U.S. v. Williams. (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-016-11, 34 pp.) (Gregory, J.) No. 09-4049, Jan. 21, 2011; USDC at Spartanburg (Herlong, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Admission of a defense lawyer’s stipulation to ...

Tagged with: Constitutional Criminal Practice

Banks v. St. Matthew Baptist Church. The plaintiff-trustees allege the defendant-pastor falsely told the defendant-church's congregation that the trustees had deceived him and mismanaged the church's . . .

Tagged with: Charleston County Constitutional Defamation First Amendment Tort/Negligence

City of Rock Hill v. Harris. Even though the S.C. Constitution gives 18-year-olds all the rights of adults, reserving to the General Assembly the right to regulate the "sale" of alcohol to those under 21, we construe "sale" broadly. The . . .

Tagged with: Alcohol Constitutional Possession York County

Jackson v. Sanford. The legislature identified several sources of funds for its allocations to the Budget and Control Board. When the governor vetoed only one source - the general fund - he was . . .

Tagged with: Constitutional

Glassman v. Arlington County, Va. (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-004-11, 17 pp.) (Niemeyer, J.) No. 10-1496, Dec. 23, 2010; USDC at Alexandria, Va. (Hilton, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: The 4th Circuit affirms ...

Tagged with: Constitutional Establishment Clause Real Property

State v. Johnson. A non-testifying co-defendant's pretrial confession was redacted to remove mention of an unidentified person called "Knock." When an investigator admitted on direct examination that the same conversation that led to the co-defendant's . . .

Tagged with: Constitutional Criminal Practice

City of Greenville v. Bane. Greenville Code § 24-32(3) makes it unlawful to "molest or disturb any person by the making of obscene remarks or such remarks and actions as would humiliate, insult, or scare any person. ..." Since the words that humiliate, insult or scare one person may not have the same effect on another person, people of common intelligence may be forced to guess at the provision's meaning and may differ as to its applicability. We find subsection (3) is unconstitutional because it is facially vague. The city failed to prove defendant violated any other subsection of § 24-32, so the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict as to the other subsections. We reverse defendant's conviction.

Tagged with: Constitutional Greenville County Municipal Ordinance

The S.C. Supreme Court struck down a Greenville city prohibition against comments that "humiliate," "insult" and "scare" people, ruling it was too vague to be enforced and overturning the conviction of a man arrested while preaching against homosexuality. Samuel Harms (pictured), a Greenville lawyer who represented Bane, said the police officer testified that she arrested Bane because he was preaching against homosexuality. The officer testified she spent about an hour telling the preacher "what he could say under the city code and what he could not say under the city code," Harms said. "This is nothing more than the city of Greenville taking sides in the cultural debate over homosexuality, and they've sided with the homosexuals and they want to shut down any Christians that want to preach that homosexuality is a sin," Harms said.

Tagged with: Constitutional Ordinance