First things first: here's a link to the the actual order from Judge Manning.
After reading the order, it seems like the most important line is:
"Despite multiple requests, the Attorney General has failed to offer or present to the Court any evidence or allegations which are criminal in nature. Therefore, the Court is left only with uncontroverted allegations of ethics violations propounded by a citizen's letter."
There seems to be some serious disagreement about the factual basis of whether there is a crime here. Just from reading the text of this order, it's clear that Judge Manning doesn't see any "evidence or allegations which are criminal in nature". That seems to be the foundation of the rest of his ruling.
If you assume there are no criminal allegations, then I kind of see Judge Manning's point here. The Attorney General is the top prosecuting officer in South Carolina, and he can prosecute criminal actions on behalf of the state as he sees fit.
However, allegations of a legislator's ethics violations aren't necessarily a criminal action. That's not to say that an ethics violation is a good thing - it just may not be a crime. It's an ethics complaint, and the Supreme Court has ruled that Ethics Committees have the exclusive authority to hear alleged ethics violations.
I agree with the general idea that before the Attorney General should get involved, there has to be a crime, an indictment, or something more than simply an ethics complaint.
What is troubling to me is that this order seems to preclude the Attorney General from even investigating the matter until the Ethics Committee makes some sort of final disposition. Judge Manning notes that the Ethics Committee is required to refer allegations of criminal conduct to the Attorney General. It seems he's saying the law allows the Attorney General should get a crack at investigating the matter, but only after it's been referred out to him by the Ethics Committee.
To me, if Attorney General Wilson has something that he can charge Harrell with that isn't an ethics violation, he can do that, and this order won't preclude him from going forward.
If you assume there are no criminal allegations, then I kind of see Judge Manning's point here. The Attorney General is the top prosecuting officer in South Carolina, and he can prosecute criminal actions on behalf of the state as he sees fit.
However, allegations of a legislator's ethics violations aren't necessarily a criminal action. That's not to say that an ethics violation is a good thing - it just may not be a crime. It's an ethics complaint, and the Supreme Court has ruled that Ethics Committees have the exclusive authority to hear alleged ethics violations.
I agree with the general idea that before the Attorney General should get involved, there has to be a crime, an indictment, or something more than simply an ethics complaint.
What is troubling to me is that this order seems to preclude the Attorney General from even investigating the matter until the Ethics Committee makes some sort of final disposition. Judge Manning notes that the Ethics Committee is required to refer allegations of criminal conduct to the Attorney General. It seems he's saying the law allows the Attorney General should get a crack at investigating the matter, but only after it's been referred out to him by the Ethics Committee.
To me, if Attorney General Wilson has something that he can charge Harrell with that isn't an ethics violation, he can do that, and this order won't preclude him from going forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment