Charleston’s Supreme Court Hearing: The Clinton Folkes Case
Charleston was buzzing with excitement last week as the South Carolina Supreme Court met to hear the long-awaited arguments in the case of Clinton Folkes. The event took place on September 11, 2024, at The Citadel, and it marked a significant chapter in a case that has been winding through the legal system for over 16 years.
An Overview of the Case
Folkes, convicted in 2008 for assault and battery with intent to kill, faced a life sentence due to South Carolina’s “three strikes” law. The charges stem from a violent altercation in 2007, where Folkes slashed another man’s neck during a fight. Despite not killing the victim, his comment that “he should have” was used against him during the trial.
The heart of Folkes’ argument comes from two main points: the alleged abandonment by his previous lawyer during the appeal process, and the claim that jury instructions were mishandled during the original trial. Defense attorney Jason Scott Luck stood before the court, presenting Folkes’ case with both passion and careful consideration.
The Abandonment Argument
Luck argued that Folkes was left in the lurch by his former attorney, Celia Robinson, who left her role at the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense without informing either the court or Folkes. After she departed, a misleading letter was sent to Folkes, incorrectly stating he had no further options for appeal. Luck stressed that this lack of communication violated Folkes’ Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.
Charleston law school dean Larry Cunningham noted how rare it is for such cases to challenge the effectiveness of representation at the appellate level. The complexity of the situation surrounding Folkes’ representation has cast doubt on his original conviction, and Luck hopes that the court sees this abandonment as a critical error.
The Jury Instructions’ Dispute
Next, the discussion pivoted to the issue of jury instructions. Luck argued that the trial judge incorrectly told the jury that malice was not a necessary component for the lesser charge of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. This could have led the jury to misunderstand how to assess the charges against Folkes.
However, Assistant Attorney General Josh Edwards countered that malice can sometimes be present in such cases but is not an element required for conviction. It was a significant back-and-forth that left many observers pondering the implications of how juries understand judge’s instructions during trials.
The Justices’ Reaction
As the justices, including Chief Justice John W. Kittredge and Justice George James Jr., listened intently, they posed thought-provoking questions to both attorneys. Justice James challenged Luck on the evidence of malice, questioning whether Folkes’ words and actions truly reflected intent to kill, or whether they were exaggerated in the heat of the moment.
Luck argued for a more nuanced understanding, suggesting that Folkes was caught in a fight that escalated and did not reflect a premeditated desire to kill. He requested that the court vacate Folkes’ conviction based on both the ineffective assistance of counsel and the questionable jury instructions.
What’s at Stake?
The outcome of this hearing is monumental. If the court rules in favor of Folkes, it could lead to a new trial or even his release after serving a life sentence for over a decade and a half. On the contrary, if the ruling favors the prosecution, Folkes will remain behind bars under the heavy weight of his conviction.
It’s a situation that isn’t just about legalities; it’s about real lives and the human stories behind the courtroom drama. Clinton Folkes’ case has become a focal point in discussions about justice, representation, and the careful balance between legal strategy and being aware of one’s rights. The precedents set here could have ramifications that resonate well beyond this particular case.
Next Steps
As the Charleston community watches closely, the justices will deliberate over the arguments presented and determine the fate of Clinton Folkes. With so much at stake, all eyes will remain on the South Carolina Supreme Court in the coming days for what could become a landmark decision in the South Carolina legal landscape.
