|
Magistrate’s
Office case spurs series of questions
Chief
judge refuses to talk about probe
April
13, 2006
By VIC
MacDONALD
Index-Journal
regional editor
More
questions than answers emerged Wednesday in the wake of an
investigation into the financial dealings of the Greenwood
County Magistrate’s Office that led to a clerk’s
arrest.
Authorities announced this week that Toni Cole, of
Greenwood, was charged with grand larceny in connection with
the alleged theft of more than $22,000 in public funds. She
was released on bond following a hearing in Abbeville.
More
charges are possible, authorities said, but it was impossible
to determine Cole’s status with the Magistrate’s Office or
whether any internal changes are being made with the way money
is accounted for in the office in order to restore the public
trust.
“We are not saying anything other than it’s under
investigation,” County Manager Jim Kier said. “That’s
all.”
Chief Magistrate Joe Cantrell refused to take a
reporter’s phone call, having the secretary instead advise the
caller to contact the county manager.
Although it occupies
a courtroom and a suite of offices on the first floor of the
county courthouse, the Magistrate’s Office is something of an
island unto itself. It is not under jurisdiction of the
Greenwood County government.
The Greenwood County Web site,
under “Magistrate,” says that “all magistrates are under the
guidance of South Carolina Court Administration.” In addition
to Cantrell, the Magistrate’s Office is manned by Associate
Chief Magistrate Bart S. McGuire, Magistrate Lasonia Williams,
two part-time magistrates and an unspecified number of
clerks.
“We’re going to count every dime that’s over
there,” Sheriff Dan Wideman said of the
still-under-investigation Magistrate’s Office.
“We’re
conducting a forensic audit that will account for every dime,”
Wideman said Two sheriff’s office investigators and two agents
from the State Law Enforcement Division are on the probe full
time, he said.
Wideman said he is surprised that this is
the second case of missing public money in Greenwood in a
week.
Authorities said the Magistrate’s Office case is
unrelated to a SLED charge against a Greenwood Municipal Court
employee for embezzlement of public funds less than $5,000. In
that case, the employee was placed on paid administrative
leave during the course of the investigation, according to
Greenwood City Manager Steve Brown.
The sheriff said he
didn’t know to what circumstances the two charges of theft of
public funds could be attributed.
Eighth Circuit Solicitor
Jerry Peace also said he was surprised to hear of the
allegation. “We all know Toni and think a lot of her,” he
said. “It’s a big surprise — one in the city, and now this. We
had one in Newberry a couple of years ago. You work with these
folks and you don’t expect them to be charged like
this.”
Because of the close working relationship between
his office and the Magistrate’s Office, Peace said he might
refer the case for prosecution to the South Carolina Attorney
General’s Office. The case will come to Peace’s office from
the sheriff’s office within 21 days of the arrest, and
investigators will provide Peace a file of evidence to
examine.
Peace said he will make his decision on whether to
prosecute the case or refer it to the attorney general after
reviewing that file.
Even if the attorney general’s
criminal prosecution division accepts jurisdiction, all court
proceedings related to Cole’s case should remain in Greenwood,
Peace said.
Wideman said he was notified of a $1,000
missing-money situation in the Magistrate’s Office in 2004 and
another $2,500 missing-money situation this year. When a new
allegation involving about $5,000 arose last week, Wideman
launched the investigation.
“We’re going to find out where
all the money went and what’s missing,” he said.
No one
would discuss Cantrell’s role in monitoring the financial
functions in the office he serves as chief administrative
officer, or his level of cooperation with the ongoing
investigation.
Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Mike Frederick
said late Tuesday night that “we went over and demanded the
accounting and financial records from the Magistrate’s Office,
and Cantrell called Court Administration to find out what he
could and could not legally release.
“They called him back
very shortly and told him to produce whatever documents we
demanded, and he did so.”
According to the Greenwood County
Web site, magistrates issue warrants, set bonds and hear
criminal, traffic and civil cases, as well as conduct
preliminary hearings and transfer cases for the county. Their
criminal jurisdiction is for cases with a maximum fine of $500
and/or 30 days in jail.
About 300 magistrates serve in
South Carolina, according to the South Carolina Judicial
Department’s Web site. Magistrates also have some civil
jurisdiction when the amount in controversy does not exceed
$7,500.
They are named to four-year terms by the governor
on advice and consent of the state Senate.
They have to
pass a certification examination within a year of their
appointment, and they are subject to rules of conduct that
also bind circuit court judges.
Joel Sawyer, spokesman for
Gov. Mark Sanford, said the governor’s role with magistrates
is mostly ceremonial in making the appointments recommended by
the state Senate.
“We basically submit the paperwork after
the Senate has submitted somebody,” he said.
If Peace asks
the Attorney General’s Office to handle prosecution of Cole,
and any other suspects or charges generated from the ongoing
investigation, it will be one of many requests the office gets
from across the state, said Mark Plowden, spokesman for
Attorney General Henry McMaster.
“It’s one that is quite
common week in and week out. In this case, it could be at
least a perceived conflict of interest,” he said. “The
solicitor would seek assistance of the attorney general or may
request that the attorney general handle the case. It could be
a perceived conflict of interest or a real conflict.”
More
often than not, Plowden said, the Attorney General’s Office
would try the case with its own resources. But there is a
method in which the case could be handled by prosecutors in a
circuit with similarities in terms of size and staffing to the
circuit from which the case is transferred.
The other
prosecutors could receive an investigative file from the
sheriff’s office or SLED, and if they have additional
questions they can and often do ask for a further
investigation, Plowden said.
“In that case, you would see
attorneys from our office in your town. We’re all over the
state on any given day,” he said. “It’s a very routine
practice and one that’s worked well in the past.”
| |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
.jpg)
