Thread by @UnicornRiotLive

Court is starting shortly in the federal case against political prisoner #EricKing in #Denver, CO with presiding Judge William J. Martinez. The focus today is on selecting a jury.

We just spoke with the judge's clerk and she told us the public access line will be open in about 10 minutes and that court hasn't officially started yet, they have been doing preliminary motions. Public access line: 877-336-1828 with access code: 9449909#

Court is open to the public now. Judge Martinez is speaking and introducing the attorneys who are representing the government and the defense (Eric King).

The judge explains that the first group to be interviewed is 1-31. If less than 13 are chosen out of that group, they will move onto the next group. They will select 12 jurors with 1 alternate.

The potential jurors are being sworn in.

The judge says if everything goes smoothly, the trial will be a four-day trial. Each day will go from 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.

The judge is asking a potential juror why he believes being a juror would be an undue burden. He explains that his wife has cancer and is at home and he is the only one who can take care of her. The judge asks if the government or defense objects to his release, they say no.

He is released. Another juror is explaining how she is an attorney and has hearings this week. The judge says he's not going to release her now. Another person is speaking now and he says he has to do something in Washington D.C. The judge says he's not going to release him yet.

One of the attorney's approaches the bench. Now another potential juror is speaking and she says she stays at home with her kids and doesn't have childcare, and her mom can only watch her kids today. The judge asks if a neighbor or friend can watch her kids, she says no.

Judge asks if government or defense object, they say no. Judge releases her.

Jurors from the 2nd pool are filling in the seats for those few who were released.

Judge asks the new jurors if they are asking to be excused, they all say no. He now asks if anyone has physical limitations that would impair their ability.

Judge reads the summary of the case. He says that King allegedly assaulted an officer, but that King denies that offense and says it was self-defense. He explains that the charge against King isn't evidence and doesn't prove anything.

He asks if that context would affect anyone's ability to presume King innocent. He asks if anyone feels that the defendant should have to prove his innocence. He asks if there is anyone who expects King will testify and if anyone will hold it against him if he doesn't.

The judge asks if anyone knows him or a member of his staff. He asks if anyone knows or has had interactions with any of the prosecution team, the defense team, or Eric King.

He asks if anyone has worked with anyone or worked in the BOP or FBI. If anyone has worked alongside BOP or FBI. Someone raised their hand and said her boyfriend knows one of the attorneys. The judge asks follow-up questions.

Another potential juror speaks, he says he has an insurance client who works as a prison guard at FCI Florence. He sold him home and auto insurance. Judge asks him follow-up questions. Potential juror says he spoke with him about infamous inmates.

Another potential juror speaks now, however it is incredibly hard to hear what he is saying. The judge asked what type of contract work he does for them and if he works with the federal prisons or state prisons. Juror says he builds prisons.

Another potential juror says his step father was a security guard in a Florida prison.

The judge now reads possible witnesses for the government. The list includes Donald Wilcox and Jeffrey Kammrad. He then reads possible witnesses for the defense. He asks if any of the potential jurors know any of those people.

The judge says he is going to pause from group questions and do individual questions now. He says he's going to start with pot. juror number 1.

The public access line is breaking up a bit, so it's hard to hear what the potential jurors are saying.

The jurors are explaining what their occupations are, if they have a romantic partner, what their educational background is, if they have children, etc.

Court is on a short break.

Court is back in session.

The judge says they are done with the individual bio questions. He says he is going to ask group questions now. He asks if anyone has served on a jury before or on a grand jury. If people did, they raise their hand.

Juror number 4 is in the juror box. He asks how many juries he's served on, he says one and it was about 10 years ago, it was a DUI case. Judge asks if anything happened in that case that would affect him in this case, he says no.

Another juror says he's also served on a DUI case. He says nothing about the case or his duties as a juror would affect him in this case about being fair and impartial.

Another person says they served on a jury about 10 years ago in Boulder in a sexual assault case. She says the case won't affect her.

Another person says they served in a federal court case in the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse (the one in now). The case was on child molestation. Pot. juror says he won't be affected in this case.

Judge asks if anyone as a potential juror has already formed opinions on this case, the person says the gentleman was already an inmate, so she thinks he may be guilty. "It'd be harder to convince me from where I stand now, that he is an innocent person."

The judge asks if she would be able to be a fair and impartial juror, she says she wouldn't be able to be, so the judge excuses her.

A pot. juror from the 2nd group is sharing bio information, possibly to fill the excused jurors' place.

The judge continues to ask group questions. He asks if anyone has moral objections around people serving prison time. He then asks if any of them, their spouse, or children have been charged with a crime or been subject of a criminal investigation. At least one person raises hand

The pot. juror approaches the bench, the audio is cut whenever private bench conversations happen.

Another pot. juror approaches the bench.

After a lengthy bench conversation, the judge asks if anyone or their spouse has been a victim or witness in a criminal case. A pot. juror speaks up about a misdemeanor charge in reference to the previous question. Judge asks if that experience would affect him, he says no.

Judge asks if anyone has negative or positive feelings toward the U.S., and separately, prison guards. Someone raised their hand and said their father was assaulted by a police officer in the 80s. He is his father's caretaker.

He says because of what happened to his father, he doesn't think he can be fair and impartial in this case. He is released from the case.

Another pot. juror from the 2nd group is sharing bio information, possibly to take the place of the person who was excused.

This pot. juror's husband works in the Denver District Attorney's Office as a diversion officer. Judge asks if she would have raised her hand for any group questions, she says she had a misdemeanor 20 years ago.

A pot. juror says he works in the hospital as a pharmacist and he has positive interactions with prison guards who bring in inmates, and that he has a positive view of people who work in prisons. He says it wouldn't prevent him from being fair and impartial, though.

He also shares a story where a police officer was shot and couldn't walk again. Says it would depend on the evidence, but that he thinks he can be fair and impartial.

Judge asks if anyone would believe or not believe something someone said solely because they are a police officer. He asks if anyone would have a problem following the instruction that the gov't needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge wants people to raise their hand if their answer is no. He asks if people will be able to follow the law as he instructs it even if they disagree with it, also if they would be able to follow the law even if they have a bias.

He asks if they are on the jury, if they would be able to focus solely on the facts presented in the trial. He says the lunch break is going to start now, and court will resume at 1:10 p.m. He instructs pot. jurors not to look on their phone and research the case.

If you haven't checked out our page for the trial, take a look during the break: unicornriot.ninja/coverage-of-th…

Thanks for tuning into our coverage! We'll be back live-tweeting in 55 minutes.

Court is back from lunch break. The judge asks if there are additions questions for the jury panel from the government.

One of the government attorneys is speaking now. She is talking about what a reasonable doubt is. She is asking if everyone will be able to hold the government to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. She asks about "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Someone raises his hand and she asks what beyond a shadow of a doubt means to him. She asks him if she could prove her birthday to him beyond a shadow of a doubt, he says with a birth certificate.

She asks if anyone else thinks she can prove her birthday beyond a shadow of a doubt. No one responds. She says beyond a shadow of a doubt means it is absolutely true.

"If the government proves to you beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements and the charges in this case, how would you find the defendant?" She then asks if people would feel comfortable with finding King guilty.

One person says she doesn't feel comfortable passing judgement on others, but thinks she can do it.

The lawyer asks if anyone watches CSI or other criminal investigation shows. She asks if anyone is going to take what they learned from those shows into this case. She asks about prison shows.

She asks if anyone has been to a prison or toured a prison. One pot. juror says he used to intern with a company that did some contract IT work in a prison. He says nothing from that would shape his perspective in this trial.

Another person says he was in jail for a few days. He's toured some prison museums. His father helped build a prison. He says his experience is separate from this case and can put his own experiences aside.

She asks the hospital pharmacist about how he said he could be fair depending on the evidence. He says he thinks analytically, and says he has positive bias toward police officers, but says he can be fair and impartial.

She asks if anyone has strong feelings about the prison system in the U.S. She says "I'm reading some body language, I see a shrug." The person says they don't have strong feelings.

She asks if anyone has been a witness before. She asks if anyone feels nervous today.

She asks a few specific pot. jurors how you weigh the credibility of someone.

One of the pot. jurors who has served on a jury before says he expects a police officer to be more composed as a witness because they have dealt with pressure and have more experience, he says he'd have similar expectations for correctional officers.

The attorney asks if anyone has preconceived ideas about the location of the alleged assault. No one does.

The government is done questioning, the judge asks to speak with Attorney Sandra Freeman with the CLDC before she begins questioning.

The judge says he is having a technical problem. The computers are not working. He says they are going to take a short recess, but that everyone should stay where they are.

The court is back. Freeman asks since King was in prison during the alleged offense, if that would make him seem more likely to be guilty. She asks if that means he would be an aggressive or violent person.

She asks if people think violence is ever acceptable. One of the pot. jurors says generally no, but that she thinks self defense is acceptable. Freeman asks if others believe self defense is acceptable. She asks if prisoners have the right to act in self defense.

She asks since King is accused of violence, if that means it's harder to prove him innocent. She asks does knowing King was a prisoner mean it's harder to prove him innocent. She asks the majority of pot. juror members each of these questions.

She asks if they learned King had previous conflicts with other guards in different prisons, if that means he would be more likely to be guilty. One potential juror member says she could see that as a potential pattern. Another person agrees that it would be a pattern.

A few others agree with the pattern theory. Someone says the hypothetical is bothering her. The pot. juror says if there was a disclosure of identical similar behavior, it would weigh on her.

"I think people show you who they are by their actions." Says one other pot. juror.

Freeman says the jury is going to be hearing a lot from correctional officers during the trial. She asks if the jury hears that correctional officers used force on King, if the jury members would assume it was justified. One person says probably yes.

Freeman asks if a correctional officer testifies he needed to use force, if the jurors would find it hard to consider King not-guilty. The government objects, the judge asks Freeman to reword the question.

One pot. juror says he would probably think King attacked someone or that there was a reason for the force. She asked if anyone else felt similarly. She then asks if correctional officers are more/less credible than non-correctional officers.

Freeman asks if it's easier to believe a prison guard, rather than a prisoner. She also asks if anyone would need to hear directly from King to find him not-guilty.

Freeman asks about a hypothetical--someone is near a lake and a four-foot long fish jumps out and hits the person in the face--what would they need to believe the person? People say an injury, see a video, pictures, witnesses.

Freeman asks if they would need to see the evidence to believe it happened, such as a video or photos.

Freeman has no further questions. The judge asks counsel to approach the bench.

The judge says they are going to start the process of cutting down the 31 potential jurors to 13 via peremptory challenges. The defense has 11 challenges, and the prosecution has 7.

The government excuses juror 6. The defense excuses jurors 13 and 4.

The government excuses juror 8. The defense excuses two jurors, however the mic was not loud when the attorney spoke so it's unclear what their numbers were.

The government excuses juror 18. The defense excuses jurors 1 and 3.

The government excuses juror in seat number 8. The defense excuses two jurors by name.

The government excuses juror 25. The defense excuses juror 5.

The judge is asking the juror who is an attorney if she has updates on the case she's supposed to be working on this week. He asks if she thinks the judge will be able to reschedule if she gets picked for the jury. He asks the counsel to approach.

The government excuses the juror who is the attorney. Defense excuses juror 24.

The 7th and final round of peremptory challenges is up, however neither the government nor the defense had anyone left they want to strike. The judge called the counsel up to the bench.

The judge says the 13 jury members have been selected. He excuses everyone else. The jurors stand and they take the oath.

Afternoon break for about 15 minutes. Then opening statements will happen.

Court is still not back. The jury may still be reading/reviewing their instructions and guidelines.

Court is back. Judge says the government can begin their opening statement, however Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron M. Teitelbaum asks if the jury instructions were read. Judge says they weren't, and he reads them now.

Reading the instructions took about 10 minutes, and included a reminder that the opening statements are not evidence.

Five stipulations of facts: Gov't exhibit 29 is the defendant's shirt he was wearing on August 17, 2018. Gov't exhibit 30 is the pants. Gov't exhibit 31 is defendant's glasses. Gov't exhibit 32 is Lt. Wilcox's shirt. Gov't exhibit 33 is Lt. Wilcox's pants. All are evidence.

Teitelbaum offers the government's opening statement. He asks for control of the screen for power point purposes. He starts with the date of August 17, 2018. He says King struck Wilcox's face, breaking his nose and injuring his eye.

Teitelbaum says the evidence will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that King is guilty. "First of all, earlier on August 17, 2018, before the assault, another officer was assaulted by a different inmate." Teitelbaum talks about an email King sent saying he felt satisfied.

He explains that the other officers thought King could pose a threat due to the e-mail. Teitelbaum says Wilcox was doing his job by seeking out an interview with King. "[King] was brought to an office at the end of a corridor."

He says Lt. Wilcox will testify and that King took his opportunity to experience the satisfaction the inmate earlier in the day got. Teitelbaum says Kammrad will also testify. He says getting a hold of the situation included officers putting hands on King.

He shares photos of Wilcox's bloody shirt and King's face. He says to carefully notice the contrast of the injuries between King and Wilcox.

He asks the jury to use all their good common sense they brought in with them to the courthouse in their decision-making.

Defense opening statement by Attorney Lauren Regan. She mentions how the excerpt of the e-mail shared by the prosecution in the opening statement didn't show the whole thing. She shares a part of it that was left out and mentions it was sent to his wife.

She says this is a case about finger pointing and that King was brought to a mop closet. She shows a picture of the storage closet. She says you'll hear some correctional officers saying it is an interview room. She says King had a black eye and Wilcox had a bloody nose.

She says how King has always said he punched Wilcox, but in self defense. However, she says, Wilcox has said different stories. She says this was between one man--a large prison guard with that privilege and position, and King who is a smaller person and an inmate.

She says you won't hear consistent stories from the prison guards, and that is reasonable doubt.

The government calls Donald Wilcox to the stand.

Wilcox is sworn in. Teitelbaum asks what he is currently doing for work. He says working at his own personal ranch.

Teitelbaum asks if Wilcox has children. He says he has four. His son who is 35 works as a guard in BOP. His next son was also a guard, but he died. Then two daughters.

Wilcox says before the BOP, he was in the Marine Corps. Then worked at In-N-Out Burger, worked on a horse ranch, worked for city animal control, then moved to BOP. He worked for BOP for 20 years.

Wilcox explains the different positions he held when in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Wilcox explains different custody levels and levels of security in federal prisons. Teitelbaum asks about the roles Wilcox has had. He's been a tool officer who takes care and accounts for all the tools/hardware at the facility, and a bus officer who transports inmates.

Teitelbaum asks the difference between a correctional officer and lieutenant, the correctional officers are the main workers in prisons and the lieutenants are supervisory correctional officers.

Wilcox says there are many different roles lieutenants can take on. He says there are SHU and SIS lieutenants. An SIS lieutenant's job is to investigate incidents within the institution and decide if there should be charges, also monitors gang activity.

Wilcox explains the operations lieutenant and the activities lieutenant. He says an admin lieutenant mostly does administrative tasks, making and maintaining rosters.

The admin lieutenant does audits of the facility and will replace captain if the captain isn't there.

Teitelbaum asks if Wilcox won any awards from his work at BOP, and he says yes. Teitelbaum says he developed a curriculum about mental health and effective communications and deescalating.

Wilcox was an admin lieutenant on August 17, 2018 at FCI Florence. Teitelbaum asks before that day if Wilcox knew Eric King. Wilcox says he was asked to interview King. Wilcox says a lieutenant was assaulted by an inmate earlier that morning.

Wilcox says the SIS lieutenant asked him to interview King because of the e-mail King sent. Wilcox offers exhibit 38 into evidence. No objection.

Now there is an objection by the defense. Judge says it was a stipulation, defense says they didn't receive it. Teitelbaum asks to approach. Counsel approaches bench.

Exhibit 38 is shown. Wilcox confirms it is the e-mail King sent on August 17, 2018. Wilcox reads the e-mail aloud. Teitelbaum asks what LT means, Wilcox says lieutenant.

Teitelbaum asks if Eric King is in the courtroom, and has Wilcox identify him, he does. Teitelbaum asks where the meeting happened. Wilcox says it started outside the lieutenant's office. He doesn't remember who he asked to tell King to go to the office.

Teitelbaum asks Wilcox to view some exhibits. He asks if 1-7 are photographs of the office area, defense objects, judge overrules. Wilcox says he left his office and came out to talk to King, he says King seemed agitated, so he asked him to have a seat on a concrete stool.

He said he had to take care of something and that he would be back, hoping King would calm down when sitting on the stool. Teitelbaum asks Wilcox to look at exhibit 1, Wilcox explains the photograph of outside the lieutenant's office and points out of stool or bench.

Wilcox explains "the compound" which is a yard in the middle of the different sections of the facility.

Teitelbaum asks for exhibit 4 to be published. Wilcox explains the multiple offices in the hallway of the lieutenant's office. He says the 4th office is a transitory office with extra stuff in it, a desk, cleaning supplies, he says SIS conducts interviews in there.

Wilcox says he tried to interview King in the overflow office. Wilcox says King was upset, the general inmate population could see him and Wilcox says that can be unsettling for some inmates. Wilcox says he asked King to step into the transitory office space.

Wilcox says when King was standing in front of the lieutenant's office can be viewed by some inmates that you are cooperating with the police or did something wrong, and that can be seen negatively by some inmates.

Teitelbaum is about to publish exhibit 6 when the judge asks if the court wants to recess until tomorrow. The government says that's fine. Judge reads juror instructions.

Judge Martinez says court will begin at 8:45 a.m. tomorrow. The jury leaves the courtroom. The judge has something else to say on record to Wilcox, he is instructing Wilcox not to speak with any of the lawyers during the recess.

Court is done for the day. Thank you for tuning into our coverage of the first day of the #EricKing trial in #Denver, CO. We will be back live-tweeting tomorrow. To learn more about the case, check out our page➡️unicornriot.ninja/coverage-of-th…

If you want to help us continue this work, please consider a tax-deductible donation: unicornriot.ninja/donate/