Legal Opinion

State v. Sterling

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 5, 2008No. 26479PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice TOAL:

In this case, the State appeals from the trial court’s order granting Respondent Jack Sterling’s motion to exclude the testimony of four of the State’s witnesses. We reverse.

Factual/Procedural Background

In June 2003, following the financial collapse of Carolina Investors, Inc. (“Cl”) and HomeGold Financial, Inc. (“HGF”), the grand jury initiated an investigation into the collapse. Subsequently, after SLED requested an interview with Respondent, 1 Respondent contacted attorney Bill Bannister for legal advice. On July 30, 2003, Bannister accompanied Respondent to the SLED…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Michigan v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Mickens v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Lomax v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2008
  2. Gonzales v. StateCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API