Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:05] Speaker B: Hey, everybody.
[00:00:06] Speaker A: Welcome back. I'm Lacy.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: And I'm Lauren.
[00:00:09] Speaker A: And here again for another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:13] Speaker B: And we are excited to have you here with us today. Make sure you subscribe and follow us on your socials so you can keep up with all our new podcast episodes. And today we are going to be talking about a criminal case out of South Carolina. And no, it is not the Alec Murdoch case. We are talking about the DUI case down at the beach after the wedding. And Lacey's going to give you some more facts on that. But first, we're going to start with kind of a follow up question. I know in a prior episode I asked about the parole board for Susan Smith's hearing and how they get that job as being an officer on that. And so Lacey did some research and found out, so she's going to tell us about it.
[00:00:55] Speaker A: Yeah. So from what I'm looking at and what I researched is, and I thought this initially, but they are appointed by the governor. So there's a certain process you go through. There's districts within South Carolina and each district gets a person that sits on the board and they are appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate. So I did think they were approved by the governor. I didn't know that there was one from like each district of South Carolina. So fun information there. Something I do not want to do.
[00:01:26] Speaker B: Want to know that, like the whole state has representation and it's just not like, you know, a few people in one part.
[00:01:31] Speaker A: Well, well, before I, what, what worries me with one of that, those things, though, is with, with the appointment by the governor with parole. I did say I was very glad Susan Smith was denied, and I stand by that. But I do believe our parole numbers are pretty low. And that does bother me. And I think that comes from us having such a conservative governor. And I think he's appointing people to the board that are very, very conservative and it makes getting parole harder even when it's probably warranted that we release people. So that's just me. My, my opinion on the board is I don't know that I necessarily agree that it should all be governor appointment, but I don't get to make the rules there.
[00:02:17] Speaker B: That's why you can, you know, call your legislature and we can try to make changes. But today we are starting our series on big cases in pop culture, like we teased before. And so Lacy's going, well, while this may not be a celebrity case, this has hit all the national news. It's hot topic here. In the state, and I think it's really hot topic in the whole U.S. so Lacey's going to give us some background and information about the case, and then we'll give you our takes on different parts of it.
[00:02:47] Speaker A: So, yeah, so it's been a couple of years, but it did blow up. I think it actually did make national media attention, too, not just in South Carolina, but Jamie Komaroski was arrested and charged with felony DUI and DUI with great bodily injury. There was a couple at the beach. They had just gotten married.
They were in a golf cart. I think they were leaving the reception. I'm not sure where they were going at the golf cart, but Jamie was driving her vehicle impaired, and she wrecked into the back of the golf cart. From what I've read, I believe she was going twice the speed limit. I think she was going 60 something miles per hour and around 30.
And the bride did die. I'm not sure on impact or right away, but when first responders got there, they did find that she had passed. Her husband was still alive and he did make it. But that's where the great bodily injury is. In looking at her convictions, there was another count of great bodily injury. I'm assuming the driver of the golf cart, but there hasn't been a lot of attention there.
So that was just my assumptions. Probably the. The driver is where that other account came from. So her case was on the trial docket for last week.
Sorry for the background noise.
And she, the morning of trial, chose to plead guilty instead of proceed to a jury trial.
When she did, the judge gave her the maximum sentence. So the maximum you can get is for felony DUI is 25 years.
Now, you could argue, is that really the maximum? Because she got 15 years for the DUI with great bodily injury. And I think there was like one or two other charges. She could have stacked them consecutively. So realistically speaking, that wasn't necessarily the max. If she had ran them consecutively, she could have gotten a lot more time. But when you have a lot of charges like this, it's very rare. You see judges run it consecutively.
[00:05:00] Speaker B: So.
[00:05:00] Speaker A: So it's very common to run everything concurrently, which means they all run at the same time. So her, the chart she got the most time for was the felony DUI with death, where she got the maximum of 25 years and she ran everything else concurrently. So the sentence is 25 years of felony DUI.
[00:05:19] Speaker B: Really quick. Like, what's the difference in the DUI standards for those of us who don't know.
[00:05:24] Speaker A: Yeah. So there's felony DUI with death. Under that. It's felony DUI with great bodily injury. And then you have felony DUI with injury, and then just a dui. If there are no injuries, if there are minor injuries that are normal from an accident, then you're. Then they are just gonna be charged with just a dui. And I've seen that before, you know, just bumping somebody at a red light, but they're impaired, so they're charged with dui. But, you know, the driver was safe and fine. You're just going to see a magistrate level DUI charge.
Anything more than that is going to go in general sessions, which is a higher court. You're going to face those higher felony DUI potential consequences and go through that system. So one of the reasons I wanted to bring this back up is she just filed her attorneys on her behalf, filed a motion to reconsider. So I want to go through some of those things and get. And give my perspective as somebody that has been in this line of work. I want to go through some comparison cases with y'all and then, you know, in, in through this. Lauren, I want to get your perspective as somebody who isn't in this field, you know, kind of, you know, looking in. So the reason I do have a problem with her getting the maximum sentence base level looking at this, she took accountability and pled. She did not put the family through a full trial and took accountability.
I think if somebody does that as a. A judge should at least take some time off the max. And why I feel that way is I, I have tried cases. I've tried cases that have gone on for a week. It is so stressful.
It's hard. You don't sleep, you don't eat.
It's an emotional roller coaster. And I can't imagine being a family member where somebody has passed because the evidence that's going to come in. Imagine the photographs, Lauren, that would have been shown to the jury.
It would have been reliving it. Not just for the plea. You. It would have been reliving it all week.
I think by Jamie taking accountability and not putting the family through that, she should have been given some type of benefit.
Now, my law partner said, well, she didn't plead till the day of trial, though. She still d drug it on till the morning of trial. You know, she should have pled earlier for that benefit.
But I disagree.
[00:08:09] Speaker B: I.
[00:08:10] Speaker A: Maybe you don't get as much of a benefit, but I still think even two years, three. I think there should have been some benefit to her not putting the family through that. Lauren, what are your thoughts?
[00:08:20] Speaker B: I guess like from. I thought you always pled because you were supposed to get like a little bit better deal a lot of times I don't know much in the criminal matters, but I felt like a lot of times it's kind of like you do it because the prosecution, it's like in the civil world like mediating like you do it because it gives you a little bit better deal or it, you know, I thought there had to be a reason to plead because if you're going to get the max sentence, why not test your fate with the jury? I guess from just like the legal side of things.
[00:08:53] Speaker A: Right. And I was in a plea for a felony DUI probably about three weeks ago. It was not my case. It was not my plea. I was sitting waiting for my case, which was separate to be heard, but there was a plea and Judge Hood talked about how he had a friend that was killed and the person was charged with felony DUI by death. And he takes that into consideration because that person decided to go to trial and was found not guilty.
So he also gives a benefit and maybe not across the board. I think he takes it as a case by case basis. I don't have anything that says anything differently, but I think it was a good point to make that we don't know how the jury trial would have gone. We don't know what evidence would have gone in. Would her blood sample have been entered into evidence? Was there defenses to suppress it and keep it out? And if so, could a jury have found her not guilty? We don't know. So I also think there's a benefit in that, in taking accountability because it is really hard to prosecute DUI cases when you have breath samples and blood samples and the admissibility of those. So I also think there's a benefit in that too.
[00:10:16] Speaker B: Question in this. Do you think if she would have went to the jury trial they would have been able to get a non biased jury?
[00:10:23] Speaker A: I did think about that and I don't know. I don't know. And I don't know if they got to a jury selection before she pled or all this happened before jury selection. But I, I almost think it could have drug on. I mean this case was so blown up.
I don't know. I'm curious as well. And, and if you cannot get a jury that is not biased, everybody goes home and you have to come back again.
And again, I think of what like that just would have Been so hard for the family. And I again, that goes back to when I think that she should not have gotten the maximum and should have gotten a lesser sent making a plea and ending this portion for the family.
So.
So to give some comparison cases.
Well, hold on, let me back up. So the motion to reconsider was based on. She has no criminal history. And the cases I'm going to go forward with, from what I remember the attorney saying in their pleas, they had no criminal history and a for sure one. Nope, they didn't.
We already said spare trial.
Another reason in the motion to reconsider from her attorneys is absence of intent. So for a DUI felony death, typically there's no intent to kill someone. Right.
I had a great conversation with officer at City of Myrtle Beach, Officer Santos, and we were kind of talking about that.
I know, I'm just being honest. In college, I know one night specifically I drove and I should not have been driving. And it makes me sick to my stomach. It hurts my feelings to think about. I'm so disappointed in myself.
My decision making that night was no different from Jamie's and I don't know why I was spared and she wasn't. Right. So that weighs on me heavily when I think of intent because when I chose to drive my car, my. My intent was to get to my destination. My intent was never to put anybody in harm's way. And I think anybody that knows me knows that I would never hurt anyone, but I could have with the choices I made prior to.
And so that's where I struggled too, that she got so much time when she didn't intend to harm anyone, but made just an extremely poor choice that I think so many people in South Carolina have probably done.
Think about how many DUI arrests we have. Any of those people could have been in an accident and killed someone. It wouldn't have been intentionally though.
So another other reasonings that they gave in the motion to reconsider was she's addressed her addiction, she's able to be rehabilitated, no prior DUIs, and she's very remorseful.
So that was the thing for the grounds why they have filed a motion to reconsider to see if the judge will come off that 25 year maximum. So some comparison cases. The case that I watched a couple weeks ago, there was one death, there was no great bodily injury. So it was a DUI felony conviction where he pled no prior convictions and the judge gave him 10 years.
So significantly different from Jamie's case where she got 25. That's a 15 year difference. And I do believe like she did have the great bodily injury. So she did have additional charges that this person didn't. But Lauren, do you think that's enough to differentiate from 10 to 25?
[00:14:10] Speaker B: Well, I guess in some ways she had two charges. They didn't. So she is getting a break by not running them consecutively and she is running them concurrently because a judge does have it in their discretion how to run the sentences. And I have seen usually it's like, you know, double murders and stuff, they'll run up consecutively. So that way the person never can get out type situation.
But I know most of the time they do run it the concurrent. But I guess in some ways that is a consideration. So instead of what, 40 years or something, she's only in 25.
Yeah, I don't know if that's enough to really change it. I do think she would deserve more than 10 because there were multiple charges.
[00:14:57] Speaker A: Like, yeah, I agree.
[00:15:00] Speaker B: But a death is a death, which is all really sad. Like that other person, 10 years only took. Took a life as well.
[00:15:06] Speaker A: Right. I do. In comparison, comparing these cases to wonder if the, the, the age of the victims come into effect.
So I think the bride was 20s. And from what I gathered in this other case, it was a male. And I believe I heard the victim say he might have been a grandfather, but his children were much older, which tells me that he was probably in his 50s or so. So I wonder if that was another.
[00:15:36] Speaker B: I feel like that in the civil world, I have watched a med. This is not. When I was practicing, I was clerking and this was a public case. I watched a med case. Well, I'm 100 sure the doctor committed malpractice, but the man was 85 years old and he died on the table. And I'm 100. And if I'd been on that jury, I would have said he 100, he killed that man, he cut him, bad things happened. But because he was 85, the jury didn't find the doctor guilty of malpractice. And I think in their heads it was. This is very morbid, but, oh, he was close to death anyway. So I definitely think age can play a part in it. Whether we consciously make that decision or subconsciously, a judge could be thinking, well, you know, the children are grown. Like there's not as much life lost, I guess. Right.
[00:16:32] Speaker A: Another case is. And once again, these are not my cases. These are pleas that I have watched outside of them.
And I'm not going to give defendants Names, I don't know. I just have a feeling towards that.
They're in the news, though, so I think they can be easily researched if anybody wants to. But this case is also in South Carolina. This person pled guilty to three counts of DUI felony with death. So that means three people died out of this accident. Two were injured. So two counts of great bodily injury. So a total of five victims.
Lauren, what do you think? In no criminal history, what number? What with knowing that this other person got 10, we know Jamie got 25. How much time do you think this person got?
[00:17:23] Speaker B: I mean, I would say they should have got the 25, but my gut is telling me, because we're bringing this case up, that they did not.
[00:17:31] Speaker A: It was 18 years.
So still a significant prison sentence. But that's also why it's so hard for me to wrap my head around this 25 years, is because we just. No, it's just no consistency.
You know, this person, same thing, no record, great mitigation, extremely remorseful. The judge was crying in this plea, from what I remember is very sad. And I remember the judge asking the victims to forgive the defendant because it was not intentional. And this person got 18 years. Like I said, three people passed away from that.
So again, it's hard for me to wrap my head around that 25, knowing this case exists as well.
Now, when I was talking to the officer this week, he thinks that there should be a mandatory minimum greater than what it is. So right now in South Carolina, mandatory minimum for a for felony DUI with death is one year. So it's one year to 25 years. So you can't go. You can't get probation is at least a year in prison.
Now he believes the mandatory minimum should be.
Did he say 15 or did he say. I don't think. I don't know if he gave a number, but he just doesn't. I know. You remember. I remember him saying, if people thought they could get 15 years in prison if they killed someone, they wouldn't do this. And my counterargument to that was young adults and people in college, they're not looking up statutes and thinking of, oh, my gosh, if I make this decision to do X, Y and Z, I could get this amount of time in prison. I never knew any of these numbers. I never knew minimums and maximums of anything when I was in college. I didn't know it in law school, to be honest. We didn't go over that. We didn't learn those types of things. So I don't think that that is the answer.
To just blanketly assume that if we change the law that people are going to pay attention, especially young people. Because I will say every single one of these cases, I am pretty sure these people are in their twenties.
So. So young adults, not. Let's see, how old was Jamie?
20. She gets 25 years. So she's 27. So if this happened. And the. So I think she was 25. The case with the 18 years, 25.
And I don't know the other one, but I think it was around 25. So to just blanketly change the law and say you automatically are going to have a mandatory minimum of 15 years for this, whether it is one death or five, I don't think that's fair. Because like you said earlier, I do think you take into consideration how many people have been harmed when sentencing. And if you do a blanket mandatory minimum, I think that kind of takes that out because most judges are going to run things concurrent.
But I do believe that we have to do better with education, with our young people.
I don't. I think that we should be going into high schools. I mean, yes, it's impactful to have the car that's been crashed out in front of the school on prom night, but they're not going to look at the news. They're not going to know what they're facing in prison. We have to start fully educating them on the law and not just blanketly assume they're going to know all these things. Does that make sense?
[00:21:10] Speaker B: It does. I mean, like, just saying don't drink and drive is like the same as telling young people abstinence but not telling them how to stop. Like, pregnancies, because kids are gonna drink, kids are gonna have sex. Like those type things. Like, we. Whether we want our children to do it or not, it. Kids are gonna do bad things sometimes, or not even bad. But, you know, they're kids. So I think they have to learn, you know, responsibilities. And if I am going to do something like, no, okay, I had a drink. I shouldn't be scared to call an Uber to go home. While my parents may not, like, I'm underage drinking, like, they should respect that I did not do something terrible. So I think there is that balance of all that. I think this also highlights the discrepancies in a legal system that are things nobody can account for because you don't know what judge or what jury you're gonna get. So you could have the exact same case face as you see two different judges or two different juries and get completely different sentencing. So there's nothing, a blanket like you can't go all the time on prior cases of what's going to happen because you get a different judge. And especially if you go to a jury trial, there's no telling what 12 of your peers are going to do. So I think it does highlight discrepancies in the legal system that I don't know how to fix. I don't know how that can be fixed because there's always personal biases.
[00:22:35] Speaker A: Yeah. And also that going with the personal biases, this officer that spoke to, and I'll say his name, Officer Santos, because he's so nice, he's a great officer. And I also think I have bias coming from me in saying that I disagree with these. This 25 years for Jamie. He has bias in the case that he just had and that he thought it should be more than 10 years. And you and I respect his biases. Right. And that's why we have judges to take all of these things into consideration when sentencing appropriately or what we hope is appropriately.
Officer Santos worked that case. And I'm not going to go into details of how this body was, but it was very sad. It made me so sad to hear an employee listening to it. I got teary eyed. And when I was talking to Officer Santos, it's just kind of then that it hit me personally. He was there and saw all this with his own eyes and he had to go to sleep that night and he had to work that case and communicate with these victims and either he had to inform the family or somebody else did. And I think that creates a bias too. And I respect it. Right.
I respect that bias. I know why he's coming from where he's coming because he has been impacted on a level that I can't ever fathom or imagine. So while I disagree that with the mandatory minimums because of where I'm at in my line of work, I definitely respect his opinion and where he's coming from. And that's what we hope a judge does in all of our felony DUI cases with death in every criminal case is find that balance in those biases and give an appropriate sentence. That is justice. Because at the end of the day, it's not that I win. The prosecutor wins, the victim wins, the defendant wins, the judge wins. It's justice. We want justice in every case. And what is justice? And I just, in seeing other cases, seeing her age and lack of criminal history and taking accountability, I don't believe justice was served by giving the maximum.
[00:24:51] Speaker B: And I think that is, I think we have some great judges here in the state of South Carolina for sure that can overcome their personal biases. And I'm glad to say I've seen judges here in Spartanburg recuse themselves because they know on a certain case they may be biased. And I think that is great that judges will step up and do that. And I think in closing this out, one of the biggest takeaways in here, this don't drink and drive. We have absolutely in today's time, call a Uber, call a lift. If you are young and scared of what your parents are going to do, deal with the punishment, call a friend, call a family member for help, but do not get in that car when you've been drinking.
[00:25:33] Speaker A: Yeah. And a tip from a parent aspect since we Are the Lawmakers podcast, one thing I have told my I say adopted kids. So like, you know, kids I helped raise through family, extended family, when they've gone to college, I've got one that two that have gone. I've told them do not drink and drive. If you need an Uber lift home, I will pay you back, no questions asked. If you say lacy, I spent $10, $20 on an Uber last night. I'm going to Venmo you, I'm going to cash up you. I'm not going to ask any questions because all I want is for them to safely get home. And if I need to address bigger issues later, I will. But the most important thing is keeping them safe and keeping everybody around them safe. So I plan on implementing that with any of the kids in my life as they become young adults and go off to college or, you know, work in their young adult lives and implementing that with my own children as well. If you spend money on an Uber Lyft and you make it home safe and you didn't drive, I'll pay the toe slip. I'll pay the Uber. I'll do anything I can. So from a parenting aspect, I think that's a good tip that potentially you could implement as well.
[00:26:47] Speaker B: Yeah, I think keeping everybody safe is our number one priority with all this. But I hope you enjoyed our first in this series of diving into some bigger cases. And we will be keeping that up in the new year and we hope you enjoy it. But let us know, send us comments, give us emails, send us DMs, just let us know what you want to hear about or if there is a case you want to hear about, let us know. We're happy to take on any topics or cases you want to hear about.
[00:27:16] Speaker A: Yep. And don't forget to subscribe. Follow us on the socials and comment. Send me a message. Let me know, am I wrong? Am I crazy? You think the sentence was appropriate? You think it should be more? Or if you agree with me and think it should be less. So definitely let us know your thoughts on this case and all the cases that we have coming up.
Hi. Bye, Lauren.
