State habeas relief in South Carolina
In South Carolina, the standard for the granting of state habeas relief is a high one; "[a] writ of habeas corpus is reserved for the very gravest of constitutional violations 'which, in the setting, constitute[] a denial of fundamental fairness shocking to the universal sense of justice.'"
In Williams v. Ozmint, released December 22, the South Carolina Supreme Court denied habeas relief in a death penalty case, where the prosecutor had stated to the jury three times that he expected the death penalty, without objection from the defense. Williams had already been through his direct appeal and two PCR petitions in state court, and a federal habeas petition that was granted by the district court but denied by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court discussed the history of habeas in S.C. state courts, noting that, although habeas is still a viable form of relief, under the Post-Conviction Relief Act PCR essentially has replaced most forms of habeas relief. Habeas petitions are still admitted, essentially as a safety valve for egregious errors that somehow were not corrected by any other means, and it is difficult at best to obtain relief by state habeas petition.
The Court distinguished State v. Northcutt , in that, although the prosecutor in Northcutt also stated to the jury that he expected the death penalty, the actions of the prosecutor were more egregious ("The solicitor in Northcutt, an infant homicide case, not only stated that he “expected” the death penalty, but also declared that it would be “open season on babies” if the jury did not return the death penalty and staged a funeral procession with a black shroud draped over the victim’s crib").
