Equal strikes bill misses the cut

Sometime during the next couple of weeks, Seventh Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy is going to have to sit at a table with a rape victim and explain why the person accused of assaulting her gets twice as many chances as the prosecution to impact the jury that ultimately decides his fate.

Under South Carolina law, a defense attorney gets 10 jury strikes, while the prosecution gets only five. A bill that would have put them on equal footing stalled by a 3-2 vote in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee Thursday.

"It's true enough that it's the defendant's day in court," Gowdy said. "But it's also the victim's day, and nobody who is opposed to this bill has ever explained to me why it's fair to give the defendant twice as many opportunities to influence the jury."

Spartanburg Republican Sens. John Hawkins, the chairman of the subcommittee, and Jim Ritchie cast votes in favor of sending the bill to the full Judiciary Committee.

"Solicitors statewide have said they have a hard time explaining to victims why they don't have the same number of strikes as a defense attorney," Hawkins said. "It creates the appearance that the playing field is not level."

Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, and Sen. Robert Waldrep, R-Anderson, voted to carry over the bill. Hutto and Waldrep are attorneys, as are Hawkins and Reese.

Tenth Circuit Solicitor Druanne White said she was dumbfounded at the lack of support for the bill, especially since the state's 16 solicitors have made it their top priority.

"It's astounding that our state is the only state that allows the defense to stack the jury against rape, robbery and murder victims," White said. "It's really uncomfortable when you get into jury selection and the parent of a sex abuse victim asks why the defense is being allowed to stack the jury. And the only answer is because the state Legislature allows them to."

Hutto said he doesn't have a problem with giving prose-cutors equal strikes, as long as both sides have equal information about prospective jurors. He said the subcom-mittee has proposed allowing the lawyers to ask questions of the panel.

"That's the way it's done in most states," he said. "But the judges have said they want to be the ones asking the questions. The problem with that is that they might not ask the same questions we would ask."

Hutto said he's hopeful the language can be worked out and the subcommittee can reconsider the bill next week.

Robert W. Dalton can be reached at 562-7274 or bob.dalton@shj.com.

More Headlines