Duncan proctor trial

Click here to read the full story. Read More. Senior Litigation Associate. Apply now. Immigration Paralegal. Looking for both remote and lo Criminal Defense Attorney hybrid. Plaintiffs Medical Malpractice Attorney.

Apply Now. Litigation Associate Attorney. Chicago office of our client seeks litigation associate attorney with years of experience. The c The candidate should be Wi Take me to site. Stay Connected. Every Alert Alert once a day Submit. Law Students. The state Department of Corrections had said Proctor's first try for parole could come as soon as this spring — a date that a corrections official said was a misprint and will be removed from the department's inmate search site accessible to the public on the Internet.

Though Proctor has a right to appeal the decision, chances are he never will get out of prison. The ruling was a relief for one of the prosecutors who helped put the "Lowcountry serial rapist" behind bars nearly a decade ago. The decision means the women may have escaped the pain of having to make numerous trips to attend parole hearings, Schwacke added. Proctor is thought to have raped about 30 women after breaking into numerous Charleston-area homes and apartments between March and June , sending a wave of fear throughout the region.

A common theme among the crimes was stealing purses from women in bars to find out where they lived. He was caught after his car wrecked along Interstate 26 as he fled from police during a high-speed chase.

Proctor suffered severe brain damage and paralysis in the accident. A year later, a judge ruled Proctor wasn't mentally competent to stand trial and he was committed to a state mental hospital. He claimed not to have any memory of the rapes. We find that the nondisclosure of proficiency test results was not material. The other evidence was formidable: the test results could only have reduced the probabilities. Further, Lt.

Jeffcoat acknowledged during his testimony that errors are made in every lab, and that those errors affect the validity of the probability determination. Respondent was not denied a fair trial because the SLED lab proficiency test results were not disclosed to him. Taylor, supra. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals remanding this matter for further proceedings. In an opinion filed today, we reverse that decision as well.

Procter, Op. Edward J. A single order was issued addressing both requests. Accordingly, our analysis here mirrors that in our Charleston opinion. We assume that, in addition to the raw data, the materials would include a summary of the results that would not require expert interpretation. We are not prepared to say that the State can arbitrate whether scientific information is too sophisticated for the average trial judge.

Duncan Proctor v. State Dorchester Annotate this Case. Duncan Proctor, Respondent. Whetstone, Jr. Although we conclude that respondent made an adequate threshold showing entitling him to a full Bryant hearing, we find that error does not require remand: For Brady purposes, in determining the materiality of nondisclosed evidence, an appellate court must consider the evidence in the context of the entire record.

TOAL, C. Justia Legal Resources.