Charleston Supreme Court Hears Clinton Folkes Case: A Life Hanging in Balance
Charleston, South Carolina, was abuzz with legal anticipation on September 11, 2024, as the South Carolina Supreme Court convened at The Citadel to hear the oral arguments in the case of Clinton Folkes, a man fighting for his life after spending 16 years behind bars. The courtroom was filled with a mix of lawyers, judges, and curious spectators—each eager to see how a single word could influence a life-long sentence.
Background of the Case
Clinton Folkes was convicted in 2008 for assault and battery with intent to kill, following a terrifying incident where he slashed a man’s neck with a knife during a drunken fight over a hat. Although the victim survived, Folkes’s intention was called into question when he was reported to have said he “should have” killed him. This incident led to a life sentence under South Carolina’s stringent “three strikes law,” due to Folkes’s two prior convictions for similar crimes.
During his appeal process, Folkes faced a significant roadblock. His previous attorney, Celia Robinson, left the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense without notifying either Folkes or the court, leading to a series of unfortunate miscommunications. After his appeal was denied, Folkes received a letter falsely indicating he had no further options. This decision set off a whirlwind of legal battles and appeals, ultimately culminating in the current hearing.
Key Legal Arguments
The hearing had two main focal points: the alleged abandonment during the appeal process and errors in jury instructions during the original trial. defense attorney Jason Scott Luck represented Folkes and focused on the attorney’s failure, claiming that Folkes was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. “He was abandoned during a critical stage,” Luck argued, emphasizing that the misleading letter Folkes received caused him to miss out on appealing his case further to the state Supreme Court.
The state, represented by Assistant Attorney General Josh Edwards, countered that Folkes’s appeals had already reached a conclusion at various levels, including the federal court, which had ultimately ruled against him. Edwards pointed out that malice, while a component of attempted murder, was not strictly necessary for other charges like assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. “Malice can be present, but it is not an element of the crime,” Edwards stated emphatically.
The Courtroom Dynamics
Throughout the arguments, the justices posed challenging questions. Justice George C. James expressed skepticism about the defense’s claim that there was insufficient evidence of Folkes’s intent to kill. “It’s not overwhelming to say, ‘I’m going to kill you,’ slice your neck, and then say, ‘I wish I’d killed you?'” he remarked. Luck countered, insisting that the altercation stemmed from a petty dispute that escalated beyond control, which might not suggest overwhelming malice.
Luck’s assertions raised the eyebrows of many in the gallery. “Maybe he just didn’t like the Yankees,” Luck joked, referencing the hat that sparked the conflict. The levity, however, was juxtaposed against the serious implications of this case—after all, Folkes’s future hinged on the interpretations of legalese and jury instructions made over a decade ago.
Implications and Next Steps
The dynamics of this case extend far beyond the courtroom. As Larry Cunningham, dean of the Charleston School of Law, observed, it presents a critical examination of judicial processes and legal rights. “There are actual human beings involved… this is not really an academic question,” Cunningham reminded those following the proceedings.
As Charleston prepares for possible tropical weather with showers earlier in the day and cloudy conditions moving in, attention remains fixed on the courtroom drama. With a high of 75°F and winds gusting from the northwest, the atmosphere outside stands in contrast to the storm brewing legally for Clinton Folkes. Will the court’s decision change the course of his life forever, or will the current trajectory remain intact, sealing his fate?
The South Carolina Supreme Court is now faced with the challenging task of deliberating over Folkes’s appeal, a decision that could turn on the narrowest of legal interpretations. In the coming weeks, all eyes will be on Charleston as we await their ruling.
