Case Name: People of the State of California v. Damien Williams and Tyrone Killingsworth

Case Description: Murder of a South Los Angeles drug house operator, a crime made notable due to the involvement of defendant Damien "Football" Williams, the man convicted in the televised 1992 beating of truck driver Reginald Denny that sparked the civil disturbances in Los Angeles following the state court acquittals of the LAPD officers in the videotaped beating of motorist Rodney King.

This case was very complicated, both factually and legally. The defendants committed a takeover of the drug house operated by the victim, as defendant Williams upon entering announced his well-known street name of "Football" and his gang affiliation and demanded that the operator of the house be summoned. The defendants gained control of the guns which were kept in the house and forced everyone inside the house onto the floor. Williams repeated several times that he was not there to rob anybody and not there to hurt anybody. However, while waiting for the drug house operator (the ultimate murder victim) to arrive, Williams took money from numerous customers and other occupants of the house, and threatened to kill several if they did not cooperate. He also purchased and distributed cocaine to several people, telling the group that, "for now on, you will all be buying from me."

When alerted that the victim was approaching the front door, defendant Williams told defendant Killingsworth, "You know what to do. Don't let me down." Killingsworth, armed with two guns, waited just inside the door, and as it opened, he hid behind it as Williams attempted to distract the victim. Killingsworth then sprung from behind the door and confronted the victim, who also was armed. A struggle ensued in which the victim was shot in the leg. As the injured victim ran from the house, Killingsworth stepped onto the front steps and fired additional shots. One struck the victim in the back, killing him.  

Simultaneously to the victim entering the front door, his nephew had secretly entered the back door to the house and surprised defendant Williams from behind, and held a gun to Williams' head. The two men struggled over that gun, with Williams ultimately taking it away from the victim's nephew. Williams did not fire at the nephew, a fact later trumpeted by the defense as evidencing Williams' lack of intent to kill.

The case was difficult for a number of reasons, not least of which was the poor quality of the witnesses. It was not surprising that, because the murder occurred in a drug house, all of the percipient witnesses were longtime crack cocaine users. Due to that drug abuse, many had significant limitations on their mental abilities, including their ability to recollect, to concentrate, and to communicate clearly. All had lengthy criminal records. The victim himself was not sympathetic in any way. He was a long time drug dealer with a long criminal record and a reputation for harsh reprisals against anyone who crossed him, and who came to the scene angry and toting a pistol.  

Complicating the case further were its gang overtones. Both defendants were gang members; Williams was a leader of the notorious Eight-Trey Gangster Crips. Several witnesses were subject to intimidation and threats should they testify, such threats beginning on the day after the murder and continuing throughout the pendency of the trial. At least one witness had a son who was a member of Williams' gang. Persuading these witnesses, who were unaccustomed to cooperating with the police and being on the prosecution side of the table in the first place, and who were of course terrified of testifying against Williams in particular, to testify truthfully, was a major challenge.

The legal challenges were significant as well. The case involved not only murder, but also felony-murder, lying-in-wait, robbery, burglary, grand theft, extortion, and conspiracy. The task of trying to make sense of the two months of testimony and applying the complicated and often inconsistent versions of the facts to the numerous legal theories which were in play, was daunting, as was persuading the jury to ignore Williams' notoriety, his assertions that he did not intend to rob or hurt anyone, the victim's and witnesses' unsympathetic lifestyles, and the media attention on the case, and rather to focus only on the facts of this case.