Ex parte McLeod
| Decision Date | 28 October 1977 |
| Citation | 252 S.E.2d 126,272 S.C. 373 |
| Parties | Ex parte Daniel R. McLEOD, in his capacity as Attorney General of, and Chief Prosecuting Officer for, the State of South Carolina, In re Investigation of Allegations arising from irregularities alleged to have occurred in the Court of Magistrate, Margie CANNON in Charleston County of |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen., Joseph R. Barker and Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, for appellant.
Robert B. Wallace, Morris D. Rosen and George E. Campsen, Jr., Charleston, for respondents.
This matter arises out of a request by the Attorney General of South Carolina that he, or his assistants, be permitted to appear before the grand jury for Charleston County for the purpose of presenting to that body evidence developed during an investigation into alleged improprieties of certain individuals in connection with a trial before a magistrate in Charleston County.
The Attorney General conceiving that a proper consideration of the matter under inquiry by the grand jury required the assistance of his office and after first obtaining the permission of the Foreman of the grand jury to appear before that body for such purpose, requested the trial judge to grant him, or his assistants, the right to enter the grand jury room for the purpose of assisting the grand jury in their investigation by examining witnesses and providing the grand jury with whatever legal advice that body might request. The Attorney General further requested that a court stenographer, after being sworn to secrecy, be present to record the testimony which would be sealed, subject to being made public only upon court order.
The lower court denied the request of the Attorney General that he, or his assistants, be permitted to enter the grand jury room for the purpose of examination and cross-examination of witnesses and that a court stenographer be present to record the testimony presented to the grand jury, but authorized the Attorney General to take the following actions in connection with the investigation:
(1) Submit to the grand jury either orally or in writing a full and complete statement of the investigation;
(2) Submit to the grand jury a full and complete summary of all the evidence;
(3) Submit to the grand jury evidence gathered during the investigation, such as documents, statements, tapes, pictures, etc.;
(4) Submit to the grand jury the names of individuals whom he feels should be questioned by the grand jury along with a summary of the testimony to be secured from the witnesses;
(5) Submit a list of questions that he feels the grand jury should ask the witnesses; and
(6) Submit, orally or in writing, a summary of his opinion of the law concerning the allegations of the investigation.
Pertinent portions of the order of the trial judge also stated:
Nothing in this order shall be construed as prohibiting consultation between the grand jury and representatives from the Attorney General's office even to the extent that the grand jury may, during the course of the examination of a witness, recess and consult with representatives of the Attorney General's office.
The trial judge also ruled that individuals, who are called as witnesses before the grand jury and are identified from the allegations as potential defendants, should be fully advised of their right to counsel and their right to have counsel available to consult, not in the grand jury room, but during recess of the grand jury proceedings.
The Attorney General has appealed from only the rulings of the lower court which deny his request to enter the grand jury room for the purpose of examination and cross-examination of witnesses and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harrison
...V, § 24 ; S.C. Code Ann. § 1-7-50 (2005) ; id. § 1-7-100(2) (2005); id. § 1-7-320 (2005); id. § 1-7-350 (2005); Ex parte McLeod , 272 S.C. 373, 377, 252 S.E.2d 126, 127 (1979).David Pascoe is the duly elected Solicitor for South Carolina's First Judicial Circuit, which comprises Orangeburg,......
-
State v. Capps, 21396
...the nature of permissible involvement of attorneys appearing in the prosecutorial role before the Grand Jury. See Ex Parte McLeod v. Cannon, 272 S.C. 373, 252 S.E.2d 126. In resolving the matter, we meticulously considered our precedents as well as the perceptions of treatise writers as to ......
-
Anderson v. State, 3112.
...(1983), overruled on other grounds by State v. Collins, 329 S.C. 23, 495 S.E.2d 202 (1998); see also Ex parte McLeod: In Re Cannon, 272 S.C. 373, 252 S.E.2d 126 (1979); State v. Rector, 158 S.C. 212, 155 S.E. 385 II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Hearing In addition to his argument regarding ......
-
In re Remote Commc'n Tech.
... ... We commend these efforts and ask the trial courts ... to continue to explore ways to ensure public access ... [3]Ex parte McLeod, 272 S.C. 373, ... 377-78, 252 S.E.2d 126, 128 (1979) (In a case involving a ... county grand jury, the Court stated "the ... ...