“The state did not prove he didn’t prove he did it.”
If I understand the entry, they did prove he did it in the first trial. The state isn’t saying he did or didn’t do it for the purpose of tossing out the first trial. They are saying a clerk didn’t do something right and took the fair trial out of it. If the evidence is there, and the first jury found him guilty based upon it, then this technicality doesn’t change the evidence. He’s still guilty, just have a second trial and use the evidence provided. The defense is trying to stall the state into not having a second trial because of expense and all their judges have overloaded dockets. So he won’t be found not guilty but he’ll be on the streets.
wy69
He will never be released. He is serving long time for other crimes. Let’s just say I am close to an attorney who is deeply involved in this matter. It makes no sense that he would murder his wife and son who he adored. Remember, he is an attorney with a long family history in the low counties of SC; lots of enemies. He’s a scumbag for sure, but that does not make him a murderer. Lots of circumstantial evidence and he has lied unnecessarily, which definitely hurt his case.
I don’t know if he did, or didn’t, but there is some fishy stuff in the background that make me doubt that he did.