Prosecutors say DNA and fingerprints on a car door handle from where Knight was shot to death behind the wheel in 2016 points to King’s involvement in the homicide.
But the defense said the person who killed Knight on the morning of March 11, 2016 is still a mystery, continuing after years of investigation that only resulted in King’s arrest in December 2020.
Knight, 18, died in his black Hyundai in the 300 block of Charles Street. The vehicle was in front of a vacant house resting against it. Knight was slumped over the steering wheel with a large amount of blood inside the vehicle and two bullet holes in the driver’s side window.
Justin Vinson took the stand in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs during the third day of the trial on Wednesday. He said he knew King as “Beefy” and first met him while attending Hamilton High School.
Vinson said that in July, while talking during a recreation period at the jail, King told him “it was supposed to be a robbery, he couldn’t get what the guy had, and he shot him.”
Vinson said King told him the car door was locked and he tore off the handle. King also told him he tried to cover his actions by telling police a story that he looked into the passenger side window, which would account for his DNA on the door handle.
During cross examination, Vinson said he had been convicted of aggravated robbery and was on parole when he was arrested in June on a parole violation. After talking with King, Vinson said he contacted officials about what he had been told and asked for “consideration” in his upcoming case.
But Vinson said he had not been promised anything by police or prosecutors for his testimony.
Tim Augsbach, a forensic scientist with the the Ohio Bureau Criminal Investigation, testified the driver’s side door handle ripped from Knight’s car and found in the street contained the DNA of King.
Kimberly Horning, a criminalist with Cincinnati Police Department, testified that two fingerprints found on the door handle matched King’s. She was asked to analyze the prints in April 2020.
But Hawkins pointed out during cross examination that fingerprint analysis is “often subjective” and that is why the work is usually confirmed by another examiner.
Recently retired Hamilton Detective Jim Smith, a crime scene investigator for 17 years, testified that Knight’s car had two bullet holes in the driver’s side window. Two casings were found at the scene, and one bullet was recovered at autopsy from Knight’s body. After learning of a third bullet found by Knight’s mother in the car, Smith said he believes two shots from a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun went through the same hole in the window.
Prosecutors say Knight set up a meeting to sell marijuana on the cold, damp morning via cell phone communication with someone who he thought was a female named “Bri Princess.”
He was directed to a specific location on Charles Street and was told to keep his door unlocked for a quick transaction, according to prosecutors. But when he got to the meeting, a person came out of the dark, shot three times and struck Knight in the head and neck. He died at the scene.
Knight’s car moved forward and was found by police with the engine still running. A handle to the driver’s side door was found in the road about 30 feet away.
King gave detectives two statements during questioning, one in the summer of 2016 that he was asleep in his basement on Fourth Street and knew nothing about the shooting, according to prosecutors.
The second statement came after police knew his DNA was on the handle. King told police he was staying at his father’s home for a doctor’s appointment, heard the lights from police the morning of the incident and put his hand on the passenger side of the car to look in the window, according to prosecutors.
Shoe prints taken at the crime scene and a walkway nearby also looked similar to a Nike tennis shoe found by police on a porch when they went to question King.
Augsbach testified he could not get enough DNA to test from the shoe prosecutors believe belonged to King.
The trial continues today in Butler County Common Pleas Court.
About the Author
