What Should Have Happened
- Sheriff should have recused himself from all matters involving his brother
- External agency should have been engaged to investigate
- Investigation should proceed to conclusion regardless of retirement
- Information should flow through proper official channels
What Actually Happened
- Sheriff acknowledged conflict of interest but did not recuse himself
- Internal investigation terminated when retirement date was set
- Sheriff admitted information was deliberately withheld from proper channels
- Sheriff personally influenced how matter concluded
People Involved
Event Details
Event Summary
Mat King gave sworn testimony under oath in the civil case Jones v. St. Clair County. This deposition revealed critical admissions about conflicts of interest and governance failures.
Key Admissions
During his deposition, Sheriff Mat King acknowledged:
On Conflict of Interest
“When asked why he didn’t call me to tell me that one of our deputies got arrested, he told me it was a conflict of interest.”
“Was he wrong? Yes.”
On Investigation Termination
“If Scott’s already picked his date for retirement, we don’t need to proceed with this internal investigation.”
On Withheld Information
“He deliberately withheld information from myself and admitted so.”
“The first thing I said, he deliberately refused to tell me information of something that was going on in our department.”
Significance
This deposition provides sworn testimony from the Sheriff himself acknowledging:
- He recognized the conflict of interest in the situation
- He did not recuse himself despite the conflict
- The internal investigation was influenced by retirement considerations
- Information was deliberately withheld from proper channels
Related Depositions
- Matthew Pohl Deposition: January 20, 2024
- Damon Duva Deposition: April 3, 2025