Thread by @socialistdogmom

“when you stand up for right, that’s no guarantee there’s not gonna be repercussions.” - donald blakney’s atty to supporters after judge downer certified felony malicious wounding charges from A12.
how can you prove malice when a black man defends his city from nazis & klansmen?

donald blakney was charged in january after be identified as the man who struck eric mattson, a member of a group called 'the hiwaymen' who claim to 'stand up for the constitution,' on august 12
nbc29.com/story/37321596…

mattson, a cabinetmaker, drove from searcy, arkansas (fittingly, the county seat of white county) to "observe" the unite the right rally. he claims the hiwaymen heard the permits had been revoked and "came to support the first amendment."

just a quick aside to describe the most bizarre fash haircut i've ever seen: shaved sides, in the traditional fashion, except instead of slicking the hair back like they typically do... it was long on top and neatly done up in a fishtail braid that ended in a rat tail. 🤷‍♀️

i'm a bit confused about the description of the injuries. mattson claims he was struck on the back of the head, but sustained a "cut on my right cheekbone, my eye was blacked, i had a skull fracture." the fishing sunglasses he was wearing on the back of his head were broken.

the bit about the skull fracture was struck from the record, with the ACA saying "you don't have personal knowledge of the skull fracture." unclear if this fact is in dispute or if there's some legal issue with having on the record at this time.

now, i understand that a severe blow to the back of the head CAN cause a black eye. raccoon eyes are associated with skull fractures, so if that struck comment about the fracture is true, this tracks. but i've never seen a concussion cause cuts on anyone's face.

this isn't raised, but the issue i see here is that DB doesn't dispute he hit mattson. but if mattson has injuries DB couldn't possibly have caused, the severity of his injuries can't be attributed to DB -- he must've sustained other injuries some other way, some other time.

pictures of mattson's injuries are shown to the judge but not moved into evidence (only preserved for future proceedings), for reasons unclear to me. ACA said something about ongoing FOIA requests being the reason, but i'm unable to make sense of this.

pictures allegedly taken at the rally, at the hotel that night, and a few days later are all shown to the judge. mattson claims he traveled home on 8/13, arriving 8/14. on 8/15, he says he was having trouble with his vision & went to a local emergency room.

DB's lawyer, david baugh, is fiery.
"you said you were wearing goggles. you were wearing goggles for free speech?"
he seeks to establish that mattson knew what he & the hiwaymen were walking into.
"you left AR expecting you might get pepper spray in your eyes?"

baugh: "did you know nazis were gonna be here? did you know the klan was gonna be here?" mattson claims he did not.
"did you hear about the rally the night before? and you were going to be appearing on that side of the issue?"

baugh: "did you see nazis?"
mattson: "i don't know what a nazi looks like."
judge downer interjects, "we all know what was happening that day"
baugh is establishing the environment. heat of passion negates malice.
downer: "i don't think there's any question tensions were high"

baugh, of the hiwaymen: "if they're standing with nazis and the klan... there are folks out there who might be offended by the folks who brought you dachau."
mattson: "the hiwaymen did not associate with the klansmen or the nazis."

baugh: "were there place cards? how did you know which side to go to?"
mattson: "we went to the side where we weren't being attacked."
baugh: "was that the side with the nazis and the klansmen?"
mattson: "yes"

mattson then weakly tried to clarify that 'those people' were on the right side of the street, the counter protesters were on the left and they hiwaymen did their best to walk down the center of the street. i'm not sure the evidence supports this claim.

baugh shows him a photo of people in the street, some of whom are hiwaymen in yellow shirts, others are not. mattson agrees that he did see people giving nazi salutes, but denies seeing any klan, claiming "all i know of klansmen is what you see on TV - white robes & pointy hats."

baugh: "you knew there was probably going to be an altercation involving noxious liquids"
mattson: "i did not expect it, but i suspected it"
b: "how many demonstrations have you been to where you wore goggles?"
TEN. in the past YEAR, across several states.

quick personal aside: as someone who ALSO travels out of state to stand with comrades for what we believe in... some of this questioning makes me a bit uneasy. the idea that you can only protest locally & anyone who drives in is an outside agitator is a bad narrative.

that said, this white supremacist motherfucker can stay the hell out of my town. i'm certainly not defending those out of towners who came here & wrought havoc. just that when we make these arguments against the right, we need to be careful not to hurt our own.

baugh: "were they always about protection of statues?" (objection, sustained, revises to "about the constitution") "did some involve keeping up civil war statues?"
mattson says yes, seems a bit sheepish at this point.

brief disagreement about what constitutes an assault rifle, but mattson agreed that he did see firearms & did not see counter protesters with guns.
mattson: "the men wearing body armor & carrying AR15s were neutral"
baugh: "they declared themselves neutral?"
m: "it was obvious"

mattson, on the militias: "they posted on the internet that they were there to protect"
"they weren't in the park with the racists & white supremacists" (unclear if he's counting himself in that group)
"they stood calmly with their hands on their weapons, no fingers on triggers"

baugh: "were there protectors ar the other ten events you went to?"
mattson: "yes, they're known as peacekeepers."
baugh presses him how he knows his, he says "i have went to individual websites to read about them before" convincing!

baugh keeps pressing, asking him if ONLY these peaceful militias had weapons? mattson says yes. B: "you didn't see ANY other weapons?"
mattson admits "i saw pistols, holstered pistols," and claims to have seen them on "both sides"

baugh: "did you know there could be a gunfight? you were willing to walk into a gunfight with the citizens of charlottesville?"
this causes a bit of an uproar. the CA objects immediately, with the judge jumping in to cut baugh off before the CA can even get the objection out.

judge downer tries to end baugh's efforts to establish atmosphere & mattson's reason for coming here, "to protect the constitution, according to him."

baugh makes the white power hand sign👌 mattson laughs. "that's not the white power sign."
baugh: "you've seen this sign before. in fact, in the photograph, 3 of the hiwaymen are giving that sign. you're saying they're just giving the OK sign?"

baugh shows mattson the photo of the hiwaymen again. i can't see it from the gallery, but it's one very similar to this one -- it shows the group in their yellow shirts with several members making the white power hand symbol.

https://twitter.com/don_chump/status/960621426523942913

mattson: "it doesn't mean 'OK' either. it's the 3% sign." "it means we're prepared to do what the other 97% won't do." "we're survivalists. we hunt. we fish. we go to demonstrations."

baugh: "your position is so strong that it they had another one of these, you'd show up again?"
objection is sustained, mattson doesn't answer.

baugh: "you didn't see the police?"
mattson: "there was no police until we got to the park" (talking about the walk down market street)

baugh: "it [the stick] hit the back of your head and blackened the front of your eye?"
mattson: "yes because it rattled my brain."
(they won't let him say his skull got fractured but there's no objection to the idea that this man's brain is rattled)

CPD detective stutzman, who took mattson's initial statement, called as a witness about 2:30. on Oct. 30, 2017, stutzman went to DB's home to question him. the interview was audio recorded but not played in court or entered into evidence.

DB's wife & son were present at the interview. he was not mirandized but was advised that his statements were voluntary, according to stutzman. DB says in interview that he'd gone downtown on A12 to panhandle to get money for his son.

once downtown on A12, DB observed violent confrontations, was pepper sprayed by a man in a white polo shirt, physically intimidated & called racial slurs.
he initially told stutzman he didn't recognize the photos, but later admitted to striking the man in the picture.

DB told stutzman that he was slapped in the face & called the N word by the man in the white polo. CA interjects, clarifying that DB had used the full word, but the witness didn't have to. baugh cuts in, saying "i'll use it!" & does so, over the judge's insistence that he not.

det. stutzman says DB told him he was sorry & regretful of what he'd done. he goes on to say DB told him he "targeted someone on the bad side," to which DB says "that's a lie!" there's some commotion as both judge downer & baugh silence the defendant or else he'll be in contempt.

in an earlier statement, stutzman said DB "assaulted" the man in the photo -- baugh clarifies that in DB's statement, he said "hit," not "assaulted." judge agrees that there's a difference saying "you can hit a baseball" just as baugh says "some people deserve to get hit."

baugh to det stutzman: "did you mention he might be facing 5-40 before you talked to him?" (no) "did you not tell him the seriousness of his charges so he wouldn't invoke his rights [to an attorney]?"
stutzman: "i really can't remember why i didn't mention the particular charges"

baugh wraps up by reasserting that heat of passion negates malice. "he was spat upon. he was called foul, oppressive names" ... "by people wearing white polo shirts, and we all know what that means." (referring to the uniform of nazi groups like vanguard america)

baugh: "this 'victim' drove 16hrs wearing goggles to his 10th demonstration" "comes up here to this community where the people of this community didn't have the option to keep them out." (community defense ought to be a valid defense!) "i don't know why this is being prosecuted"

baugh to judge downer: "by not making a distinction between the two sides, you've made your decision."
"that guy's a closet klansmen."
"i object to this 'victim's' charade. credibility is important. if he's hiding his allegiance to a hate group, that's a charade on the court."

donald blakney's lawyer, david baugh, on eric mattson, a member of the 'constitutionalist' group the hiwaymen: "i teach constitutional law. that guy doesn't know the constitution from a pack of bubblegum."

CA responds to baugh's closing statement: "very powerful arguments better suited to a trial than a preliminary hearing," says that many of baugh's points are things that need to be heard by a jury.

baugh's motion to strike is overruled. CA motions to certify the charges. asked if he has any argument, baugh says "i wouldn't waste the court's time. obviously it's not going to work."

downer certifies the charges to the grand jury as-is (felony malicious wounding) but says the argument to reduce them was convincing enough that the grand jury may reduce. baugh cuts in with, "or acquit!"

full text of notes i took at this hearing now available for patrons at the "decipherer of my handwriting" level on the patreon i'm still a bit embarrassed to have made. i'll be making some archival notes available to all patrons soon, probably starting w/ fields' dec hearing