.
Prosecution is done questioning. Cross examination begins. Defense offers exhibit 2, which is admitted into evidence.
Defense asks if White was summoned to that area of the prison or if he just came upon it. White says he was outside the glass walking on the sidewalk of the lieutenant's hallway and heard commotion.
Defense asks if White was walking into the lieutenant's hallway what it looks like. Defense further describes it: If you go through the main hallway, there are two offices on the left, and on the right at the very end there is a storage closet.
White says that the door on the right isn't a storage closet and that it's a lieutenant's office.
Defense asks further about the noise or commotion. White said it heard like something hitting a metal door hard.
White says when he walked over to see what happened, he doesn't remember anyone else there except King. White says King didn't struggle against him.
White says King didn't try to assault or fight him.
Defense asks if White is familiar with the BOP use-of-force policy, he says "yes." Defense then asks if he is familiar about the BOP reasons for using a stryker chair, he says no. Defense then reminds him that he explained earlier to prosecution when the chair is used.
White says he "wouldn't assume the lieutenant beat himself up," as reason for the stryker chair. Defense reminds him that earlier he said he didn't see anyone. White now says he saw Lt. Wilcox was bleeding heavily from the nose and couldn't stand.
Defense asks if White believes the stryker chair was justified because of the alleged assault, White says yes for staff safety.
Defense asks if White was responsible for holding King down while waiting for the stryker chair. She asks if King was compliant, he says yes.
She asks if any officers or staff spoke to King when he was in the stryker chair. He says no. She asks if he heard King say anything, he says no.
Defense attempts to submit a 52 minute video showing King being held in the 4 point restraint. Prosecution only says they'll object if the 52 minute video is played in full.
The video is submitted. Defense begins asking questions about the video. She asks if King was compliant when he was being put in the 4 point restraint. White says yes.
She asks if White did any of the 15-minute checks on King after he was placed in a 4 point restraint, White says no and that he didn't see him for the rest of the day.
She asks White if he is aware that BOP training says inmates put in 4 point restraints need to be given a blanket. He says no. She asks if King was afforded a blanket while in 4 point restraint. White says he doesn't know.
Defense mentions how King was in the 4 point hold for about 5 hours and that her questions are to establish excessive force/punishment.
Cross examination is done. No redirect. Lunch recess for 45 minutes.
Unicorn Riot heard from someone inside the courtroom that King was not allowed to get dressed for court, and is being forced to wear jail garb.
Court is back in session. Prosecution calls Lieutenant Jeffrey Kammrad.
Kammrad worked at FCI Englewood up until 2020. He's worked in the BOP since 2007.
Prosecution asks if Kammrad heard noises around 1:30pm on Aug 17, 2018. He says yes. He says he was sitting on the operation side of the lieutenant's office. He heard a metallic noise.
Kammrad says he saw Lieutenant Wilcox and King in a room together and Wilcox was bloody and standing unsteadily. Kammrad says he saw King punch Wilcox in the facial area one time.
Kammrad explains how he then told King to get on the ground, and then called for assistance.
Kammrad said King wasn't initially compliant, and that he needed to grab his arm to get him to lay on the ground. Kammrad said other officers showed up and they tried to pull him up to get him to walk. He started walking then went limp, refusing to walk.
Prosecution asks what he did next. A stryker chair was brought in for use. Kammrad didn't help him into the chair. Kammrad made the call to put King in the SHU. Prosecution asks if Kammrad or others threatened King, he says no.
Kammrad says a 4 point restraint bed is made out of concrete usually. He made the decision to put King in there because of the alleged assault and for safety of staff and King himself.
Kammrad says if an inmate is being very disruptive or commits an assault, he can put King in a 4 point restraint. Then the warden has to be told about it and can change the restraint status.
Prosecution asks if Kammrad was there when a medical assessment was done. He says yes and that it is mandatory to get a medical assessment when put in 4 point restraint.
Kammrad says the 4 point restraint was videotaped because of King's "assaultive behavior" in case anything else happened.
Prosecution shows screen grabs from King's 4 point restraint video, they are submitted. Kammrad says King looks fine in the screen grabs.
Kammrad said before the 4 point restraint he was aggressive and clenching his fist, but when in the 4 point restraint he was calmer. Kammrad says King needed to show a pattern of compliant behavior before releasing him from the restraint.
Prosecutor asks if Kammrad checked on King during the 4 point restraint. Kammrad says during the initial one at the two-hour mark.
Prosecution tried to submit an incident report document. Cross examination for evidence: defense asks if the entire document is familiar to Kammrad, and he says yes. Defense agrees to the evidence. It is submitted.
Prosecution asks if it is within Kammrad's authority to release from restraints if King showed a pattern, he says yes, but that he didn't see a pattern of compliance.
Kammrad explains what a check is. He says you make sure the restraints are secure and you try to talk to the inmate and look for verbal or physical cues. If King was making eye contact or not, etc.
Prosecution asks if Kammrad went back down to do a second restraint check, he says no.
Cross examination begins. Defense brings up the assault allegation. Defense asks if any inmate assaults staff, no matter the severity, does that mean they will be put in a 4 point restraint. Kammrad says no.
Kammrad says if someone is combative, even verbally, they will probably be put in a 4 point restraint. Prosecution asks Kammrad if King was threatening him. He says no. Prosecution asks if King was threatening anyone, Kammrad says he thinks so.
Kammrad says he believes King said "I finally got a lieutenant." Prosecution asks if Kammrad has seen a piece of evidence which is a memo. He says he has seen it. Prosecution asks if those are statements he made to the FBI.
Prosecution says the memo is a summary of an interview Kammrad did with the FBI. She asks if Kammrad had done an FBI interview before the summarized one in the memo. He says no, that this was his first interview. She asks if he knows that being truthful to the FBI is important.
There are direct quotes in the FBI memo, and prosecution points out that what Kammrad said a few minutes ago is different from what he told FBI agents King said during the 2018 incident.
Prosecution asks if Kammrad's perception of King having a vendetta against lieutenants influenced his treatment of King. He says no.
Prosecution asks if the room he found Wilcox and King in had a computer. He says no. She asks if it had files. He says I don't know. She shows evidence of a photograph of a room that has a bucket, broom, rake, and other cleaning supplies.
Kammrad says that an orderly who is an inmate who cleans the lieutenant's office uses the supplies in there, but also that the room is used a lot.
Prosecution asks if Kammrad pushed King into a wall, and he says "maybe." She asks who put handcuffs on King, Kammrad doesn't remember.
Kammrad says there were quite a few staff who helped him once he called for assistance, maybe even 8 people.
Prosecution asks if Kammrad knows if he saw the video of himself and other guards moving King. He thinks he did years ago. Prosecution asks if he would recognize the content in the video, he says he thinks so.
Video is submitted into evidence. Prosecution asks about the stryker chair. Kammrad says it's used to move an inmate.
Prosecution asks if Kammrad met King outside the lieutenant's office. He says he thinks so. She asks if Kammrad walked with Wilcox to the mop closet, he says he doesn't remember. He also doesn't remember if he entered the closet at that point before the incident.
Prosecution has Kammrad confirm if he knows how to use 4 point restraint under BOP rules, he says yes. She asks if the warden is supposed to make the call if an inmate is put in a 4 point restraint or not, Kammrad says no and that he had the right to.
Prosecution submits BOP use-of-force policy. She reads that it says a 4 point restraint may not be delegated by anyone under the warden.
Prosecution says based on this policy, soft restraints must be used initially. She asks if Kammrad attempted to use soft restraints on King, he says no.
Prosecution asks if Kammrad followed the rules in this case. He believes he did.
Prosecution asks if anyone told Kammrad that King had to stay in that 4 point restraint until his rights were read. Kammrad says he doesn't recall.
Prosecution says when referring to documents, they say Kammrad's colleagues were told not to talk to King, and she asks how guards were supposed to see a behavior change in King. Kammrad says that was after his shift change and he doesn't know.
***The last 18 tweets were meant to say "Defense" not "Prosecution." We apologize for the confusion!
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
CORRECTION: Defense was questioning here, *not* prosecution.
Afternoon break. Court will resume in about 5 minutes.
The government is questioning their next witness, who works for the BOP.
Prosecution points to an exhibit of the 15-minute restraint checks. The witness says during the checks you make sure the inmate is breathing, can move their head, and complies.
At around 7pm on Aug 17, 2018 King was let out of the 4 point restraint. The witness says he could do bodily functions, drink water and eat.
The witness says the 15-minute checks are still supposed to happen even when an inmate is out of the 4 point restraint. At 7:30pm the witness wrote down that King was pacing around the room.
Prosecution asks if the witness was involved in the decision or the move of King at 9pm to the SHU. He says no.
Prosecution asks if witness saw anyone hurt King, he says no. Prosecution asks if King said he was hurt, witness says no.
Defense begins cross examination. She asks if the witness knew if King was allowed to use the bathroom prior to 7:15pm, he says no. She asks if he knew if King wet himself, witness says he doesn't know.
Defense asks if the witness saw the sign outside the room door that told people not to talk to King, he says no.
Defense asks if witness heard King make aggressive statements or be combative in any way from the time King was put in the 4 point restraint until he was moved. Witness says no.
Witness questioning done. Next witness enters courtroom. David Root is a captain in a prison.
Prosecution asks who makes the call for an inmate's transportation to another prison. Root says the warden does. He also says it happens in an emergency if the inmate assaults someone or if the inmate is at risk.
Defense objects to the witness' testimony because Root doesn't know King and wasn't there during the incident.
Judge says defense can deal with that during cross. He overrules. Root says when King was moved to the USP he probably didn't have his property with him yet, but he probably had hygiene products.
King was moved there on a Friday, which is why he didn't have his property, and he also wouldn't be able to call anyone over the weekend, according to Root.
Prosecution asks what happens if someone's toilet doesn't work. Root says they would probably try to use a snake to fix the toilet.
Defense is cross-examining now. Defense asks Root if King was being transferred on that Friday, Root says no. Defense asks if Root knew for sure if King had hygiene supplies, and if Root saw the state of the toilet, Root says no.
Defense asks if King's attorney was emailing directly with someone at USP, would the USP SHU be able to facilitate that, Root says it depends who was there.
Defense asks if Root knows about the allegation that King's toilet was overflowing with someone else's feces, he says he is aware.
Defense asks if Root knew that Lieutenant Wilcox's son worked at the USP SHU. Root says yes. Defense asked if Wilcox's son would have been near King. Root says possibly.
Defense asks if Root watched the SIS video interview with King. He said yes. Defense asked if he knew King mentioned his broken toilet during that, Root said he knew after watching the video recently. Witness is done.
Judge is now contemplating the rest of the day and what can fit because court closes at 5pm local time (one hour from now.)
Prosecution asks if the Judge would allow a written closing statement to save time in today's hearing. He says he will consider that.
Eric King, the defendant, is about to go on the witness stand.
Defense begins questioning. She mentions August 17, 2018. She asks if he was summoned to the lieutenant's office. He says yes.
Kammrad and Wilcox came out of the captain's office and told King to follow them. Another officer walked up and, according to King, said "do you need help?" King says one of them smirked and one of them responded by saying you don't want to see this.
Kammrad and Wilcox lead King to the mop closet, King slows down and becomes hesitant to go in. They told him they needed to talk. Kammrad stood behind King and Wilcox was in front.
Defense asks if the evidence picture of the mop closet looked like what King remembered. King says yes, it was a mess. The officers bring up how another officer got hurt, and King laughs. Then they begin to "goat" him, according to King. They call him a bitch and a pussy.
Kammrad leaves, and King is alone in the mop closet with Lieutenant Wilcox. King says Wilcox begins calling him a terrorist and is yelling and spitting at him. Wilcox then yells "terrorists killed my daughter!" King laughed uncomfortably.
Then Wilcox shoved King back and one foot got into the mop bucket, and part of him into the file cabinet. Then Wilcox punched King twice in the face. King says he immediately reacted by throwing three quick punches in self defense.
King hears footsteps moving quickly toward the closet, King stays on the ground and says he is terrified. He says the officers start kicking him in the ribs. King kept telling the other officers that the lieutenant hit him first.
Another officer comes up and puts his knee into the back of King's ribs, King refers to it as a "George Floyd move," the officer told King that if he moved he would die. King says he fully believed him.
King says that he didn't resist at all because he was terrified what they would do, he says he was docile. He says the officers were furious because King hurt their colleague.
Then they put him in the stryker chair and bring him to the room with the 4 point restraint room. Two officers hold him up against a wall and a third uses a metal hook to take all his clothes off, including his boxers. After a few seconds they give him a new pair of boxers.
King says he felt like a rape victim. Then when he was put in the 4 point restraint, he describes it as painful and uncomfortable. He says his body immediately started to hurt and then he started getting itchy, but couldn't scratch anything.
He wasn't offered water or offered to use the bathroom. King says he peed himself twice and it was humiliating.
Another officer comes in and asks why he hit Wilcox, and King responds by saying he didn't bring himself into the mop closet. Then the same officer brings in another officer. One officer puts his hand over King's mouth, the other officer uses his shield to press on King's face.
One officer put a blanket on King's waist and then told King that they follow policy around here. King is then told he's being sent to the USP SHU, and since King is a known anti-racist activist, he thought they were sending him to his death.
He gets a change of clothes, and is put in a "hard cell." Then he sees the bag given to him and there's not a lot of gear. His mattress is also half a mattress, cut horizontally. He goes to the use the toilet and notices poop in it, but uses it anyway.
Then the poop rises and overflows into the cell. King tries to tell everyone who walks by that his toilet needs to be fixed. They ignore him and tell him to shut up. Wilcox Jr. then shows up in front of King's cell and stares at him.
King thought Wilcox Jr. could have killed him. After 5 or 10 minutes Wilcox Jr. left. The next day, Monday, officers tell King that he is getting cuffed up. King thinks he's going to another mop closet.
He is walked into a room with a video camera. Two officers are inside and they ask to do an interview. King thinks this is his opportunity to save his life.
Defense asks if King remembers the officers handing a sheet over to read. King says yes. He remembers them saying if you do this interview, then you can talk to a lawyer. King said I want to talk to my lawyer now. They kept saying after this interview.
King says he was also terrified during this whole time because his wife was sick at home, so he was scared for his own safety, and his wife's.
King says he didn't understand what the sheet of paper said, and that he didn't care, because he was told that he needed to do the interview to be able to talk to his lawyer.
King then gets sent to USP Leavenworth. A lieutenant told King that the charge against him was dropped. Defense asks if King was certain he was no longer being prosecuted, King enthusiastically says yes. He says the associate warden and others said so.
Defense asks what King thought was the difference between getting prosecuted for assault, and getting disciplined for assault. King says you can't get both, and discipline is less benefits in prison, but no extra jail time.
King says he never received anything saying he was going to be prosecuted. Direct exam is over. Government says they don't need to cross-examine, and would rather do the closing arguments out loud.
Prosecution decides not to cross-examine.
The Judge says the transcript of the hearing will be ready by October 29, 2021. He says that the written out closing arguments/post-hearing briefs will be due on November 15, 2021. He will allow 20 pages.
Prosecution brings up that Kammrad will be out of the country for a year starting in December for some military business, so he'll need to do a video deposition.
Court is adjourned. Thanks to everyone who stayed updated on today's trial details from our live tweets.
To learn more about Eric King, you can check out our coverage here: unicornriot.ninja/2020/prison-ab…
Eric King's been incarcerated since 2014, and throughout his traumatic journey, the @SupportEricKing group has continued to provide support and resources to him, as well as, provide information on his behalf to the world. You can reach out to them to send Eric a book or letter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
