Second ‘Vaughn Uprising’ Prison Revolt Trial Underway in Delaware

  • January 18, 2019 5:17 pm

from Unicorn Riot

By Chris Schiano, Unicorn Riot January 17, 2019

Wilmington, DE – On Monday January 14, opening arguments took place in the second trial of prisoners accused of involvement in a prisoner revolt at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center on February 1, 2017. During the events that were quickly labeled the ‘Vaughn Uprising’, prisoners at Building C at the prison facility in Smyrna, Delaware took over the building and held several guards and a prison counselor hostage while demanding improvements to poor living conditions. The uprising ended the next day with police forcibly retaking the building and with corrections officer Sergeant Steven Floyd found dead in his office.

Prisoners have also filed a lawsuit claiming prison guards systematically tortured and abused them in indiscriminate collective punishment since the uprising took place. In the months after the uprising, 18 prisoners from Vaughn would be indicted on felony charges of murder, assault, kidnapping, riot, and conspiracy.

The first trial of three prisoners accused of involvement in the Uprising concluded late last year. Dwayne Staats and Jarreau Ayers, both prisoners serving life sentences at Vaughn who represented themselves at trial and freely admitted their involvement in events during the uprising, were both convicted on some of the charges brought by the state. Derric Forney, a younger prisoner scheduled to be released in a few years, was found not guilty on all charges despite prosecutors’ insistence that he acted as a “soldier” working under alleged planners of the building takeover.

Letters sent by Staats described how the intention behind the building takeover was to create awareness about abuse and poor conditions at Vaughn. In this respect he wrote, “the trial is an extension of the uprising.” Similar themes appear poised to define the second Vaughn Uprising trial as well.

Opening arguments in the second trial from the State of Delaware, given by Deputy Attorney General Nichole Warner, were nearly identical to those made in the first trial last year. Little evidence was mentioned that pertained to the specific defendants, with the prosecution instead giving a general overview of events on February 1, 2017 and making an emotional appeal over the death of corrections officer Steven Floyd.

The four defendants currently on trial are Abednego Baynes, Kevin Barry, John Bramble, and Obadaiah Miller.

  • Baynes is alleged to have been seen participating in the attacks on each of the 3 corrections officers taken hostage that day.
  • Barry is accused of being seen “in the group huddled up in the yard” before the uprising took place, and prisoner witnesses for the state reportedly claim he was seen assaulting two corrections officers and had blood on his clothes.
  • Bramble is accused of being seen wearing a mask, assaulting one of the COs, and having blood on his hands and clothing.
  • Miller is accused of being seen by prisoners with Sergeant Floyd after he was taken hostage, is accused of being seen with a knife, allegedly had blood on his clothes, and prosecutors claim his DNA was found in the mop closet where Sergeant Floyd was kept after he was taken hostage (Floyd was later moved to the Sergeant’s office where his dead body would later be recovered. According to the autopsy by the medical examiner, Floyd did not die from a specific wound and likely would have survived if police had rescued him sooner.)

Defense attorneys for all four prisoners on trial aggressively contested the evidence against their clients in their opening arguments, insisting that the state would not meet its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Andrew Witherell, representing Kevin Barry, told jurors that “simply because [Barry] is a sentenced inmate…that doesn’t lower his standards” of rights to due process: “the fact that he’s a prisoner does not imply any additional bad will.”

Witherell told jurors that “little, if any” of the evidence they would hear at trial would have anything to do with his client. He also cast doubt on the integrity of investigations by the prosecution, which he said was largely based on incomplete police work done in haste in the immediate aftermath of the prison revolt: “Police wrote a report, rubber stamped [it], and here we are.”

Anthony Figliola, representing Obadaiah Miller, also took shots at Delaware prosecutor’s assertions about his client’s guilt. Figliola told jurors “this whole prosecution is selective” because out of “126 inmates in the C Building…only 18 were charged.” Miller was due to be released in October 2019, Figliola told the courtroom, which cast doubt on his motive to attack prison guards because he “was not one of the guys that had nothing to lose“.

Figliola asserted that the only “direct evidence” against Miller, who is accused of participating in the attack that led to Floyd’s eventual death, is from other prisoners, “individuals who weren’t charged” and therefore have a clear motive to curry favor from prosecutors and prison officials through testimony favorable to the state’s case. He also told jurors about how many of the inmate witnesses had been housed together in the months leading up to trial, creating a scenario where “some of them go back, and they talk to the other inmates, and a plan is formulated” to change their stories.

“Maybe 8 people…had access to that mop room at all times…whose DNA did they look for? One person. That’s what I mean when I talk about selective prosecution.” – Anthony Figliola, defense counsel for Obadaiah Miller

Miller’s lawyer further attacked the assertions that he stabbed Sergeant Floyd, saying that investigators “didn’t find any shank on Mr. Miller“, “didn’t find his fingerprints or DNA on any shanks“, and didn’t find any blood on his clothes. Miller is also accused of being seen wearing a mask during the uprising, which Figliola said doesn’t mean he is guilty since many prisoners were covering their faces to avoid breathing in smoke from fires that had been set inside the building. Figliola also told jurors that Miller’s DNA being found in the mop closet where Floyd was held hostage didn’t mean he was guilty either, since Miller was a “tier man” who was entrusted with a job cleaning the prison facility, meaning that he had regular access to the mop closet, meaning that his DNA could have ended up there as the result of his normal cleaning duties.

Thomas Peterson, defense counsel for John Bramble, began his opening argument with a folk tale about a farmer who finds a snake freezing to death and puts it in his pocket, only to be bitten and poisoned by the snake. He told jurors that the fable illustrated why they shouldn’t trust the inmate witnesses central to the prosecution’s case: “really what this case is going to boil down to…[is] the testimony of snakes from James T. Vaughn…this case is predicated upon the testimony of those inmates.”

Peterson went on to tell the court that “there is not one iota of objective, scientific evidence that points to the guilt of John Bramble” and promised that “you are going to hear a dizzying array of contradictions” in the evidence provided by the state.  Bramble’s lawyer also challenged jurors to reflect on whether it was truly possible for them to give a fair trial with the presumption of innocence “to someone who’s already in jail”, asking them “Would you be satisfied with this same quality of prosecution…if Mr. Bramble were the valedictorian of the charter school?”

Peterson said that Bramble deserved “to be prosecuted based on quality evidence” and denounced the prosecution’s evidence as having “no dignity” and providing “a lack of dignity to Sergeant Floyd” by not adequately investigating the circumstances surrounding his death. Characterizing the Delaware Attorney General’s work on the Vaughn Uprising case as a “throw everything up against the wall and hope something sticks approach“, Peterson told the jury that “an inmate doesn’t come to court and testify unless he wants something in return.”

After the first three defendants made opening arguments, Judge William Carpenter told the state to call their first witness, and had to be reminded that he had forgotten entirely about Abednego Baynes, the fourth defendant on trial in his court. Baynes is represented by attorneys Saagar Shah and Cleon Cauley, whose opening argument alleged that the state made a “snap judgement” after the uprising and that the case against their client is based on that snap judgement rather than proper evidence. “My client was put on a list early in this process,” Cauley told the court, asking jurors to “question everything” and to look out for missing or contradictory evidence in the state’s case. Like other defense counsel, Cauley insisted that “little, if any” of the evidence to be presented at trial would implicate Abednego Baynes.

The case brought by the Delaware Attorney General, like their case in the first trial, depends on accounts by cooperating inmate witnesses, many of whom have given contradictory statements and live at the mercy of prison officials who will be watching their testimony with interest.

Testimony by inmate witnesses is also expected to be used as evidence in a lawsuit on behalf of prisoners housed at Vaughn. The lawsuit, which is being brought by Delaware attorney Stephen Hampton, alleges a deliberate policy of “ongoing abuse” and “ubiquitous torture” of prisoners. Hampton also noted that three suspicious deaths of Vaughn prisoners since the February 2017 uprising have been dismissed by state officials as unrelated to any foul play by prison staff. In the first Vaughn trial last year, several inmate witnesses for the state testified about being violently abused by prison guards and police in the immediate aftermath of the uprising.

The second Vaughn Uprising trial, like the first, is scheduled to last over a month, with weeks of witness testimony from corrections officers and inmate witnesses. 11 other prisoners indicted for their alleged role in the uprising are scheduled to go to trial later in 2019.

 

Title photo credit: Tomasz Kuran aka Meteor2017, via Wikimedia Commons

Unicorn Riot’s Coverage of the Vaughn Uprising trials:

Ten Lessons from the Yellow Vests

  • December 26, 2018 5:49 pm

from It’s Going Down

The Radical Education Department presents 10 lessons from the Yellow Vest movement which has exploded out of France in the last month.

by Étienne Dolet

As has happened so often in the history of social movements and revolutions, actually existing history has once again outstripped the ready-made concepts and theories that we have for understanding it. The “yellow vests movement,” which was sparked earlier this fall but clearly has much deeper roots, has left many bewildered by the lack of party or union alignments on the part of the participants, the combination of extreme left and extreme right elements, its remarkable resilience and growth since November, and its ongoing creativity and dynamism in the face of massive state repression. The anonymous collective of political activists who are involved in the movement have struck out to conquer new territory, beyond the well-trodden paths of recent social movements, while also taking inspiration from or reawakening the deep history of revolutionary struggles. This has included the use of blockades and days of action instead of major public occupations, the development of the practices of “savage” protests and active strikes, the mobilization of bait-and-switch techniques to confuse the repressive state apparatus, the targeted use of anti-state and anti-property violence, and the call for lasting structural changes in modes of governance rather than a set of circumscribed demands.

The lessons that follow are the result of the collective work undertaken by RED – Radical Education Department to learn from the movement, try and contribute to its growth as an anti-capitalist insurgency, and ideally help it develop as a global movement against the pseudo-democracies that serve as increasingly thin cover for top-down class warfare.

I. Learn and Participate—Don’t Admonish and Preach

All too often, when a “new” social movement emerges, activists and intellectuals on the sidelines watch it with a suspicious eye as they compare it to their operative theory of social transformation or their personal checklist for what a movement is supposed to be. Once they have categorized and judged it according to their pre-established principles, they then begin to preach to those around them about how the movement “isn’t X enough,” “should do Y,” and, in general, would be better served to follow the blueprint established by the person judging from the sidelines.

There is an entire media industry developed around this blueprint model of peremptory assessment, which stretches from prominent pundits and intellectuals weighing in on current events based on their rote theories to activist groups deciding once and for all that they are simply for or against a particular movement based on how it does or does not conform to their theories or checklists. In most cases, neither of these groups takes the all-important leap from a politics in the third person to a politics in the first person by getting directly involved in order to make the movement into what they think it ought to be.

What if we began the other way around? What if our reaction to social movements was to study and learn from them, to the point of having our mechanical reflexes and tried-and-true ideas called into question? What if our first question was: How can I contribute to the parts of these movements that connect to my own politics, while also learning from them and engaging with them? What are the multiple tendencies at play, and where might they develop beyond the present moment? What if we began, in short, from a radically materialist point of view instead of the rampant idealism of the mightier-than-thou bourgeois intelligentsia and the self-importance of activists who “know how it’s done”?

II. Social Movements Are Not Singular

Social movements are, by their very nature, plural phenomena. There are numerous agents and forces at work, which far surpass any simple calculations, or reductions to blanket statements such as “this movement is X.” In short, there is never simply “a movement.” Instead, there are competing contingents, a struggle of forces and multiple fronts. While it can be useful, as a form of pragmatic shorthand, to refer for instance to “the yellow vests movement,” we need to begin by recognizing that this expression is a placeholder for an extremely complex series of movements.

In the case of the yellow vests, this is particularly important because they do not share a single political agenda or come from a common political party or union. This has been used to vilify the movement because there are right-wing, including extreme right-wing, elements involved. Purists denigrate anyone who would dare to participate when there is such a mishmash of political positions. However, this is one of the complicated aspects of popular working-class movements like this one. While there is clearly a common enemy—the neoliberal state and its persistent decimation of the lives of working-class people—there is not a shared agenda regarding the precise model for a new political order.

Instead of being used as a facile moral justification for withdrawing in horror before the remarkable stupidity of the masses or the vile presence of fascists who are presented as moral monsters rather than subjects of the system in place, this should instead be seen as a real challenge and opportunity to mobilize the radical educational tools of the extreme Left to help teach people about the real material sources of their oppression. The anti-populism of the intellectual and political purists will lead nowhere but to the moral grandstanding of those intent on ostentatiously parading their theoretical and ethical superiority to the ignorant masses, while actually demonstrating, above all, their own profound ignorance regarding how collective education works under capitalism’s ideological state apparatuses. Given the nature of the propagandist system within which we live, it should come as absolutely no surprise that there are so many people who correctly identify the source of their problems in the elite ruling class but have been duped into embracing faulty solutions.

III. Some Advantages to Days of Action, “Savage” Protests and Blockades over Occupations

Parting ways with the now well-established model of occupying public spaces, the yellow vests have conserved their energy and momentum over time by instead focusing on regularly programmed days of actions. Every Saturday since November 17th, they have organized national protests that have flooded the streets, often giving birth to “savage” marches (manifestations sauvages) that do not follow programmed itineraries but overwhelm the state through multiple and disparate direct actions. Simultaneously, there have been ongoing flash blockades at undisclosed times that choke or liberate particular sites of passage within the transportation industry. These have included blocking major highways and round-points, but the movement has also taken over or burned down tollbooths to allow drivers through without paying, thereby cutting off funds to the state.

While occupations can be important for building sites of solidarity, creating coalitional networks, developing collective education, and fostering public visibility for a particular cause, they can also drain resources, allow for easy targeting and manipulation, and stagnate over time. Programmed days of action mixed with intermittent blockades and flash mobs can both confuse the state and conserve resources for a long-term battle. Unlike the Nuit debout movement in spring 2016, which established and maintained public occupations like so many recent social movements, the yellow vests have undertaken an important shift in tactics, and it is arguable that this has already paid off in certain ways.

IV. Active Strikes Multiply Political Agency

Some of the workers on strike have not simply refused to go to their job, but they have used their time off to actively coordinate direct actions against the state. Instead of a traditional strike, which is often coordinated in France with a large public march, an active strike is one in which workers participate in blockades, flash mobs, and other direct actions in order to multiply their political agency and maximize their impact.

In a certain sense, active strikes bring together two forms of radical struggle into a powerful concoction that surpasses the power of each of them independently. The traditional workplace action of a strike is fused with the standard tactics of social movements, such as protests and direct actions, thereby connecting two types of struggle and maximizing the power of both.

V. Media Has Power

Since the media is largely controlled by the corporatocracy and—at least in France—the state, the “history” of the yellow vests movement is largely being written by its enemies. In one of the more flagrant cases, the TV channel France 3 doctored a photograph of one of the protests to erase “dégage” from a sign reading “Macron dégage! (Macron Get Out!).” This is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg, but it clearly demonstrates the media apparatus’ profound complicity with the state and their corporate backers.

This points, moreover, to the dire need to continue to develop networks of alternative media that provide a bottom-up account of radical social movements. Sites like Révolution Permanente, Wikipedia, and Mediapart are providing some of the more reliable coverage in French, along with Enough Is Enough, CrimethInc., and IGD in English. But these platforms could have greater visibility and support, and be part of a larger network of resources to help educate and agitate for revolutionary social transformation. They are an essential part of the anti-capitalist toolkit, and we need to continue to build autonomous but federated activist media platforms that can inform the public by developing the counter-narratives necessary for the coordination of mass revolutionary movements.

VI. Demand Restructuring, Not Single Issues

There has recently been an increasing consensus around a central issue on the part of the yellow vests, which has been described as the demand including all other demands: the RIC (référendum d’initiative citoyenne) or the Citizen Initiated Referendum. Aimed at giving real political power to the people, it would inscribe within the constitution the possibility of public referenda that could establish or abolish laws, and remove elected officials from office. Instead of simply relying on piecemeal concessions from the government, such as the dismal increase in the minimum wage promised by Macron, the RIC would allow the movement to restructure the governmental power dynamic and—at least in principle—accomplish all of its popular demands over time.

There is the concern, of course, that such a demand, if the government were to concede—which seems extremely unlikely unless it secures ample protections against the voice of the people—would help shore up a reformist agenda within the confines of capitalist pseudo-democracy. While this threat is an important one, the RIC could also potentially help build confidence in people power, begin to shift the structural power dynamic, and eventually be a step toward a more revolutionary transformation.

VII. Build Power between Movements

The mass media narrative regarding social movements is rooted in the logic of “divide and conquer.” It separates them from their deep historical roots and cuts them off from their expansive geographic connections. The yellow vests movement is, however, only the latest act in an ongoing civil war between the elite ruling classes and the oppressed masses. It is a continuation of the movement referred to as Nuit debout and the massive uprisings and occupations on the 50th anniversary of May 68. While there are, of course, certain differences between each of these moments and their precise conjunctures, they are all largely responding to capitalism’s unrelenting war on workers.

This points to the crucial importance of building power between “movements” and developing organizations and cross-political alliances that are ready and able to step up and fill the void when things go down. Although the mass media tends to focus on the immediate “success” or “failure” of a circumscribed social movement, which it describes in the singular, we would be better served to recognize that whatever happens at a precise moment in time is rooted in a deep history of organizing. Everything that is done “between movements,” including the development of political organizations, movement infrastructure, revolutionary coalitions, and media platforms, is essential to what will happen when things kick off. It is this behind-the-scenes, long-term work that has the potential to have the most significant consequences in the long run.

VIII. Escalation through Political Imagination

Political imagination can play an important role in moving movements forward, and we should never be held back by what has been done or what seems possible. This has obviously been one of the key lessons from the yellow vests.

At this point in the conflict, we should ask: How could we imagine increasing the pressure put on the neoliberal state? What about seizing important sites of power, ranging from the Sorbonne to the National Assembly, and transforming them into popular assemblies for public displays of power, and then relinquishing them in the middle of the night to seize others and outstrip the resources of the riot police? Why not re-enact key moments of the French Revolution, for instance, by taking over the Jeu de Paume museum and re-performing the Tennis Court Oath (Serment du Jeu de Paume) and declaring the end of the neoliberal state? Why not take control of one or several of the major TV channels and announce the death of the Macron regime? Isn’t it time to organize councils and declare autonomous communes across France? Given that the state has recently decided on new “emergency measures,” it clearly feels that the people are closing in and that things like this could happen.

The internationalization of the movement is another key form of potential escalation, and it has already begun. What acts of solidarity and intensification might we be able to participate in that could help the movement grow and expand its attack on the foundations of capitalism?

IX. The State Will Stop at Nothing

As we know from history, the state will stop at absolutely nothing to maintain its power and secure the interests of the ruling class. It has unleashed an inordinate amount of violence on the citizenry, which it portrays in the media as justified, of course, and this will likely only intensify over time. This has included forming a black bloc of undercover cops to commit acts of violence that could then be blamed on the protestors. We can learn from these types of tactics—if we didn’t know it already—that our enemies have no moral compass and will indiscriminately harm or kill anyone in their way. We should never underestimate their ruthlessness.

X. The State Will Work the Calendar, but So Can We!

The state is very well versed in delay tactics and knows how to work the calendar. In the case of Nuit debout and the May 68 anniversary protests, it mixed together a powerful cocktail of brutal repression, stalling techniques, and cat-and-mouse games with an eye to the approaching summer vacations, when many of the protestors would be free from work or studies and—it was presumed—the occupations would dwindle. In the case of the Occupy movement in the United States, the approaching winter was fundamental to the timing of state repression and illegal evictions. In France right now, impeding vacations are combined with an approaching winter.

Will this, along with a few minor concessions, be sufficient to quell the most recent uprisings and usher in a peaceful new year for the corporate ruling class? Or will the common concerns of working-class people find new tactics and rejuvenate old ones in order to shift what some now consider to be the common course of history, according to which uprisings lead to peak moments and then dissipate? Could the tactic of targeted days of struggle by generalized to time flare ups in the coming weeks or months that will take the government to its knees, perhaps by reworking the calendar to the advantage of the activists, thereby surprising the state once again? Can movements abroad take up these tactics in a meaningful way and connect to the yellow vests movement in a global network of intermittent active strikes, blockades, and savage protests, thereby internationalizing them like the Occupy movement but with a new and evolving set of tactics? For those of us living outside of France, how can we connect to the movement and develop its momentum into an international force to be reckoned with?

No one can tell for sure, of course, where things are headed, and this is one more reason to learn from what is going on and struggle to find ways of contributing to the intensification of a global war against capitalism. Nothing is at stake but a world full of workers and a planet teetering on the edge.

Call for Court Support for Second Trial of Vaughn 17

  • December 20, 2018 10:43 am

from It’s Going Down

Call for Court Support as jury selection begins on Jan. 7, 2019 for second trial of Vaughn 17.

Calling for abolitionists and activists to show up in the courtroom as the second trial of the Vaughn 17 gears up. Jury selection is slated to start on January 7th, 2019. This trial group includes Kevin Berry, Abednego Baynes, Obadiah Miller and John Bramble. The trial will take place at New Castle County Courthouse, 500 N. King St., Wilmington, DE.

Background

On February 1, 2017, inmates incarcerated at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center took control of C-building in a prison uprising, and for a moment were liberated from the carceral state. In the course of the uprising, they released a set of modest demands to improve their living conditions. One prison guard was killed. The state responded with intense repression. The Vaughn 17 were subsequently indicted on blanket charges of riot, conspiracy to riot, kidnapping, assault on an officer, and murder. The state’s case against those charged has no basis in reality and relies heavily on the testimony of a prison snitch. Check out Live from the Trenches: The Vaughn 17 Speak for in-depth background.

The first trial concluded in early November. Of the three on trial, Jarreau Ayers and Dwayne Staats went pro se, or represented themselves. The biggest victory came when Deric Forney was found not guilty of all charges. Ayers was acquitted of the 3 counts of murder but found guilty of the other charges, and Staats was convicted on all but one count of murder. Shortly after the trial, one of the inmates, Kelly Gibbs, was found dead in his cell. Attention on this case is crucial to check the Delaware D.O.C. on the rampant violence committed against inmates.

Dwayne Staats and Jarreau Ayers both wrote about the importance of court support in the fight for liberation:

“‘Actions’ speak louder than words and I heard you loud and clear. Y’all definitely was a source of strength that was heavily relied upon… So your collective spirits are harmoniously in accord with the synergism that enables us to purify our conscious and strengthen our beings with every inhale.” -Dwayne Staats

https://www.instagram.com/p/BriPf-SBrOP/

“Every day the energy y’all provided through your support and letting your presence be known is as much a part of what took place in that courtroom as me and my comrade Staats were!!! The fight behind these walls is often lonely and thankless even by other oppressed prisoners whose minds haven’t yet opened up to their reality!!… The fact that y’all stood in solidarity with us speaks to the truth comrade George Jackson spoke to when he explained the need for (us) those of us behind the wall and those of y’all on the outside to stand in unity! I’m a firm believer in the saying that steel sharpens steel and that the origin of that steel is forged and molded through/in fire! I force that mind frame on my comrades every day and I want y’all to know that we acknowledge that y’all stood in that fire with us! That steel that was forged in those moments helped keep us sharp at every turn!… I ask that y’all stay strong with each other on hard times and continue to force integrity on each other, on us, and most importantly on this system!” -Jarreau Ayers

Vaughn 17 Need our Support!

Court support is meaningful in and out of the courtroom as we show strength in solidarity against state oppression! Organize a crew to hold a banner outside the courthouse. Bring food or hot drinks with information about the case to share on the street outside. Share updates on facebook, instagram, twitter, or other social media. Write letters to those on trial. Inside the courtroom, demonstrate positive energy and strength for the defendants. Connect with friends and families of the defendants and offer support. Let them know they are not alone in the struggle! Raise a fist in solidarity!

To write to the Vaughn 17, check out the addresses listed here.

Mixed Guilty Verdict Against First Vaughn 17 Trial Group

  • November 22, 2018 10:41 pm

from Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement

Mixed Guilty Verdict Against First Vaughn 17 Trial Group
“Dwayne Staats testimony reiterates the painstaking process of attempting to be heard in a society that consistently renders black voices, and especially black incarcerated voices, silent.”

The Delaware courts have issued guilty verdicts for two of the defendants of the first trial group for the Vaughn 17. Only one person, Dwayne Staats, was found guilty of murder, Jarreau Ayers was found found guilty of kidnapping and assault, and Deric Forney was found not guilty of all charges.

Dwayne and Jarreau were forced to represent themselves due to insufficient legal representation. Despite having no physical evidence connecting Dwayne to the murder he was still convicted, based solely on the word of a cooperator.

In the midst of a trial, particularly one of this magnitude, it is easy to get lost in legal arguments, the moralizing, and the grand sweeping statements from the press, prosecutors and politicians. But as the smoke clears and the dust settles, this trial, and the uprising in general is about the inhumane and barbaric conditions inmates in the US are forced to suffer.

The Vaughn 17 were protesting for very basic improvements, which are routinely ignored. Dwayne Staats’ testimony reiterates the painstaking process of attempting to be heard in a society that consistently renders black voices, and especially black incarcerated voices, silent; a society that deems it acceptable to coldly and in a calculated way, rip the humanity the away from those it incarcerates. The Vaughn 17, and many others who were incarcerated at Smyrna prior to the uprising, had protested, cried, and plead to be treated humanely. The uprising was a last resort to ask for better treatment, but the judgement confirmed that those incarcerated should have no voice and should accept this treatment.

While this outcome is a hardly surprising result from white supremacist America, we would like to celebrate the principled stance of the Vaughn 17. They stood strong in their solidarity and did not implicate each other and have successfully politicized their trial. In light of the prisoner led anti-slavery campaign, the Vaughn 17 is proudly poised as an important voice and example in this movement. We will continue amplifying their voices, making their case known and struggle along side them as these trials continue, and they face their sentences.

Dare to struggle! Dare to win!

Delaware Vaughn Prison Revolt Trial Ends In Mixed Verdict

  • November 21, 2018 11:20 am

from Unicorn Riot

By Chris Schiano, Unicorn Riot November 20, 2018

Wilmington, DE – The trial of three prisoners accused of involvement in a February 1, 2017 prisoner uprising at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center finished testimony and closing arguments last week. After a trial lasting about a month, jurors began deliberations on Friday, November 16, and reached a verdict Tuesday afternoon.

In what has become known as the Vaughn Uprising, prisoners took over Building C at the Vaughn prison in Smyrna, Delaware, and took three prison guards and one prison counselor hostage. Demands issued during the hostage standoff included that Delaware Governor John Carney investigate poor living conditions at the facility. One correctional officer who was taken hostage, Steven Floyd, would later be found dead after police re-entered the facility.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 20, jurors in the case returned a verdict, according to the Delaware News-Journal:

After a nearly four-week trial, a New Castle County jury found Dwayne Staats guilty of first-degree felony murder, first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, kidnapping, assault and conspiracy. 

Staats was found not guilty of intentional murder in the first degree.

Jarreau Ayers was found not guilty of any of the three murder charges but guilty of kidnapping, assault and conspiracy. 

Deric Forney was found not guilty of all charges against him and is set to go free. – Delaware News Journal, November 20, 2018

Below is Unicorn Riot’s full report on the evidence and testimony made in the first Vaughn Uprising case.

Read our first report from the trial, covering opening arguments, here. 

The three defendants in the first trial group were charged with riot, three counts of murder in the first degree (Delaware law allows to charge multiple counts based on the same murder), two counts of assault, four counts of kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit riot. 13 other defendants from the uprising are also slated to face trial throughout 2019.

A cooperating defendant, Royal Downs, was also indicted on lesser charges and still awaits trial and sentencing, with results presumably depending on how pleased prosecutors are with his performances at trial.

Defendants Derric Forney, Dwayne Staats, and Jarreau Ayers (left to right). Composite image via WDEL News

Judge William Carpenter’s courtroom held a tense, electric energy at times as two of the defendants – Jarreau Ayers and Dwayne Staats, both of whom represented themselves in court and are already serving life sentences for previous murder cases – each took the stand to testify on their own behalf. Both men denounced the conditions in Vaughn, mocked the contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, and refused to implicate other prisoners they knew to be involved in the takeover.

It is unclear what punishments the court could impose against the two men, since they both already are sentenced to life without the chance of parole. Conservative Delaware lawmakers recently failed to reinstate the death penalty, which the state’s Supreme Court effectively abolished in 2016. Jarreau Ayers told jurors that the Department of Corrections could still retaliate against them by essentially keeping them in solitary confinement, or “the hole“, for the rest of their lives.

The two men representing themselves added an explicitly political element to the case, allowing details and opinions about prison life to come up in court that probably wouldn’t have been mentioned otherwise. In his closing argument, Jarreau Ayers thanked Judge William Carpenter, saying that Carpenter had been highly conscientious in allowing himself and Dwayne Staats a wide latitude to defend themselves in court. Both men were provided with standby counsel, lawyers who did not represent them but directly assisted them in matters such as evidence and motions.

The third defendant, Derric Forney, serving an 11-year robbery sentence, was barely mentioned at all by the prosecution. A few inmate witnesses claimed to have seen Forney attack and handcuff corrections officer Joshua Wilkinson, although other state’s witnesses testified that they saw the entire attack and Forney was not involved. Forney was represented by defense lawyer Ben Gifford. Forney himself took the stand to say that he was not involved in the uprising. He also shared his trauma of being brutalized by officers who he said went cell to cell violently beating and pepper-spraying inmates after police retook Building C. In closing arguments, Assistant Attorney General John Downs seemed to gloss over the lack of evidence against Forney by calling him a “soldier” in contrast to Ayers and Staats, whom he cast as “leaders“.

A fourth defendant, Roman Shankaras, who prosecutors had accused of being the “mastermind” behind the uprising, had been a part of this first trial group but was later severed from the case. He is expected to face trial sometime in 2019.

While the state showed jurors mountains of evidence, very little of it was tied directly to the defendants. Among primary pieces of evidence against both Jarreau Ayers and Dwayne Staats were radio recordings from the hostage negotiations, in which both men’s voices can be heard. Prosecutors have also used a letter from Dwayne Staats to another inmate, seized during a cell search, in which he appeared to take responsibility for organizing the revolt. Another letter from Roman Shankaras to Royal Downs, an influential prisoner involved in the uprising who later flipped and became a state’s witness, was cited as evidence of a conspiracy.

One defining element of the case is a total lack of any video evidence from inside Building C; no surveillance cameras existed inside Vaughn’s Building C at the time of the uprising when the building was taken over. Some video of inmates and hostages being released from inside the building were filmed by a state police bomb squad robot in the yard outside the building, but no defendants could be seen in the video. Another video the state played for the jury showed police in SWAT gear entering the building during their operation to retake Building C. However, none of this footage showed any of the defendants and offered little insight as to what exactly happened inside Building C.

Some physical evidence was introduced by the state, such as various shanks, fire extinguishers, and mop wringers allegedly used as weapons to subdue prison guards who were taken hostage. However, Delaware State Police Sergeant Andrew Weaver, the main investigator in the Vaughn case, would admit under cross-examination that only some items were sent for forensic DNA testing. Weaver appeared unable to give an explanation for this inconsistent testing of evidence, with untested items including several shanks as well as blood-soaked gloves. Weaver repeatedly denied responsibility for deciding which items were tested, instead referring to the “collaborative effort” by the prosecution team of which he is part.

Sergeant Weaver also told the defense that he only sent in for DNA testing items which he believed to have been used in the attack on Sergeant Floyd. Weaver was unable to offer an explanation as to how he could determine, before testing, which items had or had not been used in the attack. Assistant Attorney General John Downs suggested that some items had not been sent for forensic testing due to concerns about high cost, but multiple state forensic technicians who later testified denied that cost was a consideration in testing evidence for the case. Jarreau Ayers asked Weaver if it was true that “you just left five shanks and a pair of bloody gloves off the list” of evidence to be tested in a case involving the murder of a corrections officer. Weaver did not deny that he left those items off of his list of what was sent for testing.

Other issues with evidence used by the prosecution included a map that jurors were told represented the layout of Building C and showed where pieces of evidence, such as shanks, were recovered. However, upon cross-examination, a state investigator admitted that the map, which he had claimed was simply “not to scale“, in fact left out an entire portion of the building. The defense also pointed out how many evidence items were misrepresented on the map, being shown as found in locations other than where they were actually recovered. Prosecutors quietly dropped any further use of the map from the rest of their case, although Ben Gifford, defense counsel for Derric Forney, referenced it in his closing arguments, calling it a “gem” and reminding jurors that the state had made a false representation of the evidence.

With a total lack of video evidence from inside the prison, and inconsistent testing for DNA and fingerprints, the prosecution’s case relies almost entirely on cooperating inmate witnesses. The state’s primary cooperating witness, Royal Downs, is alleged by the defense to have been an influential gang leader within the prison. At one time, Royal Downs was romantically involved with a female correctional officer who was working at Vaughn, who was eventually fired over her relationship with Downs. Opening arguments by Jason Antoine, defense counsel for Roman Shankaras (who ended up getting severed from the first trial group) alleged that Downs himself could have been the one to order the killing of Sergeant Stephen Floyd.

Several inmate witnesses for the state, including Royal Downs and Walter Smith (aka Abdul-Hafid Al-Salafi), gave the prosecution the kind of evidence they sought, namely claiming that all three defendants were involved in one way or another in the actual assaults on correctional officers. However, other inmate witnesses for the state contradicted much of this testimony.

For instance, Al-Salafi claimed that he saw one of the defendants assault a correctional officer because he was on the phone in the prison’s barber shop at the time, where he was able to see the incident through a window. Other state’s witnesses, such as prisoner Anthony Morrow, testified that they were in the barber shop using the phones at that same time and that Al-Salafi was not there. Notably, no phone records were produced by the state to prove that Al-Salafi even made a call from that phone at that time. State police detective David Weaver admitted under cross-examination that his investigation had pulled records of thousands of prison phone calls from Vaughn, and that he was not aware of any instance of DOC phone records going “missing“.

The defense claims that Al-Salafi, like other cooperating witnesses, is fabricating his testimony in order to curry favor with the Department of Corrections. While prosecutors claimed they had promised inmate witnesses no favors, defense counsel Ben Gifford pointed out the constant courtroom presence of several Delaware DOC officials, who he said easily had the means to reward prisoner witnesses with better living conditions in return for helping them “get justice for their brother” Steven Floyd, the guard hostage who died.

Delaware DOC Commissioner Perry Phelps, Deputy Commissioner Alan Grinstead, Bureau of Prison Chief Steven Wesley, and other state prison officials have been a constant presence at the trial, often taking up an entire row. Many of them were seen actively texting on their phones while inmate witnesses were testifying. Daniel Masi from the Criminal Intelligence section of the Delaware Department of Justice has also been seen in attendance.

The James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

During his closing arguments, Assistant Attorney General Downs admitted that Building C after the uprising was “a large, contaminated crime scene” and tried to downplay the significance of the inconsistent DNA testing done by investigators in the case. Downs instead asked jurors to rely on eyewitness testimony, saying “this case is about what the witnesses said“, apparently ignoring the blatant contradictions in different versions of events that had been offered by state’s witnesses.

According to the prosecution’s summary of their case in closing arguments, Ayers is guilty because he knew about “the plan“, he told inmates to remove locker boxes from their cells to be used to barricade doors, he “was a shotcaller” among prisoners, and allegedly had keys he was using to let prisoners out of their cells.

The case against Dwayne Staats largely relied on Staats’ own testimony in which he admitted to planning the uprising and taking Counselor Patricia May hostage. Assistant Attorney General Downs also claimed that cooperating witnesses saw Staats with a shank. One inmate witness claims he saw Staats attack Sergeant Floyd, although other state’s witnesses’ testimony contradicted this claim.

After the state rested its case, defendants Jarreau Ayers and Dwayne Staats both took the stand to testify on their own behalf. Ayers shared his version of event surrounding the uprising, saying that he had been involved in planning a peaceful protest over living conditions at Vaughn.

Ayers told the jury that eventually he was cut out of the planning and that those involved in the uprising didn’t inform him of their plans. He said he called his sister shortly before February 1, 2017 and asked her to put money on his commissary because he knew some sort of protest might happen at the facility, and he wanted to have food and supplies stocked in his cell ahead of a potential lockdown. The state has argued that the prison phone call to Ayers’ sister represents his participation in the conspiracy.

Ayers also stated that his only real active role in the uprising was to find inmates with medical conditions and make sure they were released from Building C earlier on in the takeover. He described opening the door to first try to let the inmates out (“nobody wanted to open that door“, he said) only to see a SWAT team charging towards him, leading him to quickly close the door again. He says at that moment, frustrated with the police seeming to break their word, he grabbed a walkie-talkie from Royal Downs. The police outside reportedly told him their attempted charge was a “misunderstanding” and he then re-opened the door to release the rest of the inmates with medical needs.

When Dwayne Staats took the stand, he began by reading jurors portions of a letter he wrote another inmate that had been seized as evidence. Staats told jurors that he planned the uprising as a building takeover well ahead of time, because he decided that something had to be done to bring state officials and the public to pay attention to poor conditions at Vaughn. Staats had previously surprised courtroom observers by admitting during his cross-examination of prison counselor Patricia May that he was the inmate who took her hostage.

Staats spoke about how he saw everyone at Vaughn, not just prisoners in Building C, as “victims” and described inmates, guards, and staff all being subject to a culture of “physical abuse, mental abuse…” and said he saw prison staff routinely “bullied or looked down upon by their own coworkers.”

Staats said that “I didn’t kill anybody, I didn’t even assault anybody” but that he accepted responsibility for anything other than those acts. Previously during his cross-examination of Counselor Patricia May, the prison counselor who was taken hostage during the uprising, Staats surprised many observers in the court by telling Ms. May he “owed” it to her to tell her that he was the one who took her hostage that day.

Staats told jurors that “my goal was to do something to expose this place” so that the public and Governor Carney would pay attention: “It was mainly about the Governor at least acknowledging what as going on.”

Staats told the jury that after his 14 years at Vaughn, “these petitions, lawsuits, peaceful protests…in my eyes, that stuff’s run it’s course.” He also said that he felt the need to create a situation that would get the attention of Delaware’s Governor, because current DOC Commissioner Perry Phelps had previously been the warden at Vaughn for 10 years “So I had to go over their head.”

Staats said his plan to take over Building C to draw attention to conditions at Vaughn was “no rash decision” but rather the result of months of “deep contemplation“.

Staats claimed that his plan for the building takeover only extended so far as getting on the radio with state authorities to express prisoners’ demands. He said he was aware that Correctional Officers might be attacked as part of the takeover, but denied any knowledge of Sergeant Floyd’s death until after the uprising had ended. He claimed to be unaware of several other aspects of events, noting that he was surprised when he heard that some inmates and CO hostages had been released from Building C during the negotiations.

While Assistant Attorney General John Downs seemed on his cross-examination to try to cast Staats as the mastermind of the uprising, Staats downplayed this notion, claiming responsibility while also highlighting what he claimed was the disorganized nature of what took place. “All it took was a little push,” Staats said, adding that it wasn’t “a plot to break out of jail.”

Staats said that state negotiators on the radio promised him a letter of intent from the Governor to look into the demands made by prisoners in the uprising. That letter never came, although Staats hinted that if he had received it, Sergeant Floyd could have been released. (The medical examiner who did Floyd’s autopsy said the CO likely would have survived with his wounds if he had gotten to a hospital earlier, as his wounds weren’t inherently fatal.)

Staats told jurors that while he never received that letter of intent, the same conditions at Vaughn addressed in the uprising’s demands came out in a report on the state’s investigation into Vaughn after the uprising. Staats also seemed to feel somewhat successful in regards to the plan he had executed, saying “a lot of people’s families didn’t know what was going on until the prison got lifted from obscurity.”

Assistant Attorney Generals John Downs and Brian Robertson both both quite agitated during their cross-examinations of both Ayers and Staats, going red in the face with veins visibly pulsing, raising their voices and slamming fists on tables, although these behaviors may have been a deliberate emotional appeal to the jury. With Staats having taken responsibility for a fair amount of the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution, much of the prosecution’s cross-examination of him consisted of Assistant Attorney General Downs angrily repeating his own testimony to him, which he would usually nonchalantly answer in one-word responses like “yeah“.

Staats told jurors that six inmates were involved with him in the plan to take over Building C. But when he was cross-examined by Assistant Attorney Downs, he refused to identify them, answering “I can’t recall” in an ironic quotation of many of the state’s own witnesses. When AAG Downs continued to press the matter, Staats chuckled slightly and told him, “You know, I think me and Mr. Weaver have the same condition.” (Sergeant Andrew Weaver, the Delaware state police investigator assisting prosecutors with the case, had extensive testimony to offer the state but when questioned by the defense claimed to “not recall” or have forgotten many of the details he was asked about.)

Staats also told the Assistant Attorney General that he believed Lieutenant Charles Sennett, one of the first DOC officers to enter Building C, could have freed Ms. May as a hostage and ended the standoff hours earlier, but he chose not to. “The officers left her, the governor didn’t show his face to come get her, but I bet you didn’t care about that.”

In closing arguments by the defense, Ben Gifford, representing Derric Forney, lambasted the state’s “poor, shoddy investigative work” in the Vaughn Uprising case. He told jurors that the lack of proper police work in the case was something Sergeant Floyd “didn’t deserve“:

“What happened to Sergeant Floyd was a tragedy…so was this investigation.” – Ben Gifford, defense counsel for Derric Forney

Staats had previously written in a letter published by supporters of the Vaughn 17 that “the trial is an extension of the uprising.” Building on this theme, he closed out his testimony by telling jurors “I guess y’all witnessing the conclusion. Y’all gon’ put the exclamation mark on the whole thing.”

On the Importance of the Smyrna 17 Case

  • November 13, 2018 4:24 pm

from It’s Going Down

Ma’Salaam Fariha reports from the trial of the continuing Vaughn (Smyrna) 17 case.

Welcome to James T. Vaughn State Prison, its physical address is on Paddock Road, for those unfamiliar with the word Paddock here is an introduction: as noun its used as a small field or enclosure where horses are kept or exercised, and as a verb it is used to keep or enclose a horse in paddock.

I been part of a small support group for the inmates from Washington D.C., we try to drive up there at least twice a week, we usually take notes, and think of creative ways to bring attention to the case. I am going to refrain from reporting too much about what was said and focus on the most important facts.

“For nearly 18 hours on Feb. 1, 2017, inmates seized the building, taking hostages and demanding better programming, education, and treatment from prison staff,” a Delaware news outlet recently reported, they continued by stating that Forty-five years ago, in what is now Building C at Vaughn, a group of young, black men was part of a similar occurrence with the acceptation that this time one CO was killed.

What every article, or report about this case failed to report is that there is no evidence tying the defendants to the murder of this CO, as a matter of fact, the governments star witness is a former co-defendant by the name of Royal Diamond Downs aka Master Splinter (former BGF member and Baltimore native. About 14 years ago he was transferred from Maryland to Delaware in a state agreement for snitching on people in Baltimore in another riot case, as a matter of fact one time throughout trial one radio communication piece that was played, as the negotiator was a witness called in by the government. Identified Downs’s voice clearly saying, “this is not a game, if you do not bring me the media and the governor your staff is going down.”

I had the honor to meet two of the former Smyrna 5, and had a conversation with another elder black Muslim brother, the topic was Delaware, specifically Wilmington, I mean why was this little city hauling around with a nickname such as “murder town USA.” According to the census bureau Wilmington Delaware Wilmington, DE has a population of 71,502 people, the is 56.6% Black, 27.6% White, and 12.2% Hispanic. 12.3% of the people in Wilmington, DE speak a non-English language. It is also the corporation capital, which means most corporations have either an address there or their headquarters, but they do NOT hire, and I quote “any of the young folks here, and people got to eat” (as stated by the elder). I am not sure where the so-called white population lives, because I have not seen them driving or walking through Wilmington, as communicated to me, they live in the outskirts, and most of them seem to have been relocated from somewhere by these corporations.

I want to take the attention back to the case of the Vaughn 17 aka Smyrna 17, being regularly present throughout the trial days, left me multiple times, shocked and confused, for example finding out that one lead investigator being present testifying for the government, being able to answer all questions without hesitation but not presenting answers to questions asked by defendants lawyer or by the defendants who go per SE.

At one point I remember very well, the investigator was asked if he was aware that the governments star witnesses Al Salafi and R. Diamond Dawns were indeed named as lead suspects by another detective and he responded that he was not even aware that this report existed.

Speaking of confusions, one of the inmates kite’s was brought up as so-called evidence, this kite as stated by the investigator was given to R.Diamond’s sister by Dawns himself, at one visit ( so far so good ), but how was this inmate able to transfer this kite to his sister as he claimed? Royal Diamond was at the time of alleged visit located in the SHU [Special Housing Unite – a ‘prison within a prison], inmates who are placed in the SHU, are not allowed to have visitation, and as asked about this visit and how this was possible, the investigator had no response.

So far the Government has not presented any DNA evidence, as claimed the scene was too tainted, and sending in for DNA would have corrupted the Investigation, so the government decided to start interviewing the inmates.

And “coincidentally” all of the governments star witnesses have the exact stories, now this might not be too much of a surprise for anyone who has never been in a chaotic and tense situation, but trust me, it is very unlikely that stories have such exact much.

The human body does not operated like that, for example if you would ask a group of people living under war, each one most likely would tell you a different scenario of their realities, and usually our minds go into protection mode rather than ” let me hang out here and watch someone allegedly getting murdered”.

Mass incarnation has been a problem in the US for a very long time, no only does it the highest incarceration rate in the world, the laws made by corporations aka lobby groups have made it easy for white supremacist lawmakers to put people of color behind bars. The vast majority of incarcerated people are held in facilities controlled by state and local governments, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. The war on drugs, drug laws and extreme sentencing requirements have produced profoundly unequal outcomes for people of color. Although rates of drug use and sales are similar across racial and ethnic lines, black and Latino people are far more likely to be criminalized than white people. Research by the U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue a mandatory minimum sentence for black people as for white people charged with the same offense.

Reading through Annual Report of the DOC in Delaware, you will come across their in-depth praise of how well they take care of their inmates, and the importance of mental health, but that does not seem to reflect the reality. Talking to various previous Inmates and reading through the letters that the Inmates put together after the alleged Smyrna uprising in James T. Vaughn the understaffed facility has been known to have abusive Correctional Officers, programs for mental health is limited to certain offenders only. In 2015, the prison became a subject of an ACLU lawsuit, due to the use of solitary confinement for mentally ill inmates. “Further lawsuits have been filed due to the Delaware State Correction’s decision to feed some inmates “baked slop,” while other states have discontinued the use of such meals”.

Take Action! One former inmate of James T. Vaughn, an inmate who was part of the uprising in 1974 stated to me, “We had so much more support back in the day.” If you are reading I need you to understand that this was not a situation of a “bunch of offenders just trying to start violent useless acts of interruptions,” this goes much deeper.

Something that was a sore eye for me immediately after entering the court room, on day one of the trial, was the Swedish flag along side other colonizer flags, placed behind the judge.

If you call yourself an activist, if you do prison/ inmate work I need you to get connected with the case, even if you just start writing letters to the inmates, do it! Importantly show up to court, we are a small group, granted we kick ass and have the power of a million, we need you to show up, because this case and the political statements made by the inmates is for you and me. Show up to court, especially if you are of privilege, take notes, and join us in small actions if you need ideas and you have questions please feel free to email me.

Let the state of Delaware know that we will not allow them to falsely charge these brothers ! Most importantly let the Inmates know that we are supporting them!

Fuck the Police, Fuck Mass Incarnation, Decolonize!

Court Support Summary: Friday 11/09/2018

  • November 11, 2018 6:30 pm

from Support the Vaughn 17

“People’s mentality is they’re victims of circumstance. They fail to realize they were victims before C Building…Those who understand the uprising needed to happen […] started from one thought (amazing)…Now I truly know the concept of the tree inside the seed… If my number gets called I’m going pro se, fuck a suit, I’ll wear a T-shirt and DOC pants…It’s gonna be epic, especially when I cross-examine their witnesses. It wasn’t about violence, that part is easy…Expose this place so the public and the government will take notice… I’d say I got their attention… […] This shit was supposed to happen.
We’re stronger on the other side of adversity. […] I appreciate you keeping me aware of what’s going on on earth…Foolish humans. Staying aware is staying alive.”

– Dwayne Staats, from transcribed excerpts of an intercepted letter read out loud in court on Friday

Yesterday, court was well-attended with supporters, with media, and also with agents/affiliates of the state. Court began early with AG Downs, defense counsel for Deric Forney, B. Gifford and pro se/defendant J. Ayers finishing questioning of a state witness from yesterday who had custody of paper documents entered as evidence in the case before they were transferred for professional forensic handwriting analysis.

The rest of the morning saw testimony from Andrew Sulner, a career forensic analyst who is also an attorney. He explained how handwriting analysis works, what it can be certain of, what it is not certain of/what it can’t rule out and how the paper documents (both the letter alleged to have been written by R. Shankaras and the letter alleged to have been written by D. Staats, but NOT the list of demands in blue ink on yellow paper that we have seen entered in evidence) were analyzed and reported on.

There was discussion about state witness from the prior week, H.J. Anderson, and his process of review under the recently retooled habitual offender statute, including how that may or may not relate to his having assisted the state in this case. We were informed that “the law is nuanced,” which was of course a mesmerizing insight.

State witness Sergeant David Weaver started testifying before lunch break, being questioned by AG Downs. We will note that he has been sitting at the state’s table the entire trial. His testimony centered on the kites that were analyzed by state witness A. Sulner. I did my best to record what he was reading from these letters accurately, but it happened very quickly and there are some parts of these in my notes that are likely either truncated or missing. It wasn’t possible for me to read them from the screens in the court, as I was sitting too far away.

Sgt. Weaver testified about the workflow with regard to cooperating witness interviews and the custody of evidence. He testified about what was included and what was emphasized in these interviews as well as why/why not. The concept of “taint” (aka “fruit of the poisonous tree” in legal parlance) was once again brought up. Sgt. Weaver routinely answered questions that he wasn’t being asked/volunteered information, and that did not go well for him in several instances.

A recording of a phone call that was alleged to have taken place between pro se/defendant J. Ayers and his sister shortly before the uprising was played for the court and Sgt. Weaver was asked about this. B. Gifford questioned Sgt. Weaver in the afternoon; his cross-examination centered on times, timeline and overall assessing the precision of both the preparation and decision-making that came out of Sgt. Weaver’s work on this case, from start to finish. In my memory, this lasted almost two hours.

The day finished with J. Ayers questioning Sgt. Weaver. In the end, he made plain before the jury that Sgt. Weaver, and thusly his work on this case, should indeed be looked at closely. “Are you aware AG Downs asked you 20 questions, and you had an answer for every one, but none for questions I asked you?”

Court will NOT be in session on Monday 11/12/2018 as courts will be closed in observance of Veterans Day. The judge informs that we will begin again on the morning of Tuesday 11/13/2018 at 10am. He also tells us we appear to be back on track time-wise, so to the best of my observance, I suspect the state will likely rest either early Tuesday or shortly thereafter. It’s possible in my analysis that, depending on what the defense presents and how extensive that may be, that the case could go to the jury by the weekend.

As always more court support is appreciated. Correspondence we’ve received consistently emphasizes the importance to the S/V 17 of outside support/advancing the “No More Lies – Remove The Disguise,” “Department Of Corruption” and “Department Of In-Justice” slogans as well.

To get to Wilmington via train from Philadelphia, take the Wilmington/Newark regional rail line. It’s about a ten minute walk to the courthouse. It is Zone 4; fare each way is between $6 and $8, depending when you leave. See SEPTA schedules there and back.

Gab Woes Continue: Subpoena from Pennsylvania Attorney General

  • November 9, 2018 3:33 pm

from Unicorn Riot

Harrisburg, PA – The controversial social network Gab, closely linked with white supremacist and fascist organizers since its launch, has drawn public scrutiny and had hosting difficulties since Robert Bowers, a prolific Gab user, shot and killed 11 people worshipping at a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA on October 27. Before the shooting, Bowers also used his account to interact with many prominent figures in the neo-Nazi and “alt-right” hate movements that gravitate to Gab.

Since then, Gab shifted to the domain registrar Epik, LLC, based in Bellevue, Washington, after its previous registrar cancelled services. Gab and its CEO, Andrew Torba, seem to still be dealing with legal troubles regarding the hate speech social media site, which could have implications for the company’s crowdfunding efforts.

Early in the afternoon of Wednesday November 7, Gab’s flagship account inside the service, and @getongab on Twitter, posted a subpoena from Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s office. The subpoena, dated Wednesday, was signed by Timothy R. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General at the Bureau of Consumer Protection. It was sent to Epik, which recently announced its relationship with Gab in a November 3 blog post claiming to “Let Freedom Ring,” while claiming “there is a duty to monitor and lightly curate, keeping content within the bounds of the law.” (Internet domain registrars publish records linking IP addresses with domain names. Epik’s CEO, Rob Monster, confirmed in comments below the post his company is only the registrar, and not hosting the site itself, contrary to some media reports.)

The Gab accounts, thought to be managed by proprietor Andrew Torba, boasted that they would defeat the subpoena, an order to collect and preserve all documents and material Epik might have about their Gab account. Torba previously claimed that he was cooperating with federal and state authorities in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh shooting, but a vow to beat the state authorities in court does not portend close cooperation.

Within a few hours both social media accounts quietly deleted the posts, after tagging various right-leaning media like Fox News and the Drudge Report to try to get their attention.

Observers such as Jay McKenzie and Michael E. Hayden archived the social media postings and pointed out that the subpoena directed to Epik, LLC had a “NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT“. Epik was “requested to refrain from notifying any person or entity, other than said Respondent, that a subpoena has been issued.”

While this isn’t legally binding, Torba’s choice to post the subpoena likely won’t endear him to the new domain registrar company, which now will have to incur legal expenses to either fight the subpoena or comply with it. Notably, the subpoena also specifies that Pennsylvania should get copies of “all productions already made to other state or federal government bodies concerning Gab.”

Before he deleted his comments, Torba falsely tried to frame the subpoena as a matter pertaining to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which create a “safe harbor” of immunity for Internet publishers. Already well-tested in US courts, Section 230 would likely help Torba defend against possible lawsuits for some types of content posted by Gab users, but this is totally irrelevant to the subpoena itself. The subpoena does not claim any facts about civil liability relevant to Section 230.

By flippantly rejecting the subpoena, Torba may also have damaged his situation with crowdfunding investors, to whom he recently promised he would cooperate with authorities in solicitation materials noted below.

Full text of the Gab subpoena:

Wilmington, DE: Banner Drop for the Vaughn 17

  • November 2, 2018 1:07 am

from It’s Going Down

A banner was dropped in Wilmington, DE in solidarity with the Vaughn 17 that read “Prisons don’t keep anyone safe (A) #Vaughn17.” The message was directed to the people of Wilmington, the family and friends of the defendants on trial, the elders of Smyrna 5, supporters, and the staff of the DOJ and DOC who may happen to have looked out the window by the elevators on the 8th floor of the courthouse at 500 N King St during lunch break on the sixth day of trial.

To the defendants, we see you, we love you, and we fight in solidarity with your struggle to overthrow the oppression of the modern day slave plantation that comes in the form of the prison industrial complex.

For more information about the case and ways to support, check out: https://vaughn17support.org

All power to the people!!! Fuck the pigs!!!

-some anarchists

No Evidence, No Convictions: Week 1 of the first Vaughn 17 trial

  • October 31, 2018 7:32 pm

from Support the Vaughn 17

Breaking Update: Roman Shankaras is no longer part of this trial group. On Tuesday, October 30, the judge severed Shankaras’s case from the other 3 defendants. Shankaras will be rescheduled to a later date. The judge stated that this was because “the relationship between Shankaras and his counsel had deteriorated to a point where it was unfair to the rest of the defendants.”

This summary comes from Philly folks from the Vaughn 17 Support coalition who were present during the first week of the trial, as well as from a crew from D.C. that was able to make 2 ½ days of trial.

To run down the case: On February 1, 2017, inmates at James T. Vaughn Correctional in C Building took over the building to demand modest improvements to their living conditions, including better food and education resources. Since then, the state has pressed blanket charges against 18 prisoners for conspiracy to riot and riot, 2 counts of assault, 4 counts of kidnapping, and 16 of them also face murder charges. Correctional Officer Sergeant Floyd was killed that day, and his family has since received restitution from the state for $7.5 million. One of the 18 prisoners facing charges, Royal “Diamond” Downs, has since flipped to support the prosecution. The other 17 defendants have refused to snitch and are contesting the charges in solidarity with one another.

On Monday, October 22, the trial began with opening statements. The state attempts to described how three guards were attacked with a mop wringer and and held hostage in a supply closet. The state admitted they have no surveillance footage of the uprising, no DNA or forensic evidence, and that their case would rely largely on snitch testimony and radio recordings which were extremely difficult to understand when played in court.

The prosecution alleges Jarreau Ayers’ involvement based on a phone call made on January 31, 2017 in which he said “something big is going to happen”. The allegations go further to say he attacked a guard and “gave orders”. Of Deric Forney, the state alleges only in passing that he “assaulted officers.” The state alleges that Dwayne Staats was involved with hostage negotiations over the radio. Snitch testimony is also expected to claim Staats was seen with a ‘shank’ (a homemade knife). The state claims that Roman Shankaras is the alleged “mastermind” and “shot caller” of the uprising. The basis for this is a (contested) letter he wrote after the incident to Royal Downs; the state admits that Shankaras “didn’t assault anyone.”

Representing himself, Dwayne Staats emphasized in his opening statement that the government has no direct evidence of guilt, and cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contesting state witnesses’ claims, Staats said: “They begging the DA for freedom, but the only thing they’re willing to sacrifice is the freedom of others.” Staats noted that the case against him was based on “falsifications, confabulations, exaggerations.” He warned jurors about the “collage of misinformation that’s going to be presented to you” and that prosecutors are “going to bombard you with inconsistencies and contradictions.”

In his opening statement, defendant Jarreau Ayers, also representing himself, refuted the state’s incorrect claims about his whereabouts that day. He pointed out the lack of credibility of prisoners who would “lie to make a deal.” Ayers told the jury to think outside of “social conformity” that pressures people to “choose the side of the state. […] I’m’a expose that they can’t just pick & choose who the bad guys are.” Ayers also challenged the institution itself: “The state carries the illusion of prestige and I respectfully decline to acknowledge it.” He reminded the jury to see through this “level of prestige where I can just show you something because I’m the state…don’t allow the magnifying glass or the lights being so bright distract you from what is right.”

The two lawyers were not quite as much in solidarity with clients. They did not challenge the grounds of the charges. Instead they argued that their respective clients are not guilty because of reasonable doubt. Jason Antoine’s opening statement (representing Roman Shankaras), which went into exhaustive detail contesting the prosecution’s statements, demonstrated major overall gaps in the prosecution’s case. Shankaras’ defense pointed out he was either in the rec yard or in his cell during all the violence; he did not participate. The defense also pointed out the presence of a security camera that could have captured Shankaras’ presence in the rec yard while the prison takeover happened inside. The state claims no video exists because their cameras can only work in one location at once. According to his defense attorney, Roman Shankaras is being charged because “he will not snitch but he is a witness.”

Ben Gifford (representing Deric Forney) gave an in-depth refresher on reasonable doubt, directed to the jury in his opening statement. This solidified the notion that the state will not be able to provide enough evidence to decisively prove any of the defendants’ guilt, and challenged the prosecution’s attempted strategy of finding certain defendants, such as Forney, guilty by association.

State witnesses this week included:

  • Sergeant Weaver, state police forensic investigator who helped prepare reports for identifying suspects for Floyd’s death
  • Delaware State Police Corporal Roger Cresto, homicide unit crime scene investigator
  • Winslow Smith, the first hostage to be released during negotiations
  • Joshua Wilkinson, the other guard to be held hostage and released
  • Jordan Peters, a guard who was on “outside patrol” in a vehicle before responding to Building C after the uprising began
  • Lieutenant Sennett
  • The Forensic Nurse Examiner who examined CO Joshua Wilkinson
  • Robert Ferguson, the guard assigned to Building C where the uprising took place
  • Brett Smith, crisis negotiator with CERT
  • Patricia May, the counselor assigned to Building C who was taken hostage but not harmed by prisoners

None of the above witnesses could identify any prisoners involved, or if they tried to, it was contradicted by transcripts from their interviews with investigators right after the event.

State witnesses admitted they do not know:

  • What ‘shanks’ were used to kill Sgt. Floyd
  • Who used these shanks
  • Who made the shanks
  • When or where the shanks were made
  • Where the materials used to make the shanks came from

What has been consistent throughout all the testimony is just how bad conditions are at James T. Vaughn. While this shouldn’t be a surprise, we should be paying attention to these details.

1. Every staff member at the prison is also a CO, though not all are active in that role. Stationary Fireman Matthew McCall testified that overtime is abundant that way, and bragged that he participated in plenty of “shakedowns”, when COs forcibly go through an inmates belongings and take whatever they want as contraband.

2. McCall also testified to the physical state of C Building as “fallen in disrepair…a long time ago”, which was why they were there that morning, to add chemicals to the water boiler which had developed leaks. Photographs of the basement depicted a run down space with pools of water on the floor.

3. The inmate treatment was repeatedly described as “terrible” but at the same time normalized. For example, CO Owen Hammond testified that when the SFs first exited the basement on to the first floor, “we saw a busted mop ringer and blood on the floor but didn’t think much of it and continued on our way.” Then SF Justin Tuxford testified that at first he thought the person locked in the supply closet was an inmate because sometimes you had to “use proper force, if all you have is a supply closet.” (That person turned out to be Sergeant Floyd.) The prisoners had released a list of demands, which McCall testified as “weird,” including “education and stuff like that.” The nonchalance of prison staff statements are only matched by the crassness of what they mean.

4. Prisoners released 22 demands, and tried to get those out to the media and Governor Carney, but prison staff completely and effectively ignored them with militarized suppression. The demands included better treatment with dignity, better food, access to programs, education, contact with family and friends, a pay increase to at least $5 a month (they were not being paid anything for their work, effectively providing slave labor), fair and impartial disciplinary hearings, and a grievance process, as well as 13 others.

On Friday morning, we heard the first prisoner witness called by the state, Anthony Morrow. He had since been transferred to another facility, but not until after being held in the solitary housing unit (SHU) for a year and 5 days following the Vaughn uprising. The state opened for him by playing a recording of a phone call to his fiancé that he on when the uprising started. He described that Floyd is getting “stabbed up” and she asks, babe, whyyy? Morrow said, you don’t understand — “these cops be oppressive, spraying them, beatin them up, talkin about they parents.” The state repeatedly asked if Morrow saw anyone, and if he could identify any of the inmates involved, but he repeatedly denied it. Morrow had briefly seen Floyd getting mob rushed, but could not identify anyone involved in the assault. More specifically, Morrow called defendant Deric Forney his “brother” — they had done Bible study together and lived across from one another — and, noting that he “would recognize [Forney] anywhere,” testified that Forney had not been present at the scene of assault.

On Friday afternoon, state “star witness” Royal Downs began his testimony, which was vague and somewhat inconsistent. Downs’s story so far is that other prisoners kept coming to him to discuss, at first, a peaceful protest, and then a building takeover, and that he was opposed to it from the beginning. He identified Ayers and Shankaras as the prisoners who told him the night before that the building takeover was happening, and testified that Ayers, Shankaras, Staats, along with Pedro Chairez, Lawrence Michaels, and “a couple others, I don’t remember” were the ones who planned the uprising.

By the end of Friday afternoon, tensions appeared high between Jason Antoine (counsel for Roman Shankaras) and Judge Carpenter, as well as between Antoine and the other defense counsel and between Antoine and Shankaras himself. On Monday, court was canceled due to “legal issues,” and on Tuesday the judge announced that Shankaras’s trial was being rescheduled due to issues with his attorney.

So far, no evidence beyond cooperating witness testimony – no video, no DNA or forensics – directly ties any defendant to Floyd’s killing. All prisoner witnesses were all considered potential suspects at one time and the defense has already pointed out their motivations to offer dishonest testimony to cut a deal with the state.

It is also plausible that CO witnesses in the Vaughn Uprising case have been colluding to change their testimony to back each other up, since cross-examination showed this week that the state has not tried to prevent them from doing so. But the fact that the state has no hard evidence against these Vaughn 17 defendants does not mean that they will not be successful in manipulating the trial as though they have a case.

Court is ongoing every weekday from 10am-5pm in Courtroom 8B at 500 N King St, Wilmington, DE. More court support is welcome!

Support the Vaughn 17

COMMUTATION CAMPAIGN FOR THE ‘VIRGIN ISLAND 3’

  • October 28, 2018 1:25 pm

from Facebook

The campaign to free the Virgin Island 3 is kicking into high gear. Malik, Hanif and Abdul have been locked up for 46 years and have just applied for commutation of their sentences by Governor Mapp.

Like many aging prisoners, they are experiencing increasing health problems and pose NO RISK to the society they’ve been locked away from for nearly half a century. Because Governor Mapp’s term is ending and he is up for re-election on November 20th, now is the time to contact him and the other decision makers to urge for commutation of their sentences.

Because the Governor will be concentrating on the election until late November, we are reserving fax, email and calls until then, but letters can be drafted and mailed at any time before then. Please take a few minutes to alter the template below into a personalized letter and mail to both the Governor and the Lt. Governor. You can use the same letter to do the fax and email portion of this campaign. This is it; all hands on deck!

HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1) Write a letter

Please start by writing a letter in support of the VI3’s application to both: Governor Mapp and Lt. Governor Potter. This is also a good time to urge folks you know who care about social justice to get on board with this campaign!

Suggested letter format:

Governor Kenneth Mapp
Government House
21-22 Kongens Gade
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, VI 00802

Lt. Governor Osbert Potter
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
1131 King Street, Suite 101
Christiansted
St. Croix, VI 00820

Re: Warren Ballantine, Meral Smith, and Beaumont Gereau

Introduce yourself. This could include comments about your job, family or work in the community.

Explain how you know their cases and/or how you may know them personally.

Explain why you are concerned (if you are from the VI, explain how this affects your vote and if you are from elsewhere explain how commuting their sentences would positively influence society or your view of the VI).

Some Issues are:
1. Length of time in prison
2. Their deteriorating medical conditions
3. Aging and getting old
4. No community threat (example: while they were housed in the St. Croix, they were actually allowed to go out in the community to religious services and to speak to/mentor at-risk youth, sometimes unsupervised, with no issues)

Implore the Governor to commute their sentences. Explain that you understand that he eluded to this before he was elected and at the beginning of his term.

Respectfully end your letter.

2) Fax your letter [after November 20th] to:

The Governor’s office at: (340) 693-4374, and
The Lt. Governor’s office at: (340) 774-6953
If you do not have a fax machine, you can send a free online fax using faxzero.com.

3) Email your letter [after November 20th]:

https://www.vi.gov/contact.html

4) Call the three officials in charge of reviewing the commutation applications [as much and as often as possible after November 20th until further notice] to ask if they received your letter/fax/email:

Governor Mapp’s Office: (340) 774-0001
Lt. Governor Potter’s Office: (340) 774-2991
Attorney General Claude Walker: (340) 773-0295
Legal Counsel E. Henderson: (340) 712-2212
Leave messages letting them know you support the commutation applications for Warren Ballentine, Beaumont Gereau and Meral Smith.

A few talking points if desired, but feel free to keep it short and sweet:
• After 46 years of incarceration, they are of seriously ailing health and are extremely unlikely to re-offend… Warren alone is on 6 different types of medication after a massive heart attack a year ago.
• It is costing the state a TON of money to continue to house them and pay for medical care.

After November 20th, keep up the pressure until further notice! If he does not win re-election, his last day to grant commutations is on January 4th, 2019.

—

When you can, drop one or all of the Virgin Island 3 a note telling them about the actions you took on their behalf. You can also read about the campaign in Malik’s own words.

Warren Ballentine #16-047
Tallahatchie Correctional Facility
415 US Highway 49N
Tutwiler, MS 38963

Beaumont Gereau #16-001
Tallahatchie Correctional Facility
415 US Highway 49N
Tutwiler, MS 38963

Meral Smith #16-024
Tallahatchie Correctional Facility
415 US Highway 49N
Tutwiler, MS 38963

First Vaughn Prison Revolt Trial Begins

  • October 23, 2018 4:59 pm

from Unicorn Riot

By Chris Schiano, Unicorn Riot October 23, 2018

Wilmington, DE – On February 1, 2017, a prisoner uprising took place at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware. Over 100 inmates at the maximum security prison seized control of ‘Building C’ at the state Department of Corrections complex, taking several prison employees hostage in an uprising that would last almost 24 hours. Those involved in the uprising demanded better living conditions, access to education, transparency in use of prison funds, and an end to inconsistent enforcement of prison policies. Now, more than a year and a half after the historic uprising, four defendants – Jarreau Ayers, Derric Forney, Dwayne Staats, and Roman Shankaras – are the first to face trial after refusing plea deals offered by prosecutors.

After police retook Building C on February 2, 2017, 18 prisoners were eventually indicted on felony counts of riot, conspiracy, first degree kidnapping, first degree assault, and first degree murder. Since one of the 18 – Royal ‘Diamond’ Downs – has turned state’s evidence, supporters are referring to the Vaughn uprising defendants as the “Smyrna 17” (The James T. Vaughn Correctional Center is in Smyrna, Delaware.) Apart from Ayers, Forney, Staats, and Shankaras, four other groups of prisoners face trials in between November 2018 and February 2019.

All four defendants seemed confident and prepared in court, sitting upright and paying close attention during opening arguments on Monday. Ayers and Staats are both representing themselves pro se and appeared eager to finally confront the charges against them. The four defendants, all black men, were closely guarded in the courtroom at all times by at least 9 Delaware Department of Corrections officers, all of whom appeared to be white.

18 jurors  – 3 white men, 10 white women, 3 black men, & 2 black women – were seated around 10 AM in Judge William Carpenter’s courtroom on the 8th floor of the Leonard C Williams Justice Center. After the jurors were sworn in, opening arguments for the state of Delaware were made by Assistant Attorney General Nichole Warner. Warner called February 1, 2017, “a day unlike any other” and told jurors that “suddenly and violently, a group of inmates took the building over.”

In language echoing the failed federal rioting conspiracy case against protesters arrested at Trump’s inauguration, Assistant Attorney General Nichole Warner told jurors that prisoners who may have only intended to organize civil disobedience in their facility were still ultimately responsible for the death of Corrections Officer Steven Floyd:

“All people associated with the original crime can be held liable…even if there was no agreement [to commit murder].” – Assistant Delaware Attorney General Nichole Warner

Assistant Attorney General Warner’s opening argument primarily focused on building the basic narrative of events that will be referred to by witnesses throughout the trial. She described how on February 1, 2017, when corrections officers (COs) called for inmates to come inside from the recreation yard to take showers, several masked prisoners attacked the COs with a mop wringer, subduing them and taking them hostage, restraining them with their own handcuffs.

Sergeant Steven Floyd, who would later be killed, was known to be verbally abusive towards inmates, according to defense lawyer Jason Antoine, who said he was known for yelling at prisoners in their cells. During the takeover, Floyd was initially detained by prisoners in a mop closet, but was later moved to the Sergeant’s office, where investigators would later find his corpse.

Two other COs, Winslow Smith and Joshua Wilkinson, were also taken hostage and reportedly beaten and injured, but survived. Smith was released during hostage negotiations, while Wilkinson was kept behind and used as a go-between during the final attempted negotiations until police retook Building C. A prison counselor was also taken hostage during the standoff but was not physically harmed.

Once the prisoners had taken control of Building C, they began negotiating over the radio for the release of the hostages. The prosecution alleges that defendant Dwayne Staats threatened to kill hostages over the radio, telling police “if you breach, they will die immediately” – a claim expected to be contested by Staats as the trial proceeds. The state played an extended sample of Department of Corrections radio chatter from the negotiations, although the recording had a severe echo effect that made it difficult to understand what was said.

The state acknowledged that they had absolutely no surveillance video footage from the prison that day. Around 2 PM on the day of the uprising, the prisoners involved in the takeover agreed to let other inmates with health conditions leave the building, with more being released later at midnight. Around 5 AM, militarized police with Delaware’s Corrections Emergency Response Team (CERT) had breached building C, extracted the remaining hostages, and began subjugating the prisoners still inside the facility.

Images shown by the prosecution during opening arguments included pictures of burnt lockers, allegedly demonstrating how prisoners were burning bloody clothes to prevent them from being used as criminal evidence, and pictures of the mop wringer that was reportedly used to assault guards during the takeover.

Assistant Attorney General Warner went on to make more specific allegations against each of the defendants. Jarreau Ayers, she said, made a phone call from inside Vaughn on January 31, the day before the uprising, in which he allegedly said “something big” was going to happen soon and asked for money to be put on his commissary. The state also claimed that one of their cooperating witnesses would testify that Ayers attacked a CO and that he was seen “giving orders” during the riot. Warner mentioned defendant Derric Forney only briefly, claiming offhand that he “assaulted officers.”

Roman Shankaras was called a “mastermind” and “shot caller” although Warner also added that “he didn’t assault anyone himself.” The case against Shankaras seems to orbit around a kite (prison letter) that he wrote to another inmate, which his lawyer claims was written under duress. Dwayne Staats was also alleged to have been seen by cooperating inmate witnesses with a shank and a radio during the uprising as well as assaulting a CO and “giving orders” to other prisoners. The prosecution plans to use letters written by Staats to claim that he took responsibility for the riot and the death of Sergeant Floyd.

After Assistant Attorney General Warner finished outlining the state’s case against the defendants, each of the defendants made their opening arguments. Jason Antoine, defense counsel for Roman Shankaras, told jurors “if you had to boil this case down to one thing… this is about dignity” and argued that Shankaras and many other prisoners had simply planned to “stand out in the yard to protest prison conditions.” He also spoke about poor living conditions in Building C at Vaughn and told jurors that “this riot had been brewing” for a long time due to “mistreatment” and “inconsistent policies.” Antoine called the Vaughn Uprising “a shock to the state of Delaware and a shock to the prison system,” pointing out that it is the first time a corrections officer has been killed in a Delaware facility.

Defense counsel for Shankaras also pointed out the presence of a security camera that could have captured Shankaras’ presence in the recreation yard while the prison takeover happened inside. He says the state responded to his request for the footage by telling him that “the camera location system only works from one location at a time.”

He also named three specific “bad apple guards” – Abigail West, and Estrada Green and Lance Green – as particularly responsible for exacerbating tensions amongst prisoners inside Building C. Antoine also pointed out that Shankaras was either out of the yard or in his cell during most of the events in question, including with Sergeant Floyd was killed. He told jurors that his client was an “outlier” to the day’s events, didn’t give orders to anyone or talk on the radio, and was being charged as retaliation for not testifying against others.

Antoine spent most of his opening statement poking various holes in the testimony expected to be heard over the next few weeks from cooperating inmate witnesses. He further alleged that cooperating witnesses had been housed together by the state at Howard Young Correctional Facility so that they could rehearse their stories together. One state’s witness he brought to the jury’s attention was a convicted pedophile; another had admitted to being a compulsive liar. At one point he called the case “garbage evidence in, garbage evidence out” and went on to mention that one prosecution witness falsely claimed that Sergeant Floyd was beheaded. Another of the state’s cooperating witnesses reportedly stole Floyd’s watch off of his wrist.

Antoine seemed to relish getting to what he told jurors was the “good part” of his opening statement, telling them “Hollywood ain’t ready for this.” He was referring to Royal Diamond Downs, the state’s “star witness” who was himself a participant in the Vaughn Uprising before flipping to testify for the prosecution in exchange for dodging the murder changes. According to Antoine, Downs is “one of the most influential people in the Delaware prison system” and sat at the top of the prison hierarchy where he could order hits by different prison gangs such as Black Guerrilla Family and Dead Man’s Inc (DMI). He further alleged that Downs essentially “ran” Vaughn Correctional Center and that he was possibly the one who ordered Sergeant Floyd to be killed during the prison uprising. Radio from the February 1, 2017 standoff, as well as a recorded February 15, 2017 phone call Downs made to his girlfriend in which he seemed to take responsibility for Sergeant Floyd’s death and express remorse.

Next to give opening statements was Dwayne Staats, representing himself. Staats said that he was “agitated” by “false allegations” against him and insisted that the state was using other prisoners’ false testimony in order to try to wrongly convict him.

Staats asked jurors to be critical of the “collage of misinformation that’s going to be presented to you” and told them prosecutors were “going to bombard you with inconsistencies and contradictions.” Staats says that prosecution witness statements say that he was in places that he wasn’t on the day of the uprising and told the jury “I didn’t wear a mask” and “I don’t have a clone that was running around.” He ended by asking jurors to remember that they had to find him not guilty if the charges against him weren’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt: “the scale is tilted my way … at this moment I’m presumed innocent.”

Next to give opening statements, and also representing himself at trial, was defendant Jarreau Ayers. Ayers criticized the state for relying on testimony from Vaughn prisoners who were willing to “lie to get a deal” and said prosecutors were trying “pick and choose evidence that fits their theory.” He told jurors “you got the right to be skeptical” about the motives of witnesses in the case – a comment to which prosecutors objected, but Judge Carpenter overruled the objection. Ayers stressed that no DNA or forensic evidence has been brought against him, and that the state’s case has to rely on witnesses.

Ayers made further comments to the jury asking them to not take the trial proceedings at face value and to resist “social conformity” that might pressure them to “choose the side of the state.”

He also spoke to what he saw as the wider significance of the trial:

“I believe that this case has the opportunity to set the tone for how people look at “beyond a reasonable doubt” in our legal system.” – Jarreau Ayers

Ayers went on to tell jurors how he had reviewed thousands of pages of legal documents to prepare for his trial and that “the only thing consistent about this case is going to be the inconsistencies and contradictions.”

Ayers showed the jury pictures of a broken mop handle, gloves, and a shank that had been used by the prosecution during their opening. “The reality of it is none of these pieces of evidence have our DNA on it or the CO’s DNA on it,” he said, asking jurors not to accept “the level of prestige where I can just show you something because I’m the state…don’t allow the magnifying glass or the lights being so bright distract you from what is right.”

Last to make an opening argument was Ben Gifford, defense counsel for Vaughn uprising defendant Derric Forney. Gifford mostly stressed that his client was presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that very little evidence at all had been presented against Forney. Forney’s lawyer also reminded jurors that each of the four defendants were entitled to be tried individually and that they shouldn’t let the state try to paint them as guilty by association with each other.

After opening arguments ended and the court took a lunch recess, trial resumed with the jurors hearing from the state’s two first witnesses, two investigators, tasked with analyzing evidence from Building C after police had put down the uprising. They shared an extensive list of details about evidence recovered after the fact. Testimony by Delaware State Police Corporal Roger Cresto, who took photographs of Building C on February 2, 2017 after the police raid, had not finished by the time Judge Carpenter decided to end court for the day. His testimony is scheduled to resume in front of the jury at 10 AM on Tuesday, October 23.

Follow Unicorn Riot on Twitter for the most up-to-date information from inside the trial (we can’t tweet from court but post what we can on breaks!)

Title image credit: trconrad2001 / Flickr / Wikimedia Commons

Please consider a tax-deductible donation to help sustain our horizontally-organized, non-profit media organization:

supportourworknew

Call for Actions: Defend the Vaughn 17

  • October 19, 2018 4:33 pm

from It’s Going Down

A call for solidarity with the Vaughn 17, currently on trial and to mobilize for a rally on the outside of the New Castle County Courthouse. Both called for on Monday, October, 22nd.

Call for Solidarity With the Vaughn 17 on October 22nd

On February 1st of 2017 inmates at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in rural Delaware took over their unit in C-building; they held staff, released demands to the media, and made it clear that their motivation was not just a result of confinement but also the election of Trump. At the end of their 18+ hour occupation, one guard, Steven Floyd (known by all to be exceptionally abusive) was dead.

On October 17th of the same year, the Delaware Department of Justice charged 16 prisoners with Floyd’s murder and two others with riot, kidnapping, and conspiracy. Except for one snitch, all the defendants have plead not guilty and their jury trials will begin on October 22nd, 2018.

On this date, as the state opens its trial against these comrades, we are calling for solidarity actions and to show the Vaughn 17 that they are not alone or forgotten about, and to show the state that the message of the Vaughn 17 resonates loudly throughout plantation society and across its borders.

Join us for a Rally at the New Castle County Courthouse from 8 – 9 AM on October 22nd

In many ways the demands of the Vaughn 17 anticipated the 2018 National Prison Strike, calling for increased wages for their mandatory labor, and the introduction of rehabilitation and education programs. These comrades positioned their struggle inside against the threat posed by Trump’s election, which has now been realized in the increasing detention of immigrants and the rise of fascism on the outside. Since the occupation’s end, they have been subjected to extreme repression and violence, including beatings and the denial of basic necessities, including having their water shut off. Yet in the face of these hardships and the betrayal, 17 of the defendants are standing together, unwavering in their solidarity.

Solidarity is the most effective weapon we have against the State. When we come together we can keep each other, and the movement, alive and propel the fight to the next stage. If we all push together, their walls will topple!

Against the carceral state and the American plantation! 

Freedom and victory to the Vaughn 17!

Vaughn 17 Court Support

  • October 8, 2018 4:12 pm

from Twitter
Banner supporting Vaughn Uprising prisoners seen over Christopher Columbus Blvd during morning commute in Philadelphia, PA. Participants in Feb 2017 uprising at Vaughn Correctional Center in Delaware face trials this month thru next yr. Jury selection for 1st trial starts today


On February 1, 2017, prisoners revolted & took over Building C at the maximum security prison in Smyrna, Delaware. 4 prison employees were taken hostage & one died after a police raid retook the facility. Prisoners’ demands included better living conditions & access to educationPrisoners involved in the Vaughn Uprising also cited Trump’s inauguration as one of the reasons for their revolt – they believed the new presidency would inevitably embolden prison officials, whose unions endorsed Trump, to intensify neglect & brutality towards incarcerated ppl

Courthouse doors just opened here in Wilmington, Delaware where jury selection for the first trial is scheduled to begin today. Four of the prisoners involved in the uprising – Jarreau Akers, Dwayne Staats, Ramon Shankaras and Deric Forney – make up the 1st trial group


<

A Food Not Bombs chapter is providing free breakfast and tea to approximately a dozen supporters of the who have gathered outside the courthouse.




Wilmington Police have arrived and are telling Food Not Bombs they can’t serve food on the sidewalk by court without a permit. supporters told police a recent federal court ruling means Food Not Bombs is protected First Amendment speech that doesn’t need a permit



Police seem to have backed off ordering the Food Not Bombs table to leave the area by the Wilmington, DE courthouse after reportedly checking with their law department- the officer in charge just apologized to the people that minutes ago he had been ordering to leave.

We have been told that jury selection in the first trial is closed to the public, so we are unable to report from inside the courtroom today. The first batch of 4 defendants from the February 1, 2017 prison uprising in Smyrna, Delaware will begin trial on October 22.

Call for Court Support With the Vaughn 17

  • October 5, 2018 12:27 pm

from It’s Going Down

Call from the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (RAM) and Vaughn 17 Support Philly to show solidarity with the Vaughn 17.

Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement’s RAM-NYC, RAM Philadelphia and Vaughn 17 Support Philly are organizing court support for the brave comrades inside the walls: The Vaughn 17. We are calling on prison abolitionists and revolutionary comrades to attend the trial in a strong showing of solidarity in Wilmington, Delaware.

The first group starts trial Oct. 8, 2018, and the final group starts Feb. 11, 2019. We are now calling for volunteers for the trial starting Oct. 8, for jury selection starts Oct. 8 and the trial Oct. 22. We will be holding banners outside the courthouse, attending the trial and, as the main supporters in that room, taking notes on the proceedings. Join this orientation to schedule a date to come and find out how to do court support. Come show the prison rebels they are not alone!

Get in touch with us for any questions about court support, at revolutionaryabolitionistmovement@protonmail.com.

Background

The state’s ability to criminalize Black and Brown people and railroad people into a life of torture and submission continues unabated. Yet we are living in a historic moment where many inside and outside the prison walls have committed themselves to the struggle for prison abolition and liberation.

On Feb. 1, 2017, after a series of peaceful protests yielded no results, incarcerated comrades took over a building at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Delaware to demand slight improvements in their treatment. After a 20-hour stand-off, the prison’s response was to literally bulldoze their barricades and figuratively bulldoze their demands, retaliating with constant beatings, destruction of prisoner property, and denial of food and medical care.

Furthermore, the state has accused 17 of the incarcerated with egregious offenses even though these charges have no basis in reality. The state’s response shows once again that any prisoners standing up for themselves, to regain dignity and achieve decent treatment, is a threat. And the state will collectively punish everyone and anyone to hide its barbarism. The only role of prison guards, wardens and the Department of Corrections (DOC) is the perpetuation of slavery and subjugation.

In response to the just demands of the protest, the state is trying to convict 17 people with trumped up charges. Despite the most insidious intentions of the state, the co-defendants charged are standing strong together in solidarity and are jointly and sincerely proclaiming their innocence.

We can make a huge difference supporting the Vaughn 17! The co-defendants have expressed the positive impact of the support they have been getting already. This is an opportunity to stand by them in an even more meaningful way: to look into their faces in the courtroom and show them that comrades will stand by everyone facing state repression.

We will be organizing people to attend their trial, to hold banners outside the courthouse and to take notes on the proceedings, so their lives won’t be shoved into the darkness without a fight!

Read the statements and letters of the defendants: https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/VAUGHN-READ.pdf.

Write a letter of support to the defendants: https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/vaughn-update918.pdf.

The trial will be held at New Castle County Courthouse, 500 N. King St., Wilmington, DE 19801.