Sampson Family Finds Inquest into Son's Shooting Inadequate

The agreed-upon facts surrounding Eric Sampson's shooting death at the hands of King County sheriff's deputies paint a bare-bones picture of what happened on the night of March 19:

Sampson, 19, fled by car from police. A King County Sheriff's deputy found his unoccupied car parked on 298th Place S.E. in Ravensdale. Several deputies found him nearby on foot and holding a machete. They repeatedly ordered him to "drop the knife," or words to that effect, but he didn't comply. Deputy William Michaels tried twice, unsuccessfully, to knock down Sampson with his patrol car. Sampson struck the hood of the car with the machete. Two deputies tried unsuccessfully to subdue him with Tasers. He lunged or charged toward Deputy Cory Stanton with the machete raised. Stanton, Deputy Pete Sheridan and Deputy C.S. Hooper believed he posed a threat of death or serious injury when they fired their duty weapons at him, which ultimately led to his death. (Read from March.)

That's what happened the night Sampson was shot and killed by sheriff's deputies, according to the answers that six jurors gave in response to specific questions asked in the inquest hearing in King County District Court this week. (See PDF attachments under the photo to view a copy of the questions with jury answers.)

But that hardly tells the full story of what happened, Sampson family attorney Katherine Chamberlain said. (Read with Sampson's mother, Darla Sampson.)

The family feels the inquest process did not give the jury the opportunity to provide a full list of circumstances surrounding Sampson's death, including the fact that the county Medical Examiner's Office reported Sampson was shot 24 times, with six bullet entry wounds on his back, Chamberlain said.

That leads to the presumption that he was already on his hands and knees or down on his face when the deputies continued to shoot, she said.

In fact, the list of 23 questions chosen for the jury to consider included only two from the family's attorneys, who initially provided 23 of their own for consideration, Chamberlain said. Judge Richard Bathum, who presided over the hearing, allowed all 21 of the questions jointly proposed by the attorneys representing King County and the three officers involved in the shooting, she said.

These questions were asking about "undisputed circumstances," said Chamberlain, such as those stated at the beginning of this article.

(See PDFs under the photo with this story for the questions the Sampson family attorneys proposed.)

The omission of the family attorney's questions meant the jury had no opportunity to comment on Sampson's frame of mind, whether he was fearing for his death, and even to determine if deputies continued shooting him after he hit the ground, she said.

The family was able to glean some information from the official interrogatory answers, however, from the one question that caused a split among the jury. When asked if they thought Deputy William Michaels felt Sampson posed a threat of "serious physical harm" to either himself or other officers at the time he tried to "strike Sampson with his patrol vehicle," two jurors said they didn't think so.

The split is significant, according to Chamberlain. Though this detail was never made public in initial reports of the shooting, it brings up a question of how using a patrol car to strike Sampson might have aggravated a situation that didn't need to end the way it did.

"Deputy Michaels chose to drive his vehicle at Eric, who was on foot, with the intent to strike or run him over," Chamberlain said. "That escalated a situation that led to a quick sequence of events. We believe Eric was yelling in fear when he struck with the machete and was tased."

Chamberlain said this was her first inquest hearing, but her colleague Tim Ford worked on the John T. Williams shooting inquest. "I think part of the problem is how the inquest rules are designed," she said.

In these hearings, the jury's role is limited to answering the yes/no questions given to them by the attorneys, she said.

The jury appeared to have felt the same frustration with the limitations. When it provided its answers to the court, it also sent along a handwritten note with a question for the judge.

"We have answered all the interrogatories. ... Is there a mechanism to offer narrative comment about the process of the investigation or the events leading to the death of Eric Sampson?"

(See the PDFs under the photo with this story to view a copy of the handwritten note.)

Chamberlain said, "It clearly shows they didn't feel they were given the opportunity to comment on the circumstances fully. ... The process didn't serve its purpose."

According to information from King County about inquest proceedings, "interrogatories to the jury will deal with questions of fact. They will not deal with questions of law, policy, or recommendations. The purpose of the interrogatories is to give the jury an opportunity to judge credibility and deteremine the significant factual issues involved in the inquest. To this end, it is expected that the jury would decide what actions occurred and, where appropriate what the actors thought or knew. Interrogatories shall not answer whether any person or agency is civilly or criminally liable."

That task falls to the King County Prosecutor's Office, which will review the case and determine if criminal charges would be filed, said spokesman Dan Donohoe. That decision is expected to be made in the next two weeks, he said.