There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles in South Carolina, so if you test the state's case the judge alone decides the case. Often I am shocked at the condescending and angry manner in which some family court judges treat the troubled children who are in front of them. If the state is acting "in loco parentis," it is often an abusive and unforgiving parent. The actual parents often are the source of the child's problems, yet the child is punished for the parents' failings, and may be sent to a locked down facility for an "evaluation," (I've been to this facility - it is a small prison, built with cold gray bricks, with a barbed wire fence around the outside, situated next door to an adult prison where death row inmates are housed) sent to a group home, or sent to DJJ to be locked up for a period of time. Sometimes there is no other choice and the Court is at a loss for what to do.

Sometimes the child is released to his family and connected to services such as counseling, and we hope that they live happily ever after.

Anyway, back to the topic. Under certain circumstances a juvenile can be "waived up" to general sessions court and prosecuted as an adult, when a serious crime has been committed. In this case, a 14 year old juvenile was accused of kidnapping, assault and battery with intent to kill, and armed robbery, and the allegations are that his mother and another adult encouraged his participation.

This case fell under a provision of S.C. law that says a juvenile who is 14 years of age or older can be tried in adult court if he is charged with "a Class A, B, C, or D felony as defined in Section 16-1-20 or a felony which provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen years or more, the court, after full investigation and hearing, may determine it contrary to the best interest of the child or of the public to retain jurisdiction."

I'm not sure when it could be in the best interest of the child or the public to send a 14 year old child to be prosecuted as an adult and subjected to a 30 year prison sentence. In this case a DJJ psychologist testified that the child would receive treatment and rehabilitation if he stayed in the juvenile system, but not in the adult system, and testified that it was in the best interest of the child and the public to keep him in the juvenile system.

The prosecutor's arguments as I heard them went something like this: 1) This child has never had a significant adult in his life, he was abused as a small child, he suffers from various mental and emotional disorders, he has no family who cares about him, and therefore we should punish him more severely.

2) If the child is kept in the juvenile court he would receive mental health treatment (he would be "sub-classed" under a federal court order as a result of a class-action lawsuit that was brought against the DJJ for their treatment of mentally ill juveniles), and therefore we should send him to the adult court.

3) At 17 years of age he would be transferred to a YOA facility, where he would receive treatment. If he is tried as an adult he would no longer receive treatment therefore we should send him to adult court.

As usual when I leave juvenile court proceedings, I wish that I missed something, that someone in there is actually trying to help children, but I am afraid that I missed nothing. The judge has not ruled in that particular case, but I suspect that the juvenile will be tried as an adult.

Melvin has my respect for the work that he did fighting for the quality of indigent representation in our state:

In 1992, Roberts sued York County, the state of South Carolina and the director of the state’s administration court, charging that lawyers were not paid enough for representation of poor defendants, comparing the system to slavery and involuntary servitude. He lost the case after it made it all the way to the state Supreme Court.

Details are sparse on who the suspect is, but they have not caught them yet.

Elders was convicted of armed robbery, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and two counts of kidnapping following trial, but before the trial began he pled guilty to carjacking. I'm wondering: 1) why would he plead guilty to carjacking, which carries twenty years, before the trial began; and 2) why would the prosecutor waste the court's time and try him on the remaining counts when carjacking carries twenty years anyway?

Regardless, back to the opinion. The Court holds that, whether it is a multiple punishment or successive prosecution, the Court must analyze it using the "same elements" test from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). If each offense requires proof of an element that the other offense does not, then they are two distinct offenses and double jeopardy does not apply. In this case, it can be summed up as: kidnapping requires proof that a person was taken; carjacking requires proof that a car was taken. Different elements (person vs. car) therefore no double jeopardy.

The Court held that photographs showing one victim hooked up to machines in a hospital and showing the second victim in a wheelchair were more probative than prejudicial because the photographs showed the injuries received, and showed that the injuries were likely inflicted by a knife.

The Court also held that four knives introduced as evidence by the state which were not used in and had no connection to the crime should not have been admitted because they were not relevant, but that it was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of Elders' guilt.

Pickens Police Chief Tommy Ellenburg said a man shot Coyle multiple times before shooting himself. The incident took place in the parking lot behind Coyle’s 303 E. Main St. office, he said.

Jerry Dean Crenshaw was taken to Greenville Memorial Hospital for treatment, according to Ellenburg.

There is no information yet as to why it happened or what Crenshaw's condition is.

Court of Appeals:

Seat 5, Chief Judge Hon. John C. Few, Greenville

Circuit Court:

8th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Hon. Frank R. Addy, Jr., Greenwood

At Large, Seat 8 David C. Brown, Florence

Family Court:

2nd Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Vicki J. Snelgrove, Aiken
5th Judicial Circuit, Seat 4 Gwendlyne Y. Smalls, Columbia
7th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Phillip K. Sinclair, Spartanburg
7th Judicial Circuit, Seat 3 Hon. Usha J. Bridges, Gaffney
13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 William M. Robertson, Greenville
16th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Hon. David G. Guyton, Rock Hill

Kitchens is accused of stealing and attempting to sell drugs from the Spartanburg County Courthouse's evidence room. He was formally charged with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine between April 2009 and January 2010 – a charge that carries a maximum sentence of $2 million and 20 years in prison.

This one is pretty unbelievable. The allegations are that Kitchens took drugs from the clerk's evidence room - drugs that being held as evidence in cases that have already been to court, that is being preserved while a case is on appeal for example - and attempted to sell the drugs to an undercover informant who was working with the DEA.

Ok. I looked it up, Wikipedia says:

Smoke and mirrors is a metaphor for a deceptive, fraudulent or insubstantial explanation or description. The source of the name is based on magicians' illusions, where magicians make objects appear or disappear by extending or retracting mirrors amid a confusing burst of smoke. The expression may have a connotation of virtuosity or cleverness in carrying out such a deception.

In the field of computer programming, it is used to describe a program or functionality that doesn't yet exist, but appears as though it does (cf. vaporware). This is often done to demonstrate what a resulting project will function/look like after the code is complete — at a trade show, for example.

More generally, "smoke and mirrors" may refer to any sort of presentation by which the audience is intended to be deceived, such as an attempt to fool a prospective client into thinking that one has capabilities necessary to deliver a product in question.

So, when a prosecutor repeatedly says that the defense's case is "smoke and mirrors," they are claiming that the defense is being deceptive and fraudulent, and that their defense is insubstantial. At least it has a connotation of virtuosity and cleverness, that sounds impressive.

At least it doesn't take long to read this one:

PER CURIAM. We vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Vir-ginia and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion in Melendez-Diaz v. Massa-chusetts, 557 U. S. ___ (2009). It is so ordered.

Melendez-Diaz held that the prosecution cannot use reports or affidavits from analysts at trial unless the analyst is present and subject to cross-examination. In Briscoe, the Virginia Supreme Court had sided with the government and held that drug reports were admissible without live testimony unless the defendant objected, placing the burden on the defendant to bring the state's analyst to the trial.

South Carolina has a similar system to that in Briscoe, and under Rule 6 of the rules of criminal procedure affidavits used to establish chain of custody and the report of a chemist are admissible at trial without live testimony unless the defendant objects within a certain period of time.

H/T PDR for this video: San Francisco's Chief Public Defender refuses to accept budget cuts - or will refuse to accept new cases if the budget is cut:

One of the suspects collapsed at the scene and was taken to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Horry County Deputy Coroner Tony Hendrick says 41-year-old Dorina Williams of Nichols appears to have died from natural causes, but the official cause of death is still pending.

The defendant attacked the prosecutor and the victim after he was sentenced to 30 days for violating his bond - he was subdued by a bondsman and maced by the judge, but not before he had caused injuries to the victim.

Ordinarily, under the public duty rule, statutory duties such as those in the Criminal Domestic Violence Act do not create a cause of action against public officials for failure to perform those duties, and there was no special relationship between the Sheriff's Office and the victim that gave rise to a duty to protect, but the "special circumstances" of this case gave rise to a duty, because the Sheriff's Office was on notice of the danger and because they created the risk of harm to the victim by not providing security for her.

This case highlights what can be a major problem in our magistrate courts - in most, there is no security. There are no guards, there are no metal detectors, there is nothing to protect judges, jurors, witnesses, victims, or attorneys. Some of the magistrates hold court or bond hearings in small enclosed spaces, and particularly in CDV cases, emotions can run high.

One thing that I am grateful for are the guards at the circuit court and the fact that they are checking people for weapons as they come into the courthouse. It may be an inconvenience but it does make me feel better knowing that the people around me in that emotionally charged atmosphere are not armed.

"Mr. Benson's numerous acts of misconduct, culminating in his false testimony in this proceeding, strikes at the foundation of our legal system and is so grossly shocking and outrageous that it offends the universal sense of justice to allow prosecution in this matter to proceed,'' Bryan said. "As such, defendant's motion to dismiss on due process grounds is granted.''