Skip to main content

Second Former Georgia Corrections Officer Pleads Guilty to Conspiring with Other Officers to Assault and Injure Inmates

WASHINGTON—Darren Douglass-Griffin, 35, a former member of the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) at Macon State Prison (MSP) in Oglethorpe, Georgia, pleaded guilty to a two-count bill of information charging him with conspiracy to violate the civil rights of inmates and falsification of records in a federal investigation, the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia announced today.

In connection with his guilty plea, Douglass-Griffin admitted that he and other correctional officers assaulted and injured inmates in a series of incidents at the prison in 2010. Douglass-Griffin indicated that correctional officers beat three inmates in separate incidents in order to punish them. One inmate was beaten so severely that he had to be transported from the prison in an ambulance.

Douglass-Griffin further acknowledged that he and other correctional officers tried to cover up MSP officers’ involvement in beating and injuring inmates. Douglass-Griffin stated that other MSP officers told him to write false reports and to stick to their cover story when speaking with investigators.

Douglass-Griffin faces a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.

“The Justice Department will continue to vigorously prosecute correctional officers who violate the constitutional rights of inmates and use their official position to try to cover up their crimes,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas E. Perez.

“We expect the men and women who work in our state prisons to exemplify professionalism and integrity—and the vast majority do,” said Michael J. Moore, U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. “But when a small group of guards violate the civil rights of inmates in the facility and then actively try to cover that up, my office will have no tolerance for their conduct.”

This case is being investigated by the FBI and is being prosecuted by Special Litigation Counsel Forrest Christian and Trial Attorney Tona Boyd of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Georgia.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more