New concerns arose today about the implementation of State v. Langford, the landmark case that ended solicitor docket control in South Carolina. These concerns center around whether the Judiciary’s historical deference to Solicitors will actually end. On June 12, 2013, a blog post entitled “Constitutional Crisis: General Sessions Court Docket Management” pointed out that “over […]
On June 19, 2013, in State v. Miller, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that probation is not tolled while a person is involuntarily committed as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP). In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Donald Beatty, the Court clarified “that tolling probation must be premised on a violation of a condition […]
On June 19, 2013, the South Carolina Supreme decided the Post Conviction Relief (PCR) case of Taylor v. State and, in the process, approved a life without parole (LWOP) sentence for a man who would have been better served to resolve all of his charges in multiple counties at the same time. Taylor had charges […]
A reoccurring question is whether a person charged in a drug case has the right to know the identity of the informant used by the police to make the case. The answer turns, in part, on whether the informant is a “mere tipster” or actually participated in or witnessed a hand-to-hand transaction. This blog post […]
A reoccurring question is whether a person charged in a drug case has the right to know the identity of the informant used by the police to make the case. The answer turns, in part, on whether the informant is a “mere tipster” or actually participated in a hand-to-hand transaction. This blog post addresses the […]
Traditionally, trial court judges followed State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989) when explaining circumstantial evidence to jurors. In addition to requiring the State to prove every circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, Edwards required: [A]ll of the circumstances so proven be consistent with each other and taken together, point conclusively to the […]
In Maryland v. King, a sharply divided five-to-four opinion decided on June 3, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held: When Officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab for […]
In State v. Langford, decided on November 21, 2012, the South Carolina Supreme Court recognized control of the docket to be a “matter of significant public interest.” The Court “agree[d] with the Public Defender Association,” appearing as amicus curie (“friend of the court”), that solicitor docket control “violates the separation of powers [contained in S.C. […]
Section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code of Laws requires “the video recording at the incident site” to begin when the police officer activates the blue lights, “include any field sobriety tests administered,” and show the DUI arrest and Miranda rights advisement. These protections are so important that a law enforcement agency cannot be “excused […]
For Charles Grose, being a defense attorney is an opportunity to help people in tough situations — protecting their rights and helping them avoid unfair or unjust charges and criminal penalties. In addition to helping defendants fight charges they aren’t guilty of, Mr. Grose strives to reveal the total circumstances of each client’s situation and demonstrate to police and prosecutors the mitigating circumstances and often show an alleged crime is not as serious as previously thought.
The Grose Law Firm, LLC
305 Main Street
Greenwood, SC 29646
864-538-4466
864-538-4405
