SC

Scarlett Wilson Fires Back

LOWCOUNTRY SOLICITOR RESPONDS TO CRITICS We had heard from our network of Lowcountry legal sources that South Carolina’s ninth circuit solicitor Scarlett Wilson was no shrinking violet … and apparently we heard right. Wilson came out swinging against her critics this week, responding to a letter from a group of…

LOWCOUNTRY SOLICITOR RESPONDS TO CRITICS

We had heard from our network of Lowcountry legal sources that South Carolina’s ninth circuit solicitor Scarlett Wilson was no shrinking violet … and apparently we heard right.

Wilson came out swinging against her critics this week, responding to a letter from a group of defense attorneys accusing her of prosecutorial misconduct – and urging the S.C. Attorney General’s office to investigate her.

According to Wilson, the attorneys questioning her “reached back nearly a decade and plucked (nine) cases out of the roughly 150,000 warrants that we handled, about 750 of which were called to trial.”

Wilson noted that none of the disputed prosecutions were handled by her personally and several others “were resolved before I became Solicitor.”

After addressing the specifics of the allegations against her, Wilson aggressively defended her office’s conduct saying “prosecution is a tough business and I am not going to cower in fear of offending some misguided criminal defense lawyers.”

SCARLETT WILSON
SCARLETT WILSON

“While we push hard for justice through vigorous prosecution, we do so in a reasonable, honest and efficient manner,” Wilson wrote. “Both prosecutors and defense attorneys zealously represent their party’s interests and from time to time, we have heated disagreements. This is a natural part of our adversarial system. My office aims to strike hard blows, not foul ones. Prosecutors who attempt to ‘win at all costs’ seriously undermine our entire justice system and have no place in the Ninth Circuit Solicitor’s Office.”

Wilson added that she welcomes an investigation by S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson, and promised to make all of her employees and case files available for his office to review.

Of particular interest in Wilson’s letter?

The extended references it makes to an anti-prosecutorial misconduct tirade launched by liberal S.C. Supreme Court justice Donald Beatty at a recent solicitor’s conference (the same tirade was referenced in the letter attacking Wilson).

We’ll address that controversy in another post, though, as Beatty’s comments are clearly deserving of additional scrutiny …

SCARLETT WILSON LETTER (.pdf)

Related posts

SC

Why Freedom Of Information Matters

Jenn Wood
SC

University Of South Carolina Gets ‘Green Light’ For Free Speech?

Erin Parrott
SC

Accused Voyeur At It Again?

Will Folks

18 comments

jimlewisowb February 26, 2014 at 5:14 pm

Two page letter, really two fucking pages Scarlett

Took Rhett only 8 words to tell you to kiss his ass

Next time why not just say,” Frankly I don’t give a damn”. Otherwise you are beginning to sound like Grand Tango, bless your heart

Reply
They Gave Me a Robe Why? February 26, 2014 at 5:20 pm

I like how she didn’t capitalize justice. Accident? Doubt it. But then again, Beatty is a doofus.

Reply
Check Her Record February 26, 2014 at 5:45 pm

Check her record …. so many repeat offenders getting off easy. And her murder conviction record really sucks!

Reply
southmauldin February 27, 2014 at 6:48 am

Where can we do this, check her record?

Reply
ninjaneer April 15, 2014 at 8:29 am

Charleston Thug Live!!!

Reply
Forest Hump February 26, 2014 at 7:52 pm

I’d hit it.

Reply
TJ February 26, 2014 at 8:56 pm

Me, too- she’s got a little of that crazy Michele Bachmann look to her, and we all know how good the crazy ones are in the sack…

Reply
shifty henry February 27, 2014 at 9:47 am

—and especially so if she is on the verge of a nervous breaddown…

Reply
The 9th March 5, 2014 at 7:34 am

and she is

Reply
Judith February 26, 2014 at 8:30 pm

“While we push hard for justice through vigorous prosecution, we do so in a reasonable, honest and efficient manner,” ….. words one will never hear describing Jean Toal’s corrupt Office of Disciplinary Counsel where she can reward her servants and punish her enemies….. and have Don Beatty rubber stamp whatever she tells him to do.

Reply
Webster February 26, 2014 at 10:48 pm

“While I am familiar with most of the cases cited in the purported SCACDL letter…” -Scarlett

pur·port
verb
past tense: purported; past participle: purported
p?r?pôrt/
1.
appear or claim to be or do something, esp. falsely; profess.
“she is not the person she purports to be”synonyms:claim to be, profess to be, pretend to be; appear to be, seem to be;
be ostensibly, pose as, impersonate, masquerade as, pass for
“this work purports to be authoritative”
“the purported letter”

Uh…it is an actual letter. It is not something that “appears or claims to be or do something.” It is an actual fucking letter. Not a “purported” letter. The allegations in the letter may be “purported,” but it is an actual letter, not a “purported” letter. And this broad used it twice in her letter. Must be the word of the day. Wow. What a fucking idiot.

Reply
CL February 27, 2014 at 7:54 am

She goes on and on throughout the letter about how this is a small group within the organization, its just a few members, blah blah blah. So purported there refers to the notion that it is an official SCACDL communication, not whether it is a letter at all.

Reply
Merriam February 27, 2014 at 11:50 am

Then she should have stated “the letter purported to be from SCACDL…” That wording would have made clear what you say she meant to say.

Reply
Frank Pytel February 27, 2014 at 12:03 pm

He/She is only an attorney. Be kind.

Reply
CL February 27, 2014 at 3:36 pm

Why? To avoid someone making a nonsensical reading of what she wrote? It is perfectly clear as it is.

Reply
Thomas February 27, 2014 at 3:21 am

Prosecutorial misconduct? In South Carolina?

Is the Pope catholic? well, we can’t use that one…

Can you keep your doctor? nope…not that one

Is Sen Graham a Reagan conservative? dang, not that one either…

Is Nancy Mace smokin’ hot? ding-ding-ding

The requirement that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a crime in order to convict a defendant is often time consuming and expensive. The burden of proof imposed on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence granted every defendant are based on the “Due Process” Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The realities of scientific testing, time constraints for trial, and costs to taxpayers “burden of proof” often forces prosecutors to threaten defendants with maximum prison sentences if they even contemplate going to a jury trial thus resulting in plea deals for admissions of guilt.

The realities for defendants accused of crimes are very large legal bills from dedicated defense attorneys, qualified expert testimony, and a prosecutorial misconduct often beginning with biased arresting agencies themselves extending to biased judges at all levels.

Anyone convicted of a crime has the right to appeal that conviction if they believe a legal error has occurred. If you have been convicted of a crime and plan to appeal, you are no longer known as the defendant, you are now the appellant in the case.

In criminal cases, an appeal asks a higher court to look at the record of the trial proceedings to determine if a legal error occurred that may have affected the outcome of the trial or the sentence imposed by the judge.

An appeal rarely challenges the decision of the jury, but
rather challenges any legal errors that the judge or the prosecution may have
made during the trial. Any ruling that the judge made during the preliminary
hearing, during pre-trial motions and during the trial itself can be appealed
if the appellant believes the ruling was in error.

A criminal conviction can be appealed on the basis that the strength of the evidence presented a trial did not support the verdict. This type of appeal is significantly more expensive and much more lengthy than a legal error appeal and even more rarely successful.

Two cases that caught my attention was the 1995 illegal recording made by sheriff deputies between a murder suspect and his attorney and the forensic gun powder residue tests effectively convicting Brett Parker.

1995:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=20001115&id=4QsfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FpgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5468,1909453

http://www.jackswerling.com/wp-content/themes/jackswerling/inc/024_FEDERAL.pdf

http://onlineathens.com/stories/111800/new_1118000009.shtml

Brett Parker:

http://www.abccolumbia.com/news/local/Experts-Witness-from-TX-Testifies-208823011.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-bad-bet-who-killed-tammy-parker/

http://www.abccolumbia.com/news/local/Brett-Parkers-Attorneys-Seek-Appeal-209405131.htmlhttp://www.wistv.com/story/22533703/attorney-parker-cant-afford-appeal

http://article.wn.com/view/2013/09/24/Witness_problems_prompt_attorneys_in_Brett_Parker_gambling_c/

Veracity and accuracy of forensic testing:

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticle.aspx?articleid=22698&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

You can dismiss all of this or sit down as adults and ask, is this where we are? A simple truth in all of this is if every person arrested and charged with a crime asked for a jury trial, our judicial system would collapse. If bonds were denied and jury convictions became the norm our industrial-prison complex would collapse.

My solution is to be honest in all of this. People are simply raised up by incompetent parents and educated in an equally incompetent education system then go out and raise their children the same way. This is the nexus for maladjusted juveniles and adults. The other solution is how tax payer revenue is actually spent must be adjusted in light of unequal amounts appropriated towards maladjusted adults in one form or another.

Reply
Dr. Doom February 27, 2014 at 9:55 am

The funny thing about her letter is that it does nothing to refute the reams of supporting documentation provided by SCACDL. I guess its the old lawyer saying, “If you don’t have the law, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts, argue the law. And if you have neither the law nor the facts, bullshit like crazy.”

Reply
Mary August 24, 2014 at 10:21 pm

So where is the follow up?? have we dropped all this.

Reply

Leave a Comment