South Carolina ‘Stand Your Ground’ Drama: Evidence Battle Takes Center Stage

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by JENN WOOD

***

A long-running wrongful death case — replete with allegations of police corruption, attorney misconduct and conflicting interpretations of South Carolina’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law — returned to court on Monday (November 17, 2025) for a contentious hearing that laid bare the logistical, evidentiary and strategic battles now defining the litigation.

During proceedings in Conway, S.C., circuit court judge Eugene C. Griffith, Jr. worked through a slate of pending motions, resolved several discovery disputes – and pushed back against requests to delay the case.

Most significantly, Griffith began to offer an outline for how a highly anticipated immunity hearing tied to the Palmetto State’s ‘Protection of Persons and Property Act’ — commonly known as the “Stand Your Ground” law – would unfold in his courtroom.

The hearing revealed growing tension surrounding two critical eyewitnesses — both of whom are now refusing to cooperate due to harassment allegedly ginned up by one of the attorneys in the case.

The courtroom drama stems from the fatal 2023 shooting of 33-year-old North Carolina insurance adjuster Scott Spivey, who was killed on Camp Swamp Road in rural Horry County after a vehicular incident culminated in an alleged shootout in which dozens of rounds were fired. Charles Weldon Boyd and Kenneth Bradley Williams – the defendants in this civil action – claim they acted in lawful self-defense when they fired upon Spivey.

Spivey’s family insists he was the victim of a “premeditated” ambush – despite witnesses indicating Spivey had previously brandished a weapon and was the initiator of both the vehicular incident and the ensuing shootout.

This week’s hearing marked the latest chapter in a case now thoroughly entangled in a misconduct probe led by the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) – an investigation which recently sparked the attorney general’s extraordinary request for an independent prosecutorial review.

***

RELATED | THE ROADSIDE SHOOTING OF SCOTT SPIVEY

***

MOTIONS RESOLVED…

The court first addressed several outstanding motions — some of which dated back several months. Both versions of Boyd’s motion to quash subpoenas and for protective order — filed March 5 (.pdf) and May 29 (.pdf) — objected to subpoenas seeking his private medical records, arguing the requests violated HIPAA and sought confidential, privileged material without his consent.

During the hearing, attorney Mark Tinsley — who represents Spivey’s family — informed the court the parties had reached a stipulation: the defendants would withdraw the motions, the providers would respond to the subpoenas, and all produced records would be designated “confidential.” Judge Griffith instructed counsel to submit a proposed order memorializing the agreement.

A motion to stay proceedings (.pdf) filed by Williams’ attorney – which sought to halt the civil case pending SLED’s ongoing corruption investigation – was also withdrawn. The original filing argued Williams could still face criminal jeopardy and asked the court to pause the lawsuit until SLED clarified the scope of its probe.

Judge Griffith made clear the case would not wait.

“We’re pushing on this hearing now,” he said.

A motion to compel discovery responses (.pdf) filed by Tinsley on May 2 — seeking full responses to interrogatories and document requests — was also mostly resolved, with one major exception: deleted Facebook Messenger communications belonging to Boyd and Williams.

Both defense teams told the court they had already hired a digital forensics expert — the same expert for both defendants — who is attempting to recover the messages. They projected approximately ten days to complete the task. Griffith instructed them to report back with a firm timeline and warned them that the scheduling of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ immunity hearing depended on timely completion of discovery.

***

THE BATTLE OVER THE 911 CALLS

The most consequential argument of the day centered on the admissibility of statements from two key eyewitnesses:

• Blaize Ward (formerly identified as Caller 1), who followed the chase for nearly five miles and was on the phone with 911 as the confrontation unfolded.
• Frank McMurrough (formerly Caller 2), who drove past the shooting as it occurred and also called 911.

Both witnesses gave 911 statements, submitted to police-recorded interviews and provided written statements at the scene.

There is a problem, though: both witnesses have “gone silent” despite repeated outreach attempts by defense attorneys, with McMurrough reportedly reacting “hostilely” when approached for service.

Williams’ attorney, Morgan Martin, argued that the court should admit all of the 911 calls, the police interview recordings, and the written statements. According to him, they fall squarely under Rule 803 of the S.C. Rules of Evidence – which govern exceptions to hearsay.

“These are classic Rule 803 statements,” Martin said, arguing Ward’s call provides a “step-for-step” narration of Spivey’s erratic behavior and gun-brandishing as it happened. He said both witnesses’ statements are indispensable because they uniquely captured what happened during the vehicular incident – and at the moment Spivey exited his truck on Camp Swamp Road.

Martin insisted the case “cannot wait indefinitely” for uncooperative witnesses.

***

? S.C. circuit court judge Eugene Griffith says he will rule within the week on key admissibility issues ahead of a pivotal ‘Stand your Ground’ hearing in the 2023 roadside shooting of N.C. insurance adjuster Scott Spivey… (follow ? from ?@IndyJenn_?) pic.twitter.com/FaCa0hUkHC

— FITSNews (@fitsnews) November 17, 2025

***

Tinsley countered that defense attorneys were seeking an improper shortcut, claiming courts cannot make credibility determinations from transcripts alone and that large portions of the statements do not fall within any hearsay exception because the witnesses did not personally perceive the events they describe. He emphasized that Ward repeatedly acknowledged she did not see Spivey exit his vehicle or fire a gun – and that McMurrough’s account relied heavily on what others told him rather than on his own direct observations.

Tinsley cited State v. Dennis and related case law holding that judges must assess a witness’s demeanor and credibility — something that’s impossible to do if the witness does not testify.

He accused the defense of asking the judge to “bless” their evidence before the hearing even begins.

“What they really want is an advisory opinion… to short-circuit the truth here,” Tinsley said.

Tensions reached a boiling point when attorneys argued over why the witnesses went silent. Tinsley suggested their reluctance may have stemmed from pressure from a private investigator tied to the defense team, noting that complaints have already reached SLED and the Virginia State Police.

“We haven’t made these witnesses unavailable… our investigator hasn’t done anything like that,” Martin fired back.

***

?In Conway, SC today for a motions hearing in the Scott Spivey civil case. I'll be providing updates in this thread. @fitsnews

— Jennifer Wood (@IndyJenn_) November 17, 2025

***

Boyd’s attorney Kenneth Moss vehemently objected to Tinsley’s narrative – claiming the witnesses’ sudden refusal to cooperate was not caused by the defense but rather by outside actors. Moss said “podcasters” had berated the witnesses online, called them liars, and publicly pressured them. He claimed these “self-called journalists” also provided listeners with Blaize Ward’s social media account and gave instructions to contact her. Moss further contended the podcasters were aligned with — or being encouraged by — people connected to the plaintiffs.

“Like it or not, those podcasters, those self-called journalists… are tied to the plaintiff – and may be tied to the plaintiff’s attorney,” Moss said, referring to Tinsley.

Moss added that any suggestion he or Martin were involved in harassing witnesses was “a Mark Tinsley lie.”

Judge Griffith cut in firmly, acknowledging Moss’ concerns but directing the parties to stop pointing fingers over who scared off the witnesses.

“We gotta put that behind us,” he said, emphasizing that his focus was restoring order and preventing further escalation. Griffith expressed frustration that speculation about blame was overtaking the legal issues before him.

Tinsley responded that McMurrough stopped cooperating long before any media coverage or podcast episode was released, insisting the defense’s theory had no factual basis. But Griffith again steered the discussion back to the issue at hand, telling both sides the priority was securing truthful testimony — not litigating why the witnesses backed away. He encouraged counsel to reach out constructively and assured them the court would protect any witness who agreed to testify.

“I want to beg those two witnesses to please reach out,” Griffith said.

***

RELATED | ALLEGED ‘MEDIA FIRESTORM’ FOCUS OF NEW LAWSUIT

***

WHAT THE JUDGE DECIDED AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Judge Griffith emphasized that South Carolina law allows him to consider both admissible and inadmissible evidence — and disregard anything improper when making a final determination. He noted appellate guidance directing courts to “discern what is relevant and rule fairly” even when hearsay appears in the record – but stressed the best evidence would always come from witnesses who testify in person.

“Let’s make best efforts… whichever lawyer can develop a relationship and get them to come testify,” he said, urging both sides to continue outreach to reluctant eyewitnesses rather than rely on transcripts alone. “The whole crowd will get the benefit of that live testimony.”

As the discussion shifted to logistics, it became clear scheduling the immunity hearing is still a moving target. The unresolved discovery issues — particularly efforts to recover deleted Facebook messages and the uncertain availability of key witnesses — could delay the next phase of the case. Martin pushed for the hearing to be set “as quickly as possible,” while Tinsley cautioned that a December 15, 2025 date might not be realistic.

Griffith – who is based in Newberry, S.C. – indicated he would be returning to Horry County in mid-December and expected the parties to be prepared.

“It’s a big machine… a lot of moving parts,” he said, adding that he would sign any necessary orders promptly to keep the case on track.

This week’s hearing clarified several key points: first, this case is no longer in a holding pattern. Williams’ request for a stay has been withdrawn, and Griffith made it abundantly clear he intends to move toward the immunity hearing without delay. Second, the admissibility of statements from Ward and McMurrough will be one of the defining battles in this case — with the outcome likely to shape the factual foundation the court relies upon when assessing the defendants’ claim of self-defense. Third, while most discovery is complete, digital evidence remains a bottleneck as experts work to recover potentially relevant online communications. And finally, the stakes of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ ruling remain enormous: as a finding of immunity would immediately end the civil suit and could influence the review of the original criminal investigation.

Zooming the lens back even further, the Spivey litigation has become one of South Carolina’s most contentious legal and political flashpoints — from misconduct within the Horry County Police Department, to political scrutiny of the attorney general, to broader debates over the reach of the state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ statute, all amplified by dueling media narratives and accusations of coordinated publicity campaigns.

Judge Griffith’s measured but firm approach signaled his intention to strip the case down to its evidentiary core and resolve it on the law rather than the noise surrounding it.

Whenever it is ultimately scheduled, the upcoming ‘Stand Your Ground’ immunity hearing will not only determine the future of this civil action — it will likely shape public understanding of one of the most consequential and politically charged cases South Carolina has seen since the ‘Murdaugh Murders.’

Count on FITSNews to continue reporting objectively on this case at every step of the way…

***

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.