Acquittal amplifies conflict
Wilson, Jennings fault each other for how case was handled
MONCKS CORNER — The case of an accused murderer acquitted last week after less than 25 minutes of jury deliberation has led to finger-pointing between the two leading political candidates for top prosecutor over how it happened.
Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson and former Berkeley County prosecutor Blair Jennings have differing views over how the "not guilty" verdict was given to Reginald Ricardo Hamilton in the two-year-old case.
The duel has political overtones as both are vying for the GOP nomination for solicitor in the June primary. The crux of their disagreement is Wilson's opinion that Jennings didn't properly handle the case when he was in charge.
The sparks also come as Wilson is scheduled to meet today with Berkeley County Sheriff's Office representatives to discuss how the trial was handled.
Last week, a jury acquitted Hamilton, 21, in the shooting death of rookie taxicab driver Nelcena "Muffin" Jenkins. The Summerville woman, who feared her job, was shot in the back of the head in January 2006 by one of two men who wanted to rob her, authorities contend. The acquittal came after less than two days of testimony in which co-defendant Oliver William Hicks pegged Hamilton as the shooter.
On Monday, Wilson said the previous deputy solicitor in Berkeley County — Jennings — was partially responsible for the evidence prosecutors had to deal with. He had managed the case before Wilson asked him to leave his post in September.
Wilson said that a key witness' testimony wasn't properly secured "and we were left with no leverage when he recanted and refused to testify" as well as that Jennings "cut a deal" with the wrong defendant. She pointed to Hicks, "against whom we had the most evidence."
Hicks was the highlight witness called by Wilson's new lead Berkeley prosecutor, Bryan Alfaro. Hicks testified the two men plotted to lure a cabbie to the Carnes Crossing Mobile Home Park but blamed Hamilton for the shooting.
"These things made a case where there was no forensic evidence a tough case to win," Wilson said Monday. "Because we strongly believed that defendant Hamilton was involved in the murder, we elected to go forward with what we had."
Jennings on Monday said Wilson's comments are off-base, saying she is the one in charge of all management of the office, including how and when to prosecute murder trials in Charleston and Berkeley counties. Holding him responsible five months after he was forced out of his job was grasping at straws, he said.
"She's the solicitor, she's responsible for all the prosecutions," he said. "I don't agree that it's laid at my doorstep.
"At the time I left, no deal was in place with Oliver Hicks," he added.
Wilson was appointed to the solicitor's post last year after the death of Ralph Hoisington. Shortly afterward, she gave Jennings the option of quitting or being fired from his deputy solicitor's post while the political season was approaching.
Berkeley County Sheriff's Maj. Ricky Driggers said Monday that the sit-down with Wilson and her staff, scheduled for today, was to go over what happened at the trial.
"The jury is compelled to render a verdict based on the facts and evidence as presented during the trial," Driggers said. "We feel that there were other witnesses that were available that should have had the opportunity to testify."
Driggers declined to discuss what other witnesses could have been called, saying he wanted to talk with Wilson first. Driggers and sheriff's Capt. Rick Ollic would be at the meeting, Driggers said.
Hicks is expected to enter a plea soon in the case, and is likely to get consideration for his testimony at the trial.
Reach Schuyler Kropf at 937-5551, or skropf@postand courier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 28 comment(s)
Posted by SomeTruthPlease on February 19, 2008 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All the bickering and fingerpointing, at the taxpayers expense, and the only thing that is now obvious: No justice will be carried out while the two of you feud like children, and Muffin's murderer walked because your case was a MESS. Blaming Mr. Jennings is completely inappropriate at this point. But then, anyone could have seen that coming when they announced the verdict.
Posted by OhGee on February 19, 2008 at 4:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Said PalmettoMan....I'm with you ...Blair Jennings has my vote also
Posted by moonpie on February 19, 2008 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"She's the solicitor, she's responsible for all the prosecutions in Berkeley and Charleston county" PERIOD!
The police did their job.
I agree with Mr Jennings, 5 months after he was let go and she is blaming him? This will be the shortest any solictor has ever served in office.
Ms Wilson, Your one and done baby, one and done!
Posted by MotoryachtSoCo on February 19, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Scarlett Wilson like other troubled pop celebrities needs a full time handler.
How many people knew of Ralph Hoisington before his death? Scarlett Wilson has received more press coverage in 5 months than Ralph Hoisington did in his entire career, serving the law abiding citizens Charleston.
The Wilson train wreck just gets more bizarre every day.
More commentary and the voting continues at:
http://cedarposts.blogspot.com/
Posted by SCgal on February 19, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wilson said the previous deputy solicitor in Berkeley County — Jennings — was partially responsible for the evidence prosecutors had to deal with.
Miss Wilson's office had 5 months of no Jennings working on the case to secure justice for this victim and her family~ blame Jennings for this~~
Accepting the previous solicitor's deal for the MTP teens as the only possible solution~
Asst. solicitor "showing his gun" because he saw one first and didn't bother reporting a woman showing a gun while traveling down a bridge during rush hour traffic ~~
What's next?
Posted by realityck on February 19, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This case is about competency, not party affiliation. With all due respect John Q, there is enough hypocrisy to go around regardless of what political party you belong to.
With regards to Wilson meeting with Driggers and Ollic, she is definately in "enemy" territory seeing as how Driggers is a big supporter of Jennings.
Seems to me in this case, both Jennings and Wilson have egg on their face.
The larger question at hand is, do we really win with either one of them?
Posted by SickAndTiredInSC on February 19, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe it's time to start a Draft Schwacke for Solicitor movement. He's the last true Solicitor we've had.
Posted by kiteboarder on February 19, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's unfortunate television shows like CSI have turned fantasy into reality. Jurors now base what they see on CSI in a courtroom. One thing I don't understand is why Blair Jennings cut a deal with the what appears to be the wrong person. Does Blair always try to take the easy way. One thing about thugs and street criminals... they will eventually be behind bars. Solcitor Wilson thank you for your service. I'm more impressed everyday as I learn how you run the solicitors office... you have my vote!
Posted by MotoryachtSoCo on February 19, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can only hope the Blair Jennings will continue to take the high road as I think most of us are tired of nasty politics.
If you haven't read about Jimmie Snipes the NAVY vet who was at Iwo Jima during WWII you should it will restore your faith in mankind.
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/...
Posted by snookie on February 19, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe the last trial that Mr. Jennings prosecuted in Berkeley he had a jury return a verdict of GUILTY OF MURDER against two people and another GUILTY for assessory on another person. Before he was fired by Solicitor Wilson I guess she had faith in his abilities to try a murder case as she choose to "sit" with Mr. Jennings on those cases. Or I guess she had faith in his ability to give her good press at the time. She mentions in this article "we" but I did not hear that she actually choose to "sit" with the prosecutor she replaced Jennings with when she fired him. I guess she did not have faith in this prosecutor as apparently it was his first muder trial and it was not in her best interest to choose to "sit" with him on this murder trial. On this case she finds it convenient to blame Jennings for its outcome. I understand why Major Driggers and many others in law enforcement are supporting Blair Jennings as it appears that he did his job well for many years. I am voting for Blair Jennings on June 10th and I hope many of you will as well.
Posted by lillycollette on February 19, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The topic of Ms. Wilson certainly has produced a lot of study material for psychology majors—especially those interested in conduct disorders. However, it fails to address the more serious issues that concern the voting public.
Posted by lillycollette on February 19, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Jennings and Ms. Wilson are competing for the republican ticket. Does anyone even know who the democrats are going to run?
Posted by walleyedwoman1215 on February 19, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Palmettoman, I do not care is Scarlett Wilson is single, married, a card-carrying member of GLADD or Lesbians 'R' Us, as long as she prosecutes criminals to the best of her ability. What in flaming hell does being single and childless have to do with her professionalism??????
And no, she does not have my vote. I just couldn't let that pass. Have a nice evening.
Posted by MotoryachtSoCo on February 19, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
She's a lesbian? Mo way?
I think PM was pointing out that not being a parent is why she had no compasion for the Wando Kids.
He didn't mean to start the mommie war.
The votes are still close 32 Rocks - 42 Su*ks
with 4 who cares and 4 who's Scarlett?
Its real quiet with only two Wilson supporters willing to stick their heads out on this one.
Posted by onlytheway on February 19, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok. I Motor I'll bite.
We see again.. Ms. Wilson can not take responsibility for anything. She is either passing the buck, ducking the buck or tale between her legs shrinking the buck. Why is Scarlett Wilson in this important position. She's playing house with peoples lifes. Clean up your resume Scarlett. Maybe you could get a real job, on say, oh Law and Order?
I don't care if shes lesbian either, she just does NOT get my vote. Not now, not ever. As someone else said. Ms. Wilson, you are one and done.
Posted by onlytheway on February 19, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And a serious embarrassment to the Republican party.
Posted by miked1199 on February 19, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All the complaining about 2 politicians. But what about what the jury decided? The defense proved there case. And the jury found that there was not enough proof to convict. And the plea agreement, Most cases are plea agreements not trials. And why , because most people do not want to be on a jury. And most who get stuck on one just find the person guilty and get out of there as its a waste of there time. But this jury looked at the truth and facts. A rare moment in history.After being on 4 different jury trials i have seen every time the same thing , they are guilty lets go,the police dont arrest honest people. Well yes they do , and then some fight but most take the plea agreement its the cheap way out. But scarlett Wilson needs to take the blame as she was in charge and the blame stops there. Blair Jennings under his former boss pleaed out people often as he could so you didnt have to have jury duty so thank him for freeing up your time. Lets never forget Jason Mathews and Mary french and the Cottageville Police officer one went to jail and the other went free by a plea agreement
Posted by onlytheway on February 19, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Miked, you have valid points. One of the most valid points you made is "Scarlett Wilson needs to take the blame, as she was in charge and the blame stops there".
The only consistant thing that Ms. Wilson does is simply blaming everyone else and talking out of both sides of her mouth. Shameful.
OH , and lest we forget... anything well done from her office, she is quick to take THAT responsibility, jump on camera, make sure she is available for interviews, always be at the right places where she knows the tv cameras will be. Scarlett, smile... this ones for you...
Go Blair!
Posted by taximannewyork on February 19, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charleston is a funny city,but when is the local government going to help people who work all night in a taxicab picking up people we don't even know,sitting behind people who might hurt us,the only thing the local police department knows how to do is harrass the people who work with them all night long,do the job that noone else wants.
They only thing I see the local police do is write tickets on the drivers,local government put more restrictions on us and try to find a way tgo make another $$.
The reason Muffin died was because the person who was suppose to pick those people up did not,so she volunteered
to get them,she did not know them.
Lets forget about the prosecutors right now and lets concentrate how we can get to the bottom of who killed her and why.
And lets make sure it does not happen again with more support from the local government.
Posted by JohnS on February 19, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do they need to point fingers. They should not be supprised. They knew this was a shakey case and should have had more work done before a move was made to take this to trial at this point. Now these thugs can walk free. Cab driving is a tough job. I feel for the victims family.
Posted by SCgal on February 20, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
IMO, this is getting way out of hand~ murders walking free and TEENS being locked away for 10 yrs~ one end of the spectrum to the other~
Rolling forward, in 10 yrs we will have the product of the Solicitor's decision back in our community~ 2 TEENS who have been incarcerated, exposed, and experienced real hardened crminals, murders, rapist up front and in person day in and day out during some of their formative years!
This is not justice for any involved in our community in my honest opinion!
Posted by onlytheway on February 20, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
THAT is exactly what I have been saying SCgal! Is anyone else cognizant of the fact that these boys will get out of prison, as men, and I am sure very bitter men at that. What are we teaching them? I don't care what anyone else says, these are not adults! They are children.
Posted by lillycollette on February 20, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://archives.postandcourier.com/archi...
"Solicitor Ralph Hoisington knows what it's like to have a pistol shoved in your face while someone demands your cash. He was a young man when some punk kid robbed him that way.
Hoisington is dying of cancer. But he wants to make sure justice is done. He makes an offer to Sean and Mike: plead guilty and serve 10 years in prison. Sean's family is floored. They were holding onto hope that prosecutors would try Sean as a juvenile. Hoisington holds firm."
Posted by lillycollette on February 20, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://archives.postandcourier.com/archi...
Outside the courtroom, Shevlino said Wilson's decision to treat his son as an adult was politically motivated because of her Republican candidacy for the solicitor's post in the June primary.
--"Shevlino's attorney, Frank Cornely, said he didn't think Wilson was trying to make an example of the teenager. Instead, he shifted the discussion to state lawmakers, who have enacted hard-line mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes."--
Posted by lillycollette on February 20, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://archives.postandcourier.com/archi...
But Peter Shevlino, Sean's father, said they have no intention of taking that risk with the odds stacked so heavily against them. "There's no reason to go to trial," he said.
Peter Shevlino said his family entered the courtroom Friday thinking negotiations were still under way. They were caught off guard when prosecutors decided against continuing the talks and Circuit Judge Deadra Jefferson denied the family's request for a continuance, he said.
… Sean's mother, April Shevlino's work -- organizing casino excursions.
Posted by lillycollette on February 20, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://archives.postandcourier.com/archi...
“Family and friends of two Mount Pleasant teens incarcerated for armed robbery want to change South Carolina's sentencing laws to keep youths who commit serious crimes from being sent to adult prisons. -- South Carolina lawmakers -- have shown little inclination to tinker with the state's juvenile sentencing laws. The law states that a 16-year-old charged with a crime that would draw a sentence of 15 years or more for adults automatically gets charged in adult court. “
"Jennings acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but said -- he didn't know enough details about the case -- to say what sentence would have been appropriate."
Posted by walleyedwoman1215 on February 20, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
{Coming up for air...}
To clarify: I don't think Scarlett Wilson is a lesbian, nor do I care. But to see a poster impugn her as, quote, "single and childless??????" as if that were a liability or worse yet, a character flaw, got my goat. When was the last time you heard/saw a high-profile, educated man described in those terms?
Male or female, you can either do your job or not. Marital/offspring status is SOOOOO beside the point.
Okay, rant over. Whew, I'm outta breath and my fingertips are throbbing!! :-)
Posted by SCgal on February 21, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Solicitor Ralph Hoisington is resting in peace~ but no one could have known what state of mind he was in due to his health, nor what is intentions were or about~ and that is not being disrespectful to him at all~~~
And after more thought, Mike Anthony, the WATCH OUT only needs help, guidance, counseling no doubt, BUT no, the decision was made to lock him AWAY for 24/7 x 10 yrs~
So, what do you think he will be in 10 yrs upon release? A teen whose mind was not developmentally where it needed to be and look who his mentors are now!!
10 yrs 24/7 is NOT where the teens need to be AND the current solicitor had the authority to change what the first had thought through and DID not!!!
So in tens yrs, be thanking "someone" for those 2 being released back into our society~ products of a LEVEL 3 ADULT prison population!!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/seans-b...