How Wayne ‘Smiley’ Robertson Became California’s Prison System Top Predator
Some predators are created by trauma, others by opportunity, and a rare few are sculpted into weapons by the very institutions that are supposed to contain them. Wayne “Smiley” Robertson sits in that third category, an already dangerous man who evolved into something larger than himself once the California prison system learned exactly how useful his brutality could be.
Long before his name became shorthand for sexual terror inside certain cellblocks, Robertson was just another convicted murderer swallowed by the concrete and steel of California’s carceral empire. Over time he developed a reputation so extreme that his mere presence in a cell could function as punishment, discipline and deterrent, all wrapped in one hulking human body. In this world, paperwork, rumors and fear blend together until a single inmate becomes a kind of unofficial policy tool.
This story is not only about one man’s violence but also about a system that documented his predation in chilling detail, then failed to stop putting other men in his path. At the center of that story is Eddie Webb Dillard, a smaller, first‑term prisoner whose two days locked in a cell with Robertson became one of the most infamous examples of prisoner‑on‑prisoner sexual assault in modern California history.
Meet “Smiley”: From Murder Convict to Legend
When Wayne “Smiley” Robertson first entered the California prison system, it was as a lifer already convicted of murder and sentenced to spend the rest of his days behind bars. Over the years he was transferred through multiple facilities before landing at California State Prison, Corcoran, one of the toughest and most controversial prisons in the state. Inside that environment, where violence was common and fear was currency, he did not fade into the background.
Corcoran housed some of the system’s most disruptive and dangerous prisoners, and Robertson quickly became known as more than just another lifer doing time. Prison documents and later trial testimony described him as a powerful enforcer, a man other prisoners feared and some staff courted when they needed influence on the tier. He was physically imposing, over six feet tall and heavily built, and that size helped make his reputation travel faster than his actual movements from cell to cell.
Over roughly two decades, internal records and legal filings painted Robertson as a serial sexual predator who repeatedly targeted smaller, younger‑looking prisoners placed in his cell. Officials described him as a “known sexual predator” and “infamous” for raping cellmates, and his name appeared in investigative reports and human rights writing as a case study in unchecked abuse. That documentation is important, because it shows the system knew exactly who he was long before Eddie Dillard ever stepped into his cell.
By the early 1990s, Robertson’s identity as “Smiley” and as the so‑called “Booty Bandit” had spread beyond prison gossip into courtrooms, news coverage and advocacy reports. Journalists, lawyers and human rights groups all referenced him as the kind of predator other prisoners feared the most—someone who could turn a locked cell door into a private hunting ground for hours at a time. His infamy was no longer just a rumor on the yard; it was part of the public record.
Corcoran State Prison: A Perfect Storm for Predators
In the late 1980s and 1990s, Corcoran developed a national reputation for brutality, secrecy and bizarre power games that would eventually attract lawsuits, investigative journalism and even criminal charges against staff. Reports described staged fights on the yard, shootings and a culture of silence where officers closed ranks rather than admit misconduct. It was the kind of place where a man like Robertson could thrive, because chaos and fear gave him cover.
Housing units like the Security Housing Unit were designed to manage some of the most dangerous or disruptive men in the system, but they also created ideal conditions for abuse. Prisoners were locked in small concrete cells for most of the day, movement was tightly controlled and staff controlled every door, every transfer and every pairing of cellmates. When the state decides who you live with, it effectively decides who has physical access to your body.
Within that architecture, information about enemies, threats and known predators was theoretically supposed to guide housing decisions. On paper, officials kept enemy lists, chronos and classification notes meant to prevent exactly the kind of pairing that would put a vulnerable man in with someone like Robertson. In practice, those safeguards depended entirely on what staff chose to notice, record or respect on any given day.
Former guards and whistleblowers would later describe a climate where violence was sometimes tolerated, sometimes encouraged and often minimized in official records. Allegations included stories about prisoners being placed in harm’s way as a form of discipline or teaching, with paperwork adjusted afterward to make incidents look like unfortunate accidents or unavoidable fights. In that context, the idea that a notorious predator might be repeatedly given access to new cellmates takes on a disturbing logic.
The Making of a “Booty Bandit” Reputation
The nickname that followed Robertson through the system—“Booty Bandit”—did not come out of nowhere. According to prison records later introduced in court, he had raped and beaten multiple cellmates during his time in custody, often choosing men who were significantly smaller, weaker or younger than he was. These were not isolated incidents; they were part of a pattern that turned him into a kind of urban legend inside the walls.
Some of those assaults emerged in formal investigative files, while others surfaced only when victims later spoke with lawyers, journalists or human rights researchers. Accounts described nights of repeated sexual assault, physical beatings and threats of death if the victim spoke out, all taking place behind a closed solid door only a guard could open. For many survivors, the risk of retaliation made silence feel safer than seeking help.
As those stories accumulated, staff could hardly claim they had never heard about Robertson’s methods. Internal reviews, classification notes and later testimony made it clear that he was widely understood to be a sexual predator, not just a tough cellmate who might get into the occasional fight. Even a hostile defense attorney in one high‑profile trial described him in open court as one of the most dangerous inmates anyone was likely to encounter.
During a criminal trial involving Corcoran guards, Robertson himself testified that he was a Blood, a Piru from Southern California, and that he preferred to be housed with men from his own group. He also openly acknowledged in that testimony that he sexually assaulted Eddie Dillard after the younger man was placed in his cell, describing the assault in blunt, chilling terms. That admission cemented his public identity as a person whose violence was sexual, calculated and extreme.
Eddie Dillard Enters the Cage
Eddie Webb Dillard was not a model prisoner, but he was not a heavyweight in the system either. In his early twenties, around 118 pounds and on his first term, he arrived at Corcoran as a relatively small man in a world that often equates size with safety. His record included assault with a deadly weapon and, crucially, an incident where he kicked a female guard at another facility, an act that would later be described as the spark for everything that followed.
Dillard’s enemy list, according to later investigations, specifically identified Robertson as someone he should never be housed with. That enemy notation mattered, because it meant the system had been formally warned that placing the two men together would be dangerous. Yet in March 1993, Dillard was ordered into Robertson’s cell in the Security Housing Unit at Corcoran, setting up one of the most notorious assaults in recent prison history.
As Dillard approached the cell, he realized exactly who was waiting on the other side of the door. Accounts describe him pleading with officers not to force the move, explaining that Robertson was a known predator and his listed enemy, and that he feared for his life if they were locked in together. Those pleas, according to his version of events and supporting affidavits, were either ignored or treated as a joke.
Once the door slammed shut, Dillard’s options collapsed to almost nothing. He could try to fight a man nearly twice his size, provoke staff into intervening or hope that banging and yelling would bring help before anything happened. In the small, echoing space of a SHU cell, that kind of hope is thin, and long stretches of time pass without anyone even looking through the metal slot. The stage was set for the “top predator” in the building to do exactly what so many people already expected him to do.
In theory, the modern prison system lives and dies by paperwork. Every enemy concern, every injury, every threat is supposed to become a line in a file somewhere, a documented flag that tells officials what not to do. On the ground, though, that same paperwork can feel like a stack of polite suggestions that staff are free to ignore when it is inconvenient, politically awkward or simply not a priority.
Eddie Dillard did exactly what the system told him to do. He reported that Wayne “Smiley” Robertson was an enemy and that he feared for his safety if they were ever housed together. That disclosure made its way into his file as an enemy notation, the bureaucratic equivalent of a red flare saying: do not put these two men in the same cell. On paper, that should have been enough to keep them separated, especially inside one of the most volatile units in California.
But paperwork only matters if someone reads it and treats it as binding. When Dillard was ordered into Robertson’s cell in the Security Housing Unit, the official excuse later floated was that the move was routine, that staff were just following space needs and classification rules. From Dillard’s perspective, the moment he saw which door he was being walked toward, it felt less like a mistake and more like a setup.
He begged officers not to force the move, telling them Robertson was a known predator and specifically listed as his enemy. According to his testimony, the response was a mix of indifference and mockery, the kind of dark humor people use when they think the punishment fits the crime. Dillard had assaulted a female guard; now, officers implied, he was about to learn a lesson about what happens to men who step out of line in their world.
That gap between what the file said and what actually happened is where the story turns from ordinary prison danger into something closer to institutional betrayal. If the system records a threat and then ignores its own warning labels, it is hard to argue that what follows is just random prisoner‑on‑prisoner violence. It begins to look like someone made a choice about whose safety mattered and whose pain could be written off as collateral damage.
Two Days of Terror Behind a Solid Steel Door
It is one thing to read the phrase “two days” and quite another to imagine what those hours feel like when you are locked in a cell with someone who has earned his reputation as the top predator in the building. Solid doors mean there are no bars for other prisoners to see through, no witnesses glancing over from the tier, just a heavy slab of metal, a narrow window and a slot that opens only when staff decide to use it.
Once the door closed, Dillard’s world shrank to a few square feet of concrete, steel and the looming figure of Robertson. Accounts of what happened next describe an immediate shift in control dynamics. The cell was Robertson’s territory, and Dillard was the newcomer. In that hierarchy, the smaller man’s fear was not a problem to solve; it was part of the atmosphere that made the predator feel more powerful.
Over the next roughly forty‑eight hours, Dillard says he endured repeated beatings and sexual assaults at Robertson’s hands. He described being punched, slapped and choked, then forced into acts he could not resist physically. Time blurred into a cycle of threats, violence and brief, exhausted pauses where he tried to think of a way out that did not end with him dead on the cell floor.
The most haunting detail is that, for most of that window of time, the only people who knew what was happening were inside the cell. Noise in a high‑security unit is constant; men yell through doors, televisions blare, metal echoes. A scream or a plea for help can disappear into that soundscape unless an officer decides to treat it as real instead of routine background chaos. For Dillard, that meant the difference between rescue and abandonment depended on someone outside caring enough to investigate.
When an opportunity finally came, it was not because the system suddenly remembered his enemy notation. It came because at some point the cell door opened and Dillard refused to go back inside. In that small act of refusal, he risked an immediate use of force to avoid another round of assault. That moment is telling: to escape the predator the state had confined him with, he had to stand up not only to Robertson but to the officers who controlled the door.
By the time the ordeal ended, Dillard was left with physical injuries and the kind of psychological trauma that keeps replaying itself long after the bruises fade. The damage was not just about what Robertson did, but about what the system allowed to happen after promising that documentation and procedure would keep men like him safe from known enemies. The cell may have been small, but the betrayal inside it was huge.
Trial by Fire: Putting Guards, Not Smiley, on the Stand
In the aftermath, something unusual happened. The criminal justice spotlight did not turn first to Robertson, the man who carried out the assault. Instead, it swung toward the officers who had ordered Dillard into that cell in the first place. Prosecutors brought criminal charges against four Corcoran staff members, accusing them of setting up the attack and effectively using Robertson as a weapon.
That decision flipped the usual prison narrative on its head. Most stories about violence behind bars focus on prisoners as the sole villains and staff as the thin blue line trying to keep order. In this case, the state argued that a small group of officers had stepped over the line, weaponized a notorious predator and turned a supposedly secure system into their personal lesson‑delivering machine.
The trial that followed became a media event. Reporters, activists and law‑and‑order advocates all watched to see whether a jury would be willing to convict officers for something that happened behind the secure walls of a maximum‑security prison. The prosecution portrayed the defendants as part of a culture that tolerated and even encouraged brutality, painting Dillard’s placement with Robertson as an intentional act of retaliation rather than an innocent housing decision.
On the other side, the defense argued that Dillard’s story was exaggerated, self‑serving or outright fabricated. They suggested that prisoners have incentives to lie about abuse, either to gain leverage, avoid responsibility or secure better housing. They also leaned heavily on the idea that officers must make rapid decisions in a dangerous environment and should not be criminalized every time something goes wrong behind a cell door.
The testimony was raw. Dillard took the stand to describe his terror, humiliation and pain. Robertson testified as well, at one point openly admitting that he had sexually assaulted Dillard, then offering his own description of what guards allegedly said when they put the smaller man in his cell. For a brief moment, the courtroom became a stage where both the predator and his victim described the same event from opposite sides of the same door.
Yet, even with those details poured out under oath, the central question for the jury was not whether Dillard had been assaulted. It was whether the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that staff had intentionally orchestrated it. In other words, the legal system was more concerned with the motives of employees than with the fact that a known predator had done exactly what so many people expected him to do all along.
Acquittals and Denials: When the System Clears Itself
In the end, the jury acquitted the guards of the criminal charges. No officer went to prison for the role the state had accused them of playing in Dillard’s assault. For many on the outside, the verdict felt like the system closing ranks around its own, sending a message that even the most disturbing stories of prisoner abuse would struggle to clear the very high bar of criminal proof when staff were in the dock.
The acquittals did not mean that nothing had happened in that cell or that Dillard’s injuries were imaginary. What they signaled, instead, was that the prosecution had not convinced twelve people, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers had deliberately engineered the assault rather than simply made a catastrophic housing decision. In criminal law, that distinction matters; in the lived experience of the person who suffered, it can feel like a technicality.
After the criminal case, Dillard pursued a civil lawsuit, hoping that a different standard of proof might finally hold someone accountable. Civil juries do not need to be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt, only that it is more likely than not that the defendants’ actions caused the harm. Even under that lighter standard, however, the guards ultimately prevailed, and the civil verdict went in their favor.
For critics, the double failure of both criminal and civil cases became a symbol of how difficult it is for prisoners to win against the system, even when their stories attract national attention. For staff, the verdicts became vindication and proof, in their eyes, that they had been unfairly targeted by overzealous prosecutors and activists who did not understand the realities of running a volatile prison.
The institution itself moved on. None of the accused officers remained at Corcoran; some transferred to other jobs within the department, others retired. The machine kept running. New prisoners arrived, old ones were transferred or paroled or died. The case that had once been described as a precedent‑setting test of accountability slowly faded from the headlines into the background noise of carceral history.
What did not fade, at least inside the culture of prisons and among those who study them, was the story of how a man like Wayne “Smiley” Robertson could become such a reliable force of terror that entire legal battles would revolve around the question of who placed which body behind his cell door. When an inmate’s reputation is that powerful, and when institutions repeatedly survive scandals without fundamental change, it raises a darker question: is the system failing to stop predators like him, or quietly relying on them?
Paper Predator: How Files Recorded What Courts Wouldn't
One of the most frustrating and revealing aspects of the Dillard case is how much official documentation existed about Wayne "Smiley" Robertson before Eddie Dillard ever stepped into his cell. Prison files, medical reports, chronological records and internal investigations all contained detailed accounts of his predatory behavior. The system had a paper trail; it simply chose not to treat that trail as legally binding.
Inside the walls, Robertson's reputation was not a rumor. It was filed. Staff had recorded his assaults on other inmates, documented injuries, logged enemy concerns and created the kind of institutional memory that should have screamed: this man is a danger. Yet when those same files were subpoenaed for trial, when lawyers tried to use them to build a case, the paper somehow became less important than the officers' sworn denials and the jury's reluctance to convict staff based on prisoner testimony.
What makes this dynamic so damaging is that it reveals a two‑tiered system of evidence. When a prisoner's word alone is on the line, courts are skeptical; prisoners have incentives to lie, after all. But when that same prisoner's word is backed by official documentation created by the institution itself, the skepticism does not disappear—it just shifts focus. Now the question becomes not whether the abuse happened, but whether anyone in a uniform bears criminal responsibility for it.
Human rights researchers who studied the case and the broader landscape of prison rape noted that this pattern is not unique to Corcoran or to Robertson. Across the system, institutions document abuse in their own files but then resist using that documentation to prosecute staff or fundamentally change how they house prisoners. The paper becomes evidence of the problem while simultaneously serving as a shield against accountability, because once you have filed a report, you can argue that the system worked, that proper channels were followed, and that no one person is responsible for what happened next.
In Robertson's case, the files were so extensive and so damning that they became the centerpiece of arguments for why prison rape needed to be taken seriously at a policy level. But at the individual trial level, those same files could not cross the threshold needed to convince a jury that specific officers had deliberately weaponized a known predator. The documentation proved the danger; it just could not prove the intent.
Why Lifers Like Robertson Rarely Face New Charges
After Dillard's assault, a reasonable person might expect that Wayne "Smiley" Robertson would face new criminal charges for rape, assault and abuse. He had, after all, testified under oath that he had sexually assaulted Dillard. The state had a confession, witnesses and physical evidence. Yet Robertson was never tried for that assault. He remains in prison today on his original murder conviction, serving a life sentence without parole, but with no separate rape convictions on his record for any of the sexual assaults he is documented to have committed.
That absence is not accidental. It reflects a calculated prosecutorial choice that prioritizes limited resources and institutional efficiency over pursuing charges that would not change a lifer's sentence. If a man is already serving life without the possibility of parole, prosecutors face a simple cost‑benefit analysis: Do I spend months building a rape case that will not increase his time behind bars, or do I focus those resources on cases where a conviction actually changes the outcome?
That logic is understandable from a bureaucratic standpoint. It is also profoundly damaging from a victim's standpoint. When a predator can assault prisoners with relative impunity because he is already at the end of his sentence, the system is essentially saying that some people's safety does not matter because changing it would be inconvenient. Dillard and other victims of Robertson never got to see him prosecuted and convicted for the specific acts of sexual violence he committed against them.
Beyond the individual case, this pattern reveals something darker about how the carceral system treats sexual violence among its own population. Rape in prison is often treated as inevitable, a cost of incarceration, something that happens to prisoners and therefore does not require the same level of institutional response that rape in the free world would trigger. A man who raped women would face separate charges and significant time for each victim. A man who raped other prisoners often faces bureaucratic shrugs and case closures.
Robertson's case became a turning point in national advocacy around prison rape. The horrors documented in his history of assaults became part of the evidence that pushed lawmakers toward creating the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Yet Robertson himself was never held accountable through that system, never convicted of the rapes he committed, never given a sentence that reflected the full scope of his violence. He remains the perfect symbol of how the system can use one person's abuse to justify policy reforms while simultaneously refusing to prosecute that same person for those abuses.
Power, Impunity, and the Prison Food Chain
Understanding Wayne "Smiley" Robertson requires understanding how power works inside a locked facility. In the free world, power flows from money, connections, status and violence used strategically. In prison, those factors still matter, but they are compressed into a much smaller space where physical dominance, reputation and the ability to move freely through the hierarchy become everything.
Robertson's power came from his size, his willingness to use brutality, and most importantly, his usefulness to the institution. As long as he was willing to be the person other inmates feared, as long as he could be relied upon to enforce unspoken rules through threat and violence, he had a kind of value. That value was never explicit in any policy memo or training manual, but it was understood on the tier, in the unit and in the decisions about who got housed with whom.
This is where the distinction between a "predator" and a "weapon" becomes blurry. Robertson did not stop being a sexual predator when he was useful to the system; he became both simultaneously. The system did not create him, but it sustained him. It allowed him to operate with minimal consequences because his terror served a function. In a prison where control is the primary objective, a man like Robertson is a kind of tool.
The food chain metaphor is apt because it captures how hierarchies work when force is the primary currency. At the bottom are the vulnerable prisoners—young, small, or socially isolated men who have few allies and cannot fight their way out of a bad situation. In the middle are the ordinary prisoners trying to survive by minding their business and building alliances. At the top are men like Robertson, predators with physical power and either the willingness or the active encouragement of staff to use it.
What makes the Dillard case so emblematic is that it shows this food chain operating in its most distilled form. Two men, locked in a cell, with Dillard having no choice about who his cellmate was and no realistic way to escape without the permission of guards who had allegedly already decided to teach him a lesson. In that moment, every level of the system—the paperwork, the precedent, the institutional knowledge—collapsed into a single transaction: power exercised against vulnerability with no external force to intervene.
Lessons from Dillard: What This Case Says About California's Prisons
The Eddie Dillard case did not end with a dramatic resolution where the guilty were punished and the system was reformed. Instead, it faded into the background of prison history, cited in reports and academic papers but largely forgotten by the public that moved on to the next scandal, the next trial, the next outrage. Yet the lessons it contains remain relevant and troubling.
First, the case demonstrates that documentation of danger is not enough. Prisons keep records; they file reports; they maintain enemy lists and threat assessments. But those papers only matter if someone reads them and treats them as guidance for actual decisions. When a man like Dillard begs not to be housed with a documented predator and his plea is ignored, the system has effectively declared that safety is optional, that the paperwork is theater and that officers can override institutional safeguards whenever they choose.
Second, the case shows how difficult it is to hold institutions accountable for violence that happens inside their walls. The criminal trial focused on whether guards deliberately set up the assault, a bar so high that even with testimony from Robertson himself, juries were unwilling to convict. The civil case also went in the guards' favor. Both legal pathways failed, not because nothing happened, but because proving institutional intent is nearly impossible when the institution controls the investigation.
Third, and perhaps most troubling, the case reveals how predators like Robertson can become embedded in the system in ways that make them almost untouchable. He was never prosecuted for his rapes. He remained in the same facility where he had assaulted countless men. He was not removed from the general population in a way that would prevent him from having future cellmates. Instead, he continued to exist inside the system as a kind of open secret, a known danger that the institution acknowledged in private files while denying in public.
For modern California prisons, the Dillard case is a historic touchstone that should have led to fundamental changes in how housing decisions are made, how vulnerable prisoners are protected and how staff accountability works. In some ways, it did; the case contributed to national awareness of prison rape and eventually to legislation. But in other ways, the system learned to absorb the scandal without changing its essential operations. New policies were written. New training was mandated. Yet the underlying logic—that some prisoners matter less, that violence can be used as a management tool, that paperwork can substitute for actual protection—persisted.
The most important lesson from Dillard and Robertson may be this: systems do not reform themselves because individual cases go wrong. They reform themselves only when the cost of continuing to operate the old way becomes unbearable. For prisons, that cost has rarely been high enough. Officers have been acquitted. Institutions have survived. Predators have continued. And new prisoners, like Dillard was once, continue to walk into cells not knowing who is waiting on the other side of the door.
Connect with Darkbluenarc
Follow us on social media for more deep dives into behavioral psychology, true crime, and dark narratives:
📌 Pinterest @Darkbluenarc | 📘 Facebook @Dark Blue Narc | 📸 Instagram @darkbluenarc | 𝕏 Twitter @darkbluenarc
⚠️ Disclaimer
This post contains historical analysis and discussion of serious crimes, including sexual assault and institutional violence. The content is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or mental health counseling. All individuals referenced are real people involved in documented cases; this analysis is based on public records, court filings, news reporting and academic sources. The views expressed are commentary on behavioral patterns and institutional systems, not endorsements of any illegal activity. If you or someone you know has experienced sexual assault or abuse, please contact RAINN (1-800-656-4673) or the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255). This content may be triggering for survivors of trauma.
References
Los Angeles Times Archives. "Corcoran Inmate Tells Jury Guards Set Up Rape." Los Angeles Times, Oct. 19, 1999. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-19-mn-23825-story.html
Los Angeles Times Archives. "Tearful Victim Testifies on Prison Rape." Los Angeles Times, Oct. 20, 1999. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-20-mn-24240-story.html
Los Angeles Times Archives. "Ex-Guard Says 4 Men Set Up Rape of Inmate." Los Angeles Times, Oct. 14, 1999. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-14-mn-22201-story.html
Los Angeles Times Archives. "4 Guards Acquitted of Setting Up Prison Rape." Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 1999. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-nov-09-mn-31573-story.html
Prison Legal News. "Jury Finds for Corcoran Guards in Prisoner Rape Suit." Prison Legal News, June 15, 2004. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2004/jun/15/jury-finds-for-corcoran-guards-in-prisoner-rape-suit/
Human Rights Watch. "No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons – Deliberate Indifference." Human Rights Watch Report, Sept. 24, 1998. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report8.html
Human Rights Watch. "No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons." Human Rights Watch Report, Apr. 1, 2001. https://www.hrw.org/report/2001/04/01/no-escape-male-rape-us-prisons
Mariner, Joanne. No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons. Human Rights Watch, 2001. https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/noescapemalerapeinusprisons.pdf
Salon. "Guarding Their Silence." Salon, Nov. 22, 1999. https://www.salon.com/1999/11/22/guards/
Democracy Now! "Corcoran Prison Guards Tried for Rape in Precedent-Setting Trial." Democracy Now!, Sept. 27, 1999. https://www.democracynow.org/1999/9/28/corcoran_prison_guards_tried_for_rape
Democracy Now! "Corcoran Guards Are Acquitted in Prisoner Rape Trial." Democracy Now!, Nov. 10, 1999. https://www.democracynow.org/1999/11/10/corcoran_guards_are_acquitted_in_prisoner
San Francisco Chronicle. "Guards Found Not Guilty Of Setting Up Rape / 4 accused of seeking revenge on Corcoran inmate." San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 8, 1999. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Guards-Found-Not-Guilty-Of-Setting-Up-Rape-4-2896898.php
CBS News. "California Prison Guards Acquitted." CBS News, June 9, 2000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-prison-guards-acquitted/
New York Times. "Little Sympathy or Remedy For Inmates Who Are Raped." New York Times, Apr. 15, 2001. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/15/us/little-sympathy-or-remedy-for-inmates-who-are-raped.html
Comments
Post a Comment