On April 20, 1966, a confrontation in Cleveland, Ohio, resulted in the death of Sam Garrett (also reported as Sam Melvin in some contemporary accounts), a dispute that began over a $600 debt. Don King — who would later become a high-profile boxing promoter — was implicated in the incident. The killing and subsequent legal process would become a notable, controversial episode in King’s early life. Contemporary newspaper reports and later accounts indicate that the dispute involved the collection of a debt related to a nightclub or gambling matter, though specifics vary among sources. The fatality occurred following a physical altercation. King was arrested and charged in connection with the death; he was convicted of manslaughter in 1967. Sentenced to prison, King served time before being released. Accounts differ on some details, including exact victim names and peripheral circumstances, reflecting inconsistencies in contemporary reporting and later retellings. The case resurfaced in public attention repeatedly as King’s profile in the boxing world rose in subsequent decades. Journalists and historians have examined the 1966 incident when assessing King’s life and career; legal records confirm a criminal conviction in the late 1960s tied to a death in Cleveland. Beyond the core facts — a fatal 1966 confrontation, a charge and conviction, and a prison term — many particulars remain contested or variably reported across sources. Because reporting at the time and later narratives are not uniform, reliable summaries emphasize the established elements: the April 1966 killing in Cleveland connected to a dispute over $600, Don King’s arrest and manslaughter conviction, and his later imprisonment. Where narratives diverge (victim name spellings, precise sequence of events, motives), those points are treated as disputed in secondary accounts. This episode is often cited in biographical treatments of King as part of a complex record that includes both his criminal conviction and his later prominence as a boxing promoter. Sources for these facts include contemporaneous newspaper coverage from Cleveland outlets, court and prison records indicating a conviction and sentence in the late 1960s, and later journalistic biographies of Don King that reference the 1966 incident. Given variations among accounts, researchers relying on this episode should consult primary court documents and contemporaneous reporting for precise legal and factual details.