Solicitor argues Stinney lawyers using defunct law in their request for retrial ShareShare Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size Solicitor argues Stinney lawyers using defunct law in their request for retrial Bristow Marchant / The Item Solicitor argues Stinney lawyers using defunct law in their request for retrial South Carolina Third Circuit Solicitor Ernest “Chip” Finney III questions 79-year-old Katherine Stinney Robinson, sister of George Stinney, during the hearing on Jan. 21 at the Sumter County Judicial Center. Posted: Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:00 am BY BRISTOW MARCHANT bmarchant@theitem A judicial action that would set aside George Stinneys murder conviction doesnt apply to the executed teens case, according to arguments filed by the solicitors office in the case Friday. The little-used writ requested by Stinney family attorneys in a court hearing last week cant be used to vacate the boys 1944 trial, argue prosecutors defending the states decision in the case 70 years ago, and the filing even questions if the writ of coram nobis still exists under South Carolina law. Attorneys pushing for a retrial for Stinney asked a judge to consider issuing a coram nobis writ during a hearing at the Sumter County Judicial Center on Jan. 21. Dating back hundreds of years in the English common-law system, coram nobis allows a court to correct errors of fact in previous rulings, usually when no other remedy is available. Its a writ of last resort, said attorney Miller Shealy. A law professor at the Charleston School of Law, Shealy argued for the writ in last weeks hearing on behalf of the law firm Coffey, Chandler and McKenzie. He was familiar with the procedure from his previous work as an assistant solicitor and prosecutor with the U.S. Attorneys office, and decided a decades-old case where the defendant had long since been executed was a perfect fit for the extreme remedy. At the age of 14, George Stinney was convicted of the murders of two young girls in the town of Alcolu and was quickly executed, becoming the youngest person put to death in the U.S. in the 20th century. The case was fraught with racial overtones in the Jim Crow-era South. Stinney was black, and the two murdered girls were white. Other remedies exist nowadays, Shealy said. The Post-Conviction Relief Act is the primary vehicle for dealing with this today, but that didnt exist then. But there are a number of older writs the court can use. At the time, Judge Carmen Mullen gave Third Circuit Solicitor Ernest Chip Finney III 10 days to respond to the coram nobis request. In the brief filed in response, Finneys office argues the very legislation cited by Shealy eliminates the writ itself from South Carolina law. The text of the 1969 Post-Conviction Relief Act declares that the act takes the place of all other common law, statutory or other remedies heretofore available for challenging the validity of the conviction and shall be used exclusively in place of them. In Fridays filing, the solicitor argues the law supersedes any other writs the courts previously issued, no matter how ancient. With the passing of the PCR Act, the South Carolina Legislature effectively eliminated the ability for the Defense to proceed under other Writs, the states brief reads. The Writ being sought by the defense is simply no longer available under South Carolina law. Elsewhere in the brief, the state argues the defense cant ask for a writ of last resort because the defenses own motion cites other avenues for Stinneys conviction to be overturned. Attorneys for the Stinney family initially requested a 29(b) motion which would grant a new trial based on evidence discovered since Stinneys 1944 conviction. The solicitor argues the 29(b) request precludes the court from considering coram nobis at the same time. The response also challenges the defenses standing on several other points, arguing Stinneys ability to seek legal relief ended with his death and that 70 years is an unreasonable amount of time for the original trial to be appealed. Shealy and the other Stinney attorneys will have another 10 days to respond to the brief before the judge considers a ruling. Reach Bristow Marchant at (803) 774-1272.
Posted on: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:15:21 +0000