Dayne Phillips has made the local news for his involvement in several high-profile cases. Please review some of our recent coverage by the press in South Carolina.
*Please review disclaimer at the bottom of the page.
- wistv.com, Man serving life for killing pizza delivery driver to get new trial
- Bluffton Today, Supreme Court hears appeal from apartment shooting
- The Beaufort Gazette, SC Supreme Court to consider appeal of life sentence for Bluffton shooter
Phillip Bantz, Law Makers Mull Big Changes to Public Records Laws, SC Lawyers Weekly, February 28, 2017 (log-in required).
“But Dayne Phillips, a criminal defense lawyer in Lexington, said the bill “bill denies pro se litigants the ability to adequately investigate constitutional violations, and for some, to prove their innocence in wrongful conviction cases.” “It is undisputed that inmates are citizens with limited rights,” he added. “The purpose of the [FOIA] is to have freedom of public information, not to restrict access to a select group of citizens who need it most. The General Assembly originally found that this access ‘is vital in a democratic society’ and there is no rational basis to limit it.”
Phillip Bantz, Knock, Knock, Block, SC Lawyers Weekly, July 14, 2015 (log in required)
An in-depth article about South Carolina's Supreme Court ruling which limits police officer access to look inside the homes of criminal suspects.
“Dayne Phillips, an assistant public defender in Lexington who argued on appeal for the defendant in this case, Rushan Counts, wrote in an email that the decision ‘attempts to prevent police officers from going on a ‘fishing expedition’ to circumvent the warrant requirement.’”
“He added, ‘If the standard established in Counts is followed by law enforcement and subsequently enforced by the courts, then it should have a dramatic impact on criminal investigations based on anonymous/uncorroborated tips.’”
“Phillips added that Stoughton’s ‘public policy concern is substantially outweighed by the heightened protection provided by our state’s constitutional right to privacy.’”
Phillip Bantz, Instruction on Victim Testimony Unconstitutional, SC Lawyers Weekly, July 14, 2015 (log in required)
Attorney Dayne Phillips provided the following quotes for the article:
‘“This is a big win for the criminal defense bar,’ said Dayne Phillips, a former assistant appellate defender and assistant public defender who practices at The Michael Jeffcoat Firm in Lexington.”
“There are an unspeakable number of people who have been convicted under this charge.”
“Phillips, the Lexington criminal defense lawyer, suggested that the number would be ‘staggering.’”
David Donovan, Little Debbie Ruling Not So Sweet for State, SC Lawyers Weekly, November 14, 2014 (log-in required)
Holding: South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed and remanded my client’s convictions for murder and armed robbery (New Trial).
Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court denied Jackson’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation when the trial court improperly admitted he redacted statements of his non-testifying codefendant.
Phillip Bantz, Man Convicted on Girlfriend’s Testimony Gets Retrial, SC Lawyers Weekly, May 13, 2013 (log-in required)
Charges: (1) Trafficking crack cocaine; (2) possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine within the proximity of a school; and (3) unlawful carrying of a pistol.
Background: The codefendant witness admitted to the police that the drugs were hers and she was initially charged with the same crimes as the defendant. However, the codefendant witness wrote a letter to the prosecutor while she was in jail denying ownership of the drugs and begged to testify against the defendant. In her words, “I’m willing to do anything that needs to be done.” The codefendant witness received an 18 month sentence in exchange for her testimony. The judge denied the defense lawyer the ability to question the codefendant witness on the mandatory minimum sentence she avoid by cooperating with the State. The defendant received a 46 year sentence.
Holding: The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of a codefendant witness regarding her potential legal exposure from her initial charges prior to accepting the State's plea offer. The Court reversed and remanded his convictions for a new trial.
***“Please note that any result achieved on behalf of a client in one matter does not necessarily indicate that similar results can be obtained for other clients.”