Philly Anti-Capitalist Philly Anti-authoritarian News

from Support the Vaughn 17

The fourth week of this incredibly long and punitive trial saw defendants Abednego Baynes, Kevin Berry, John Bramble, and Obadiah Miller finally able to speak to the lies the state’s used to construct a case against them. Two defendants from the first trial — Jarreau Ayers and Dwayne Staats — also testified this week, revealing new information about the parts they played regarding the takeover. Other inmate defense witnesses completely discredited the testimony of several of the state’s witnesses, leaving the state with even less of a case against any of the remaining defendants.

Monday, February 4th, saw the tail end of the prosecution’s case. After two weeks of unreliable testimony from unlikeable inmate witnesses, on Friday the state had finally managed to produce a somewhat competent witness, Michael “Latino” Rodriguez. Rodriguez testified that he saw Bramble assault Officer Wilkinson and that he saw Miller stab Sergeant Floyd. Monday’s cross-examination showed that Rodriguez’s testimony contradicted that of other inmates, that he’d gotten information about what’d happened from other people, and that his motivation for cooperating was to get out of jail rather than having been moved by his “conscience.” But he seemed to have made a better impression on the jury than previous witnesses. After lead investigator David Weaver testified about the investigation again, the prosecution rested on Monday.

“I shouldn’t be here.” – Kevin Berry

Kevin Berry’s defense began by calling a few fellow prisoners who were with him during the takeover and attested to his lack of involvement. One prisoner, Joseph Galloway, discredited state witness Henry Anderson’s testimony, saying he was asleep during the assaults he’d said he saw: “Unless he’s superman, he didn’t see nothing cuz he never left the room.” When questioned, he also said that no one had been down near the hot pot watching the assaults, which wipes out another state witness’ testimony. Berry then testified, noting the “bullshit stories” of the prosecution’s witnesses and explaining to the jury that he should never have been charged.

“Peaceful protests don’t work. I’m past that.” – Dwayne Staats

Obadiah Miller’s defense counsel brought up Jarreau Ayers, who admitted he’d lied during the previous trial and that he had in fact collaborated with his co-defendant Dwayne Staats to plan the takeover. Ayers explained he’d made the decision to risk perjury and attest to this now because he’d come to realize that the uprising was a “righteous cause” and that he needed to accept responsibility for it. He said he couldn’t bear to see men who had nothing to do with the takeover being convicted for things he’d decided to do, even though it meant that he now stands no chance of ever leaving prison. Ayers told the courtroom, “I’m sacrificing everything to be here today.”

Staats also expanded on his role in the takeover. During his and Ayers’ trial in the fall, Staats had explained (not under oath, according to him) that he had sought to plan the takeover along with other “lifers” — people who had nothing to lose — and had recruited six other prisoners to take part. On Wednesday of this past week, Staats told the court that he’d also been the first to punch Sergeant Floyd, a signal that attacks on all the officers were to begin. This new admission made the prosecution furious. Staats shrugged this off, explaining that his defense had been based on what the investigators said about him, and that they hadn’t been able to find a witness who said they’d seen him hit anyone.

Ayers and Staats both convincingly explained why they had not recruited the particular defendants on trial to take part in the prison takeover. Of Bramble, Ayers said “Can I be honest? He and his friends just get high all the time.” When asked if any white guys had been asked to participate in the uprising, Ayers laughed and said, “No.”

Staats explained that he’d seen firsthand that Kevin Berry didn’t have the potential to be part of the takeover when an officer had put hands on Berry previously and he did nothing in response. Neither of them knew Baynes, who kept to himself. Miller was known as a tier man, who, as Staats explained, were handpicked and trusted by the police, meaning they were not trusted by other inmates. Miller also testified to this in his own defense, explaining to the jury that many of the inmates who’d lied about his involvement in the uprising had problems with him because he’d been picked for the job despite others having seniority over him.

Baynes testified on Wednesday that he’d spent the morning of the takeover watching Rachel Ray, which he watched every day, and that he’d left before it was over. When questioned about masked inmates he’d seen at a distance during the uprising, he replied, “If you want me to guess, I can play a guessing game like your witnesses did.”

After much censorship and condescension from Judge Carpenter, Baynes’ defense attorney Cleon Cauley was finally allowed to bring up prison expert and correctional operations consultant James Aiken. Aiken testified that inmates should be housed separately after a “critical incident” in order to minimize “contamination” of the investigation. In this case, they were housed together; some people who are now state witnesses were even in the same cells. The judge did not allow him to testify about several significant matters.

John Bramble’s defense presented one prisoner who’d been cellmates with Melvin Williams, who had testified previously that Bramble had come to his cell saying he’d attacked Floyd. Williams’ cellmate testified that no one had ever come to his cell that day saying that. Another inmate’s testimony discredited testimony from another state witness, Larry Sartin. The most significant testimony that day, though, came from prisoner Terek Downing, who had taken care of Counselor May in his cell during the uprising and had witnessed the attack on Sergeant Floyd. Downing exonerated Bramble, whom he’d seen also watching the attack. Downing also completely undermined the previous testimony of state witness Carello, who he said stayed in his cell during the attacks he said he’d seen, and described state witness Rodriguez’s claim that he had also been with Ms. May as “completely false.” Like several defense witnesses before him, Downing described the case against the current defendants as “frustrating” and told the court, “Y’all got the wrong people on trial.”

Bramble’s testimony closed out the defense. Bramble spoke out against state witness Michael Carello’s (now-discredited) claim that Bramble had bragged that he’d “gutted Floyd like a whale, and felt like a KKK member while doing it.” Bramble responded: “That doesn’t even make sense. My mom is black and my little sister and brother are half-black. I was ashamed when he said that. That’s offensive.”

Bramble also spoke to the brutality endured by C-building’s inmates right after the takeover, which he described as a “full-on assault.” Lieutenant Vanes, who’d commanded the force that eventually blitzed the building, had testified that they had used force because prisoners were resisting. Bramble testified that no one had resisted.

Four to five days after the takeover, the 18 prisoners who were ultimately indicted were chosen to be moved to a different building. For a week, Bramble testified, they had only the clothes they’d had on, which were still wet, and no shoes. They weren’t allowed to take showers or make phone calls for five days. When transferred to a different prison, they were put on a tier with nothing, their property was confiscated again, they weren’t given property or books for three months, and they had to go on a hunger strike in order to get their allotted recreation time.

The prosecution succeeded in getting some moderate convictions in the first Vaughn 17 trial because two of the defendants, Ayers and Staats, offered up testimony regarding their involvement in the takeover. The third defendant, Deric Forney, whom only a few witnesses claimed to have seen assaulting an officer, maintained his innocence and was acquitted on all charges.

This trial is different. This time, all four defendants are in Deric Forney’s position. A few more state witnesses have “evolved” their stories to include Bramble and Miller’s names, and there is a questionable DNA sample related to Miller, who as a tier man had regular access to where it was found. But Bramble, Miller, Berry and Baynes have all held out under pressure and abuse for the past two years to stay in solidarity with their co-defendants. They have now convincingly attested to their lack of involvement in the takeover and some of the ways in which they were targeted as part of the state’s desperate attempt at retaliation for one of the most important uprisings so far this century.

The prosecution and the defense’s closing arguments will take place on Monday, February 11, starting at 9:00am in Room 8B at the New Castle County Courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware. Jury deliberations are expected to begin on Tuesday morning.

from Support The Vaughn 17

The second week of the second round of trials in the state’s pursuit of retribution for the uprising in James T. Vaughn Correctional Center this time two years ago came to an end Friday, January 25 in Wilmington, Delaware. It was a short week, with the federal holiday observed on Monday and Judge Carpenter, who presided over the last round of trials, leaving early on Friday to travel to Las Vegas (but not to gamble, as we were assured). Per Judge Carpenter, there will be no court on Monday of next week, either.

The bulk of this week was the state’s presentation and the defense’s cross-examinations of some of their roster of collaborating inmate witnesses, all of whom testified that they were in C Building at the time of the takeover on February 1, 2017. They acknowledged varying degrees of engagement with people they identified as having various roles in the process, though not all agreed as to who did what, when or where. This is consistent with testimony from last trial, in which all of this week’s snitch witnesses had already testified. As promised by defense counsel in opening arguments, there is indeed a dizzying array of contradictions being shown by the state to the jury.

For the first time, we heard from Aaron Lowman, a 33 year old person serving a life sentence in prison under Delaware’s habitual offender statute. This statute was recently revisited, allowing for the possibility of reduction of sentences as well as for parole in certain cases; while defense attorneys have certainly made them work to prove it, the state has had each of their witnesses thus far speak frankly from the stand in confirmation of their not having any sort of “deal” or “agreement” with them from which they may stand to improve their current situations.

The agreement to align with power means embracing its repression and debasement of human beings- including one’s own self. The inevitable outcomes- personal devastation along with little, or even no improvement to circumstances- are evident all over this situation. This was quite clear in the testimony of Aaron Lowman, who tells us he was previously known as Snoop but has since renounced what he called his “street name.” “Snoop” was apparently mentioned by cooperating witness Antonio Guzman, who testified in last trial and in this trial, stoking the interest of state investigators. He had previously declined to disclose information in statements to these investigators, which he demonstrated from the witness stand both for the prosecutors and for defense attorneys. This, he tells us, is because he was fearful of being charged; as far as speculation thus far about Lowman’s active involvement in the uprising, it was said by Antonio Guzman that “Snoop” tied his hands up prior to releasing him through the yard door in the presence of Jarreau Ayers, convicted of all but the murder charges in last trial. Lowman was consistent with other snitch witnesses in saying that Jarreau Ayers was one of the people negotiating from inside C Building via radio and cellphone with Delaware Department of Corrections personnel, and that he was involved with people leaving the building through the course of the uprising.

Why would a person with life in prison fear providing information to investigators? There is so much here to explore about assisting one’s oppressors and/or collaborating in ill fate befalling people who are in similar situations to one’s own. We didn’t hear about that, though. We reminisced over the testimony of DeShawn Drumgo, also incarcerated at Smyrna, in defense of Jarreau Ayers. The state, we’ll remember, had asked him why he didn’t assist investigators. “They were beating me. That’s a slave mentality,” he said. Aaron Lowman feared retribution, he said repeatedly. “I didn’t want what happened to Smitty [correctional officer and state witness Winslow Smith] to happen to me,” he said.

He said a lot of things- things that were profoundly inconsistent with prior collaborating witness testimony. He said that correctional officer Lieutenant Sennett, called as a witness for the state last week and who also testified in the previous trial, entered the building when it was under siege and heard Sergeant Floyd- who was found deceased 20 hours later, when the state retook the control of the building by bashing a wall with a backhoe and clearing a path inward with flash bangs and fists of fury- say “help me, get me out of here” from inside a mop closet. Aaron Lowman tells us that Sennett ran out, and that he did not see him again.

He said he was able to move freely about the building because his door did not lock completely, though it stayed closed enough to not disturb the remote key system used by correctional officers. He testified that he took advantage of this that day, though under cross-examination it became clear that he had testified that he saw things from viewpoints that are not permissible in the light of building layout and mechanics of the space. Happily, he did not identify Abednego Baynes or Kevin Berry in photographs, which is consistent with prior witness Antonio Guzman saying nothing of import about them, himself. Last week, state’s witness Royal Downs, himself incarcerated in C Building at the time and operating under a plea agreement of guilty to riot charges only in exchange for information about the uprising that he featured prominently in, said of Abednego and Kevin, “I don’t even know why they’re being charged.” He confirmed that he knew Abednego, and confirmed that he was “not involved in anything,” in the words of defense attorney Saagar Shah, co-representing Abednego with Cleon Cauley.

In the same exchange, there was discussion about whether Aaron Lowman believed that others in C Building were telling investigators that he had been vandalizing property in the building. He doubled down on saying he “didn’t do nothing.” Defense counsel Shah asked him if someone had otherwise, would they be mistaken or lying? He said “no, I did what I was told to do, not of my free will.”

Later, with prosecuting assistant attorney general Nichole Warner, he honored what he’d previously testified to- that his mother encouraged him to tell the state what he knew. The skillful observer of this history in the making will note that his statement to investigators indicating his transition to active collaboration against the defendants of Smyrna came on December 5, 2018, after the end of the first trial. “[I wanted] to get it off my chest for the most part, and come clean.” “What were you told regarding deals?” Warner asked. “There would be absolutely no deal for my testimony,” he responded. “What does that mean?” “That I will do the rest of my time in prison,” he answered.

The final word went to Anthony Figliola, defense attorney for Obadiah Miller, who ferreted out a long and significant list of contradictions between Aaron Lowman’s testimony and that of all other witnesses who have come before him during his cross-examinations. He built on what AG Warner had him verify his having asked to turn the recording he was aware of off during his statement in September. “You asked for the tape to be turned off, then you started identifying people. Was that before or after Detective Weaver [chief investigator, who attends the trials with prosecutors] gave you the names of the inmates implicating you?” “He never did,” Lowman answered. “Are you sure of that?” “Yes.” “Nothing more.”

Court will resume at 10am Tuesday, January 29 in Wilmington.

from Support the Vaughn 17

After failing to present any substantive evidence all week and then seeing their star witness devastatingly discredited under cross-examination on Friday, one might think the prosecution for the Vaughn 17 case would be going home this weekend and discussing how to quietly drop the charges against the remaining prisoners charged with alleged involvement in the February 2017 uprising at Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware.

Unfortunately, it’s more likely that the state will again draw out its proceedings for at least an additional three weeks in an attempt to convince an obedient jury of the defendants’ guilt, despite having almost nothing to show for its two-year investigation other than its own culpability.

Wednesday of this week saw testimony from a correctional officer working as a fireman at the time of the uprising, who’d come up from the prison building’s basement in the early moments of the takeover. He likely could have stopped the uprising from happening, but chose to return to the basement. He was only able to identify one prisoner, Dwayne Staats, who, according to his own pro se defense during the last trial, played an important role in planning and maintaining the building takeover. Counselor Patricia May, held by prisoners during the uprising but not assaulted, also only identified Staats (he had identified himself to her during the last trial). Correctional officers Winslow Smith and Josh Wilkinson, who were held in a supply closet during the uprising, testified at length about to their injuries but could not identify anyone. According to their own testimony, they were released within hours from the hospital’s emergency department following the uprising, which does not indicate severe injuries. Extensive photos of their wounds were shown for the benefit of the jury, however.

No mention has been made so far of the violent abuse nearly every inmate in the building was subjected to immediately following the uprising, nor of the punitive confinement conditions, beatings, and harassment that the prisoners targeted by this investigation have been dealing with for the past two years.

The state’s main witness, Royal “Diamond” Downs, testified at length on Friday. Downs exonerated both Abednego Baynes and Kevin Berry, saying that they were “just there, just like anyone” and confirming under cross-examination that he was surprised that they were charged.

Downs is a significant witness because he was the only inmate charged who cooperated with the state (the other defendants were likely targeted in part because they refused on principle to cooperate), and though he claims otherwise, he clearly played a major role in the uprising, had significant power in the prison, and a detailed knowledge of other inmates’ activities. He claims to have seen Miller as part of a group that went into the building from the yard with masks on (allegedly to start the takeover by taking the COs hostage), to have noticed Miller changing his clothes outside the mop closet after the first assaults, and that Miller told him he had “poked” Floyd. Downs had to have his memory of previous statements to investigators “refreshed” by prosecutors at least four times during direct testimony alone, which was what allowed him to “remember” the two current defendants’ involvement. Miller’s lawyer is expected to challenge Downs’ testimony in his cross-examination on Tuesday.

John Bramble’s lawyer, Tom Pederson, came out swinging in his cross-examination of Downs, which lasted almost two and a half hours. Before demonstrating at length that this is not Downs’s first time cooperating with the state and that he will put his needs before anyone, Pederson grilled Downs on his failure to have mentioned in his many previous statements that he’d seen Bramble going into the building with a mask on, or that he’d seen him later during the occupation with a shank. Downs also claims to have talked to Bramble immediately before the takeover and that Bramble said he was “with it.” Though Downs was incredibly stubborn, he admitted that his testimony was inconsistent and could not explain why he had not previously named Bramble along with the group of prisoners going into the building wearing masks.

The prosecution has still not been able to produce any witnesses who say they saw the assaults, and other circumstances — like the low visibility, the flooding that likely spread blood to many of the prisoners’ clothes, and the tendency of many prisoners to regularly carry shanks for self-defense — show how little such circumstantial evidence can contribute to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On Monday, the investigator tasked with collecting evidence following the uprising even defended his failure to send in masks for analysis by stating repeatedly that wearing a mask did not entail involvement in assaulting officers.

Cross-examination of Royal Downs is expected to resume on Tuesday, January 22, at 9:30am at the New Castle County Courthouse.

from Support the Vaughn 17

Wilmington, DE

“Prison is not somewhere people aspire to spend their lives,” Delaware assistant attorney general Nichole Warner told us as she opened the state’s case against Kevin Berry, John Bramble, Abednego Baynes and Obadiah Miller. These four individuals, like those who were tried before them, know this fact all too well given the repression they have faced before and after the events of February 2017. And so, once again we bear witness and offer support however we can- by writing letters, by showing up in court, by raising money, by making time to listen, by lifting up voices for human dignity!

Speaking about February 1, 2017- AG Warner described “a day unlike any other, that not all would live to regret,” when prisoners seized control of C building at James T. Vaughn Correctional Facility, and held it for nearly a day. She spoke of the uprising in terms of terror and criminal responsibility, underscoring the state’s method of dealing with issues by making people pay, instead of taking even modest steps to correct dire problems. It was evident from the previous trial, where no service was given to the vicious, coordinated and planned machinations of prison (and the devastating impacts this causes to people and families), but rather, a singular desire on the part of the state to identify, isolate, and punish several individuals for the collective failure of a brutal, racist system to protect even its own enforcers, such as the late Sergeant Steven Floyd.

Cautions came in opening arguments from defense attorneys for each of the comrades currently facing trial, focusing on Delaware’s accomplice liability statutes and the state’s emphasis on circumstantial evidence. Cleon Cauley for Abednego Baynes noted that “everything the state said earlier was not evidence” and advanced his notion that “it will become evident that the state made a snap judgment” about his client. It is hard to disagree with Mr. Cauley’s claim that “constant questioning is the only way we can reach the truth.” Andrew Witherell, representing Kevin Berry, emphasized the need for presumption of innocence despite, in his words, the stigma of incarceration and the understanding of an inmate’s condition as being unpopular. Speaking to the jury, he said “you can see and hear [collaborating] witnesses, make conclusions about what they say and how they say it, how they act, their demeanor.. you can listen and make judgment as to their bias, their concerns. Is there trickery? What do they expect to get out of this trial?” Tom Pedersen, representing John Bramble, asked the jury “would you be satisfied with what you hear if Mr. Bramble was the valedictorian of the charter school?” He then warned the jury that they would hear a “dizzying array of contradictions,” asking them to consider whether they would “allow these contradictions to return a verdict of guilty.” He also correctly identified a “lack of dignity” in the state’s approach, extending this to Sergeant Floyd and making clear that this is “about finding truth, not about throwing it up against the wall and hoping something sticks.” He promised a “vigorous and zealous” defense of John Bramble moving forward. Obadiah Miller, who was anticipating release in October 2019 prior to being targeted by this- as the judge explicitly stated during court- ongoing investigation, is being represented by Tony Figliola. Mr. Figliola instilled the notion that his client was “a friend of some of the organizers, and he was dragged into this because of that association.”

A sobering reminder that in its relentless quest to retaliate against those who dare to assert their humanity, the state will also seek to criminalize us based on who our friends are.

Following a once more tedious and plotless offering and review of the state’s direct evidence- photographs and envelopes out of context while interviewing the state’s crime scene experts and evidence collection and processing teams- it was apparent that the approach of wearing out the jury by showing item after item would be used again, in addition to heavy reliance on collaborating witness testimony for the state. The state appears to be counting on the jury- and thusly on each of us- to accept its deadly assertions through trading on what Jarreau Ayers called “the illusion of prestige” during his own self-mounted defense in the fall’s first round of trials. Jarreau Ayers’ diligent and courageous pro se efforts resulted in his acquittal by jury on the murder charges and conviction on kidnapping, riot and conspiracy, but it was clear that this illusion of prestige he so perfectly identified was going to be strong again in the opening week here.

Details of what was described- as it had been in the last trial- as the biggest crime scene in Delaware history were reviewed, but the state continued to fail in accounting for why well under 10 percent of the items presented as evidence were in turn analysed by forensic experts despite this investigation being characterized as a “spare no expense” situation. The death of a law enforcement officer (as correctional officers are classified in Delaware) was one of the outcomes of the uprising- this carries its own separate murder charge in Delaware, so each defendant indicted for murder has two murder charges despite there being one death discovered in the end. The state demonstrated in its witnesses’ testimony once more that no outside consultation was made by the state’s investigators with professionals who had engaged with similar situations at any time. It was, as it had been before, abundantly clear early this week that the strength of the bamboozle would again be key to the state’s pursuit of retaliation, retribution and fear-mongering in a desperate attempt to persist in their agenda of domination over each and all of us.

Court support is always welcome- though discretion, composure and situational awareness all remain paramount as there is and has been constant media, state and law enforcement presence (all with smartphones) in the courtroom, hallways and surrounding areas in Wilmington. It remains advisable to note for care of self and others that this will be a long haul, with record of a 5 week trial completed thus far and reasonable belief that this second round of four planned trials will last at least that long as well. Stay tuned for regular updates as to the evolving cases both for and against the defendants of Smyrna.

vaughn17support.org