Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

Anthony Locke arrives Tuesday at the Luzerne County Courthouse for the second day of his trial.

WILKES-BARRE — Though he admits prosecutors weren’t completely off base, Anthony Locke’s lawyer says they did not prove their case.

“They may have made a case for something else — disorderly conduct or something — but not a riot,” Ernie Preate said Tuesday in Luzerne County Court.

He argued in a closing statement during a bench trial before Judge Lesa S. Gelb that Assistant District Attorney Jim McMonagle offered no proof to support a guilty verdict on his client’s charge.

The trial wrapped after McMonagle offered a counter argument and Gelb took the presented evidence under advisement. A verdict had not yet been returned late Tuesday.

According to prosecutors, Locke, 36, and six other inmates on the morning of April 29, 2010, covered the windows of their cell doors in the restrictive housing unit at State Correctional Institution Dallas to coerce prison officials into performing cell extractions.

The inmates say they were protesting authority abuses and retaliatory action by prison staff.

One of the men left his cell willingly and was not charged. The remainder, known to supporters as the Dallas 6, were forcibly removed from their cells by extraction teams.

Cell extraction

Court papers indicate a defendant is guilty of the charge of riot if he participates along with at least two others in engaging in disorderly conduct “with the intent to coerce official action.”

Preate argued no evidence existed to support allegations his client covered his cell window with the intention of provoking an extraction.

Locke was never informed that a cell extraction was a possible consequence of covering his cell window, Preate said.

He added that prosecution witness Lt. David Mosier while testifying Monday “conveniently remembered” telling inmates about the possibility of extraction, contradicting his earlier testimony at a preliminary hearing.

“The videos speak for themselves,” countered McMonagle, referencing three video clips played in court.

In one of the videos, an inmate addresses a prison psychologist through his covered cell window, telling him “we are doing this,” McMongale noted, which he argued establishes intent.

In another video, Locke is seen inside his cell refusing to comply with Mosier’s orders to surrender of his own accord, even with five riot-gear clad correctional officers outside his cell.

“I respect y’all doing what you got to do,” Locke can be heard saying.

After briefly engaging, the video shows, Locke retreated behind a mattress which he held in front of him in a defensive pose.

Mosier in the clip orders Locke repeatedly to submit to a strip search and allow himself to be handcuffed, issuing the command several times — including a number of times after providing a “final” warning.

After a few minutes of persistent refusal from Locke, correctional officers gain entry to the cell and forcibly extract him.

Subdued within seconds, Locke can be heard yelling, “My arm’s broke. It’s broke.”

Sgt. Donald Buck, who operated the camera in each video, testified that upon making his early morning rounds of the restricted housing unit on April 29, he noticed that six or seven cell windows in the unit’s second floor had been covered. He said the inmates inside the cells refused orders to remove the covers from the windows.

Window covers

In the first video played Monday, Buck walks the cell block, stops for a moment outside each of seven cells — each with its window covered with a blanket or orange jumpsuit — and orders each inmate twice to remove the covering from his window. Upon reaching the end of the hall, he turns around and repeats his order to each inmate once more.

No discernible response from the inmates can be heard during the video.

In the second video, Buck again walks the hall, this time accompanied by a prison psychologist who asks the prisoners to remove the articles covering the windows. The inmates again refuse to remove the coverings.

Preate pointed out on cross examination that Locke’s window covering changes from the first to second video — first a jumpsuit, then a blanket. In the video showing Locke’s extraction, Locke had uncovered his window.

Preate took issue with officers extracting his client despite removal of the covering, especially in light of another inmate being removed without a five-man extraction team after uncovering his own window.

Mosier — who was present for several extractions — testified that the other inmate left his cell voluntarily, while Locke continually refused.

Prison policy forbids inmates from covering their cell windows, Mosier said, and because the inmates did so on April 29, they had to be removed from their cells, searched and relocated to another for the safety of both inmates and correctional officers.

According to state Department of Corrections spokeswoman Susan McNaughton, Locke is serving a 15-to-30-year sentence for aggravated assault out of Philadelphia County.

His sentence’s current expiration date is July 20, 2017. His maximum date is July 20, 2032.