South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

The Society of Professional Journalists (via John Bryan and Glen Graham) publishes the Journalist's Code of Ethics on their website. It is interesting to read as I consider various publications in South Carolina.

For example, from the code of ethics:

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible . . .
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability . . .
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

On November 16, Tim Smith of the Greenville News continued playing "gotcha" with Senator Brad Hutto, while reporting that the trooper who had been under fire for reducing many of Hutto's DUI clients' cases to reckless driving has now been disciplined, despite an earlier finding of no wrongdoing by the solicitor. Arguably, Tim Smith's reporting shows an interest in ensuring that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection:

The state trooper who last year reduced DUI charges against clients of a state senator, sparking an investigation that found no criminal wrongdoing, has been disciplined in connection with the cases, records show.

Lt. Col. M.L. Howard of the Highway Patrol reprimanded Lance Corporal David Smith and said he violated rules and procedures, according to a copy of the disciplinary memo obtained by The Greenville News under the state Freedom of Information Act.

Smith reduced 10 DUI cases on a single day last October and turned in the paperwork of the cases in January, prompting a superior to request an internal investigation, records show. The documents show that most of the drivers in the cases were represented by Sen. Brad Hutto of Orangeburg. Six of the 10 DUI cases had blood-alcohol readings of between .13 and .16, records show, and drivers refused alcohol tests in four of the cases.

Tim Smith took care to present both sides of the issue, also reporting that:

Hutto and Magistrate Willie Robinson said the senator and his clients received no preferential treatment and the DUI cases were reduced to lesser charges as a result of a plea bargain between the trooper and the senator. The judge said he played no role in the plea bargains. Solicitor David Pascoe, chief prosecutor for Orangeburg County, announced in August that an investigation by the State Law Enforcement Division found no criminal wrongdoing by Smith.

But an article published 2 days later on November 18, with no author listed, takes the information and turns it into an accusation of public corruption, hinting at shady deals and undue influence in the courtroom:

South Carolina state senators have an unseemly and unhealthy degree of power over the magistrates who are so important to our statewide system of justice. That relationship is especially outrageous when the senators who often hold the magistrates' jobs in the palm of their hands also are lawyers practicing before those same magistrates. The system begs for reform . . .

The veil was pulled back from the magistrate system earlier this year when a state trooper found himself in hot water for reducing 10 DUI cases on a single day last October . . .

A most telling comment could be found in the information that came out after the chief prosecutor announced a couple of months ago that he had cleared the trooper of any wrongdoing. The newspaper reported at the time that the trooper had indicated to investigators that he was at a disadvantage going into the magistrate's court when the senator-lawyer had played a key role in appointing the local magistrate. "Brad (Hutto) appoints the judge, makes a motion and the judge agrees," SLED agents quoted Smith as telling them.

The opportunities for mischief are obvious. The damage done to the judicial system's reputation is enormous.

This problem isn't just about the black eye given to the judicial system. This also is about cleaning up South Carolina's highways and making them safer for this state's citizens. South Carolina has some of the most deadly roads in the nation, and the state's high rate of DUI-related cases clearly is a contributing factor . . .

The beating of the DUI-drum is a familiar sound from the Greenville News Online, which panders to the DUI fanatics who love to read this stuff, but this particular article goes beyond the familiar DUI - hang-em-up spin, and misleads the public. A single phone call by the author to any magistrate, magistrate's court prosecutor, or defense attorney who practices in the magistrate's court would have revealed the inaccuracies in the article.

Magistrates do not have the authority to make or approve a reduction of a DUI ticket to reckless driving. The officer or the prosecutor only can make that decision; reckless driving is not a lesser included offense of DUI so not even the jury can make that decision. Before a reduced charge goes before the magistrate, the DUI ticket is dismissed and a new warrant is written for reckless driving. The magistrate can only accept or refuse the plea which is placed before them.

The defense attorney does not "make a motion" and the judge agrees, when there is a plea to reckless driving. The officer made that decision before the case ever went to the judge. I am not a state senator, I do not have undue influence over any judge, and I have received offers of reckless driving in many cases because it was appropriate to do so, and because it was not a case the prosecutor wanted to try. Sometimes a charge is reduced on the prosecutor's own initiative and sometimes after discussing the merits of the case with them, but always it is in the prosecutor's discretion.

Prosecutors or officers will reduce a DUI ticket to reckless driving, careless operation, or any other lesser offense, when it is appropriate. It is appropriate to offer a plea on a reduced charge when there are evidentiary issues that would cause problems in going forward in the case, or when there is an otherwise strong defense case that likely would result in an acquittal. Otherwise, the system would be hopelessly bogged down with thousands of trials that would result in dismissal or not guilty verdicts. A wise prosecutor chooses his best cases to take to trial.

I don't know if this article was an editorial comment or if it was written by a reporter. There is no identifying information that I can find yet it was published as news. The first comment underneath it is "Good piece of reporting. Thank you."

To the Greenville News: I am glad that you are keeping the business of government in the public eye. But please, identify the authors of articles that you publish and do not publish materials that, whether "inadvertent error" or "deliberate distortion," have the effect of needlessly undermining confidence in our justice system. I am the first to criticize and complain about problems in our justice system, but there are plenty of issues there already without making up more that do not exist.