Defense seeks dismissal over investigative issues

A case involving child negligence has been remanded back to law enforcement for further investigation per a judge’s order after the defense alleged a lack of investigative procedure.

On June 26, the Barnwell Police Department (BPD) was called in response to an unattended child outside of Walmart in Barnwell. Law enforcement later learned the child was five years old and that of Joseph and Cristen Seigler.

According to the incident report, the responding officer “immediately identified the juvenile and knew who the parents were.”

The Seiglers were escorted to the store by BPD officers individually, according to the defense during the August 21 court proceedings.

The defense explained that the child had wandered away from playing with her two older siblings outside the family's apartment located behind Walmart.

According to the defense, a preliminary hearing was held for Joseph on August 14. A preliminary hearing for Cristen has not yet been held.

During the August 21 proceedings, the defense referenced Rule 5 of the S.C. Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady vs. Maryland – a 1963 Supreme Court order requiring prosecutors to disclose material and exculpatory evidence (evidence favorable to the defendant) to the defense.

This order requires law enforcement to turn over the case and all related documents to the solicitor’s office within 30 days. If 30 days pass, the solicitor can dismiss the case.

“The order says that if the solicitor has not received adequate discovery from law enforcement or if the solicitor has not been able to gather enough information concerning the validity of the charge, the solicitor may return the case to law enforcement for further investigation,” said the defense.

In the Seiglers’ case, law enforcement did provide an incident report to both the solicitor's office and defense attorneys.

According to the defense, the incident report lists seven officers who were involved in the case. The People-Sentinel received a redacted copy of the incident report and are not able to confirm how many officers responded to the scene outside of what the defense explained. Only four supplemental reports from officers were included in the discovery according to the defense, as well as a later report from BPD Chief Lamaz Robinson, making five in total.

“At the preliminary hearing last week, we learned there was another supplement done by the police chief,” said the defense. “That supplement had been done for this incident that had been done on June 26, that report was done on August 14.”

According to Chief Robinson, this report was submitted over a month after the incident because Lieutenant Shawn Howze, who was working on the case, was preparing to leave BPD to serve in a position with the Allendale Police Department.

According to the defense, they were not aware of this supplemental report made by Chief Robinson until the August 14 preliminary hearing. The defense also stated there were testimonies given regarding statements made by Joseph to law enforcement at the hearing, but not any body camera footage to corroborate.

“Chief Robinson said that he does not wear a body cam, so we don’t have any video of the statements,” said the defense.

Chief Robinson confirmed to The People-Sentinel he does not wear a body camera daily, and lieutenants, chiefs, and investigators commonly do not.

According to the BPD’s body camera policy, all sworn personnel are issued a body camera.

The policy states, “Police personnel are required to wear their issued body-worn camera while on-duty and while performing any uniformed law enforcement functions.”

According to Chief Robinson, he responded because of his proximity to the location of the incident.

The defense explained “we have not been provided with any body cam video” at this time.

“We have not been provided with any body cam footage where Mr. and Mrs. Seigler were actually arrested,” said the defense.

“Our investigator from the solicitor’s office confirmed with the Barnwell Police Department that there were no body cameras running during the incident,” said the solicitor.

However, this changed when court was in session on August 21.

Right before the case was seen by presiding Judge Daniel Coble during court, a BPD officer came and explained he was present at the scene and was wearing a body camera. However, this footage has yet to be obtained by attorneys.

According to BPD’s body camera policy, “it is the responsibility of the officer to ensure that recordings from body-worn cameras that are determined to be evidentiary value are downloaded onto a digital media storage device and attached to the incident or supplement report in any criminal proceeding.”

BPD’s body camera policy even references Brady vs. Maryland stating: “When there is any indication that a recording may contain ‘Brady’ material, that recording must be saved and downloaded to Prodocs or to a digital media storage device and provided to prosecutors assigned to the case.”

This is not the first time the Seiglers’ child has wandered away from their home. A previous incident occurred two days prior where the child was found in front of Walmart while looking for a neighbor’s dog. Body camera footage was obtained for this event, but not the June 26 event, according to the defense.

The solicitor’s investigator also looked into obtaining the security footage from Walmart. However, Walmart no longer has access to the footage and is unable to provide it. BPD officers did not obtain the video during their initial investigation.

The footage from Walmart was sought after to determine how long the child had been in front of the store – according to the defense, Chief Robinson’s supplemental report stated the child had been there for 30 minutes.

“That is information that the police should have obtained during their initial investigation of this case,” said the defense.

The argument being made by the defense was not that the solicitor did not provide all the information in their possession, but that law enforcement failed to provide enough information in the discovery. A motion for the discovery was filed on July 30.

“Despite some of the inadequacies of this case, that I can and certainly will provide everything in my possession to Ms. Alves (public defender) and certainly would have done so sooner if I had not gotten a different answer from the police department today than I got two or three weeks ago when I first asked,” said the solicitor.

The defense first asked the judge to grant the solicitor's office to dismiss the case as a result of “law enforcement’s failure to comply with the discovery rules,” said the defense.

The solicitor's office recommended the case be remanded back to law enforcement for further investigation.

Per Brady vs. Maryland, the solicitor can send a case back to law enforcement to continue investigating, “but in this situation some of the information which they should have obtained originally is no longer available,” said the defense.

“I will agree with Ms. Avles and Mr. Hayes (defense attorneys) that the investigation here is woefully inadequate and the solicitor's investigator was sent to BPD and to Walmart to try to get all the videos,” said the solicitor.

“Rather than such an extreme remedy of dismissal, I would ask to remand the case to law enforcement for investigation, let them provide us with every single thing that they do have,” said the solicitor.

Judge Coble ultimately remanded the case back to BPD to continue their investigation and present their findings within 30 days. After 30 days, the case can come back before the court.

“Law enforcement is compelled to turn over any and everything in their possession related to this case,” said Judge Coble.