holding Geer failed to establish a Brady violation "such that there is a reasonable probability the result of her trial would have been different had she received the evidence earlier" because "[t]he audiotape was not played during trial nor did Geer attempt to use its contents to establish a defense"
How later courts described this case
- holding Geer failed to establish a Brady violation "such that there is a reasonable probability the result of her trial would have been different had she received the evidence earlier" because "[t]he audiotape was not played during trial nor did Geer attempt to use its contents to establish a defense"
- finding that to establish a claim for selective prosecution, a defendant must demonstrate (1) he was singled out for prosecution while others who were similarly situated were not prosecuted for similar conduct and (2) the discriminatory selection for prosecution was based on an impermissible ground
- finding no due process violation when the State's late disclosure of the evidence did not impair the accused's ability to present a defense
- “In our criminal justice system, the Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute. [S]o long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” (alteration by court) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LOCKEMY, J.
I agree with the majority that the State’s exercise of its prosecutorial discretion is “troublesome” to say the least. However, I respectfully dissent because I believe the search of Geer’s mouth violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against an unreasonable search. The only fact available to Officer Byrd indicating a search of Geer’s mouth would reveal relevant material evidence was Parks’s mere assertion that Geer had placed drugs in her mouth, which he made after previously lying to Officer Byrd. I would hold this sole assertion from someone with doubtful veracity is insufficient to establish a clear indication drugs would be found in Geer’s orifice to support a search. U.S. Const, amend. IV; S.C. Const, art. I, § 10; see State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454, 459 , 462 S.E.2d 279, 282 (1995) (finding a clear indication drugs would be found in Dupree’s mouth existed where officers observed Dupree standing in a laundromat known for drug activity, *201 holding what the they believed were drugs, placing his hand to his mouth and attempting to leave through the back door). As in Dwpree, I believe more facts are necessary to establish a clear indication.