|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina restaurant owner Charles Weldon Boyd – one of two defendants in a high-profile wrongful death case – has filed a lawsuit against the attorney he believes is responsible for raining down a “media firestorm” on his head.
Boyd and co-defendant Kenneth Bradley Williams are facing civil liability – and potential criminal charges – in connection with the roadside shooting death of North Carolina insurance adjuster Scott Spivey. Boyd and Williams shot and killed Spivey on Camp Swamp Road near Loris, S.C. on the evening of September 9, 2023 following a lengthy vehicular chase – although the circumstances of that incident remain very much in dispute.
Spivey’s family insists he was ambushed and shot from behind, but Boyd and Williams both claim Spivey fired at them first – and was shooting at them from his pickup truck when they returned fire and mortally wounded him.
The case has attracted national and international media attention – a media circus which Boyd claims has been deliberately choreographed by Allendale, S.C. attorney Mark Tinsley, who represents Spivey’s family in their wrongful death case against him and Williams.
In a complaint filed in Horry County on Monday (November 3, 2025), Boyd accused Tinsley of “intentional misconduct” by manufacturing and amplifying a “false narrative” in the wrongful death case. Using selective media leaks, interviews and social media posts which have “perverted the course of justice,” Tinsley has prejudiced Boyd’s right to a fair adjudication in South Carolina courts, according to the complaint (.pdf).
***
Not only that, the lawsuit alleged Tinsley engaged in this media blitz “for purposes of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement to establish and/or further celebrity status for himself among the masses.”
“Tinsley wants to be a celebrity and spends time and energy promoting his public profile,” the lawsuit alleged.
Boyd isn’t asking for money; instead, he wants a jury to determine key facts – and for the court to declare that Tinsley’s alleged publicity campaign has made a fair trial for him impossible.
Boyd and Williams have both invoked the Palmetto State’s ‘Protection of Persons and Property Act‘ — commonly known as the “Stand Your Ground” law – as their justification for shooting Spivey. South Carolina’s top prosecutor, Alan Wilson, agreed the law applied when his office declined to prosecute either Boyd or Williams criminally in connection with the shooting.
As FITSNews previously reported, a “Stand Your Ground” hearing in the Spivey family’s wrongful-death case was set for the week of June 9, 2025, but Williams asked to stay the civil proceedings pending a separate probe into law enforcement misconduct tied to the original Horry County Police Department (HCPD) investigation. That probe followed internal affairs findings, missing video, and body-cam footage of an officer coaching Boyd to act like a victim on camera — fallout that led to chief deputy Brandon Strickland’s resignation and officer Paul Vascovi’s termination.
A hearing in the wrongful death case is scheduled for November 17, 2025 in Horry County.
***
RELATED | S.C. TOP PROSECUTOR WANTS INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF SCOTT SPIVEY CASE
***
THE ALLEGATIONS
According to Boyd’s complaint, Tinsley “manufactured, disseminated, and perpetuated” a false narrative by manipulating media outlets — from traditional press to podcasters — to stoke what he describes as a “media firestorm.” He claimed Tinsley released non-public discovery materials to reporters and on social platforms, shared “exclusive” content, and repeatedly commented on evidence and legal strategy to shape public perception of the case.
The lawsuit specifically claimed Tinsley told an individual he started the media firestorm with one specific outlet because he knew “the others [will] follow.”
“He was correct,” the lawsuit alleged.
Boyd’s lawsuit contended Tinsley engaged in this conduct as an individual – not in furtherance of his client’s legitimate litigation objectives – and that his actions have “permanently harmed” Boyd’s ability to receive a fair hearing or trial in any related civil or criminal matter.
“Tinsley is not interested in the actual facts and is instead intent on increasing his own public profile for his personal purposes by perpetuating a more salacious story than the truth reveals,” the lawsuit alleged.
***
***
The complaint requests a court declaration that Tinsley’s actions “intentionally and wrongfully prejudiced” the course of justice in a way that foreseeably denies Boyd a fair adjudication — along with an award of taxable costs against Tinsley.
By waiving damages and asking for equitable relief, Boyd is basing the case on principle rather than payouts — i.e., whether a South Carolina court should recognize and remedy alleged prejudicial pre-trial publicity by a private lawyer in a high-profile case.
The complaint invoked the Declaratory Judgment Act – and requested the court to fashion a remedy addressing ongoing prejudice from the publicity blitz.
This new action doesn’t replace the Spivey family’s wrongful-death case; it runs alongside it. However, if Boyd persuades a jury/judge that Tinsley’s alleged media conduct has contaminated the forum, he could seek to leverage a declaration to influence venue, scheduling, discovery, gag-orders, or other case-management decisions in the wrongful-death litigation — or at minimum to argue that juror taint and pretrial publicity must be tightly controlled.
***
RELATED | GAG ORDER ISSUED IN SCOTT SPIVEY WRONGFUL DEATH CASE
***
WHAT’S NEXT
The latest lawsuit unfolds alongside new developments in the related wrongful-death case over the 2023 shooting of Spivey. On July 10, 2025, S.C., circuit court judge Eugene C. Griffith, Jr. issued a protective order during a hearing in Laurens County, clearing the way for an upcoming Stand Your Ground hearing that will determine whether the case proceeds to trial. Griffith ruled that all future discovery—including medical records, cell-phone data, social-media messages, and recordings—will be restricted to attorneys and expert witnesses involved in the case and barred from public dissemination.
The order followed heated exchanges between Tinsley and defense counsel Morgan Martin and Kenneth Moss over the scope of discovery and the handling of parallel issues involving alleged misconduct within HCPD. Griffith emphasized that both sides must minimize public commentary and focus their arguments within the courtroom, noting, “I want to start from right now and move forward and do what we can to work together, correct, advocate for our clients, and minimize the potential impact on the jury.”
The parties are now preparing for the Stand Your Ground hearing — coordinating witness appearances, exchanging discovery under the new restrictions, and addressing remaining evidentiary disputes. Judge Griffith will continue to oversee both discovery and procedural matters, including any motions that arise in connection with the newly filed declaratory-relief action between Boyd and Tinsley.
FITSNews will continue monitoring developments in both cases—the wrongful-death proceedings and the separate lawsuit — along with their broader implications for South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground law and the integrity of judicial proceedings in high-profile cases.
***
THE COMPLAINT
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
3 comments
I forgot all about this, isn’t it being reviewed by another Solicitor?
Theres nothing like a guilty soul scurrying for validation.
But to be fair I didnt really follow it until I watched those podcasts. So I dont know, maybe hes got a point. I just followed the evidence though.
Reminds me of a very dirty, highly unethical pathological liar attorney who started out in a low country public defender office. She eventually went into private practice. Most every judge she stood before caught her many times making things up out of thin air, scolded her even in the courtroom
She failed private practice. Went back to work for as an overpaid managing public defender in the 9th circuit.
Nobody with a keen mind trusted her. Judges looked down on her. Taking original court documents without permission from the clerk of courts files , walking out the courthouse with them, a very serious no no!