By admin 
Days after a jury returned a not guilty verdict in the case of The State of South Carolina vs. Rick Chow, 5th Circuit Solicitor Byron Gipson offered insights into the case.
Read more If an SC copperhead snake or rattlesnake bites you and you have no cell service, here’s what to do
In an exclusive interview with The State, Gipson responded to claims — by people on social media, in S.C. and beyond — that, perhaps, if lesser changes were included in the Chow case, a conviction could’ve been secured.
Evidence presented during trial never afforded the opportunity for a charge less than murder, Gipson said.
“The facts we knew from the law enforcement investigation, and our additional investigation into this matter did not suggest that any lesser charges were proper,” Gipson said, adding the prosecution “respected the jury’s verdict.”
Despite reports that lesser charges — including voluntary manslaughter — were originally included with Chow’s indictment and later dropped, Gipson said Chow was only charged and indicted for murder.
Murder is what the “sheriff’s department charged him for, that’s what he was indicted for by a Richland County grand jury, and that’s what we went to trial on,” Gipson said.
For a lesser charge to have been included against Chow — that was not previously charged — Circuit Court Judge Heath Taylor would’ve had to hear evidence during trial that suggested Chow was potentially guilty of said charge or the defense would’ve had to ask for its inclusion, Gipson explained.
The prosecution would then have to agree. But that didn’t happen, according to Gipson.
Read more Chemicals with toxic bite found in SC crops years after farms used tainted fertilizer
Prior bad acts
Another point of contention, in reaction to the verdict, is the fact that on two prior occasions, Chow pulled his .45-calibur Glock handgun and discharged his weapon against a patron accused of shoplifting — something the jury was never made aware of.
“Rick Chow shot (at) two people before … and none of that information could be brought to light (before the jury),” Nicole Carmack said, during a memorial for Carmack-Belton Thursday. “I do not think that is fair, and if that’s on the law books, that needs to be changed, because if that wasn’t on the (books) then my son would’ve gotten justice.”
While Carmack understood the blockade of Chow’s previous acts as a law, it’s actually a rule of evidence.
Under the rules, a defendant’s bad or prior acts can only be heard by the jury if the defense “opens the door,” and lays “a proper foundation” Gipson said.
That’s to say, the defense would’ve had to call Chow to the witness stand and began questioning him about other instances where he used his weapon in defense of suspected shoplifters.
That, however, never happened as Chow declined to testify in his defense.
Even had evidence of Chow’s prior actions were made known to the jury, it’s important to note that Chow was never charged or convicted in connection to those prior acts, Gipson said, citing a difference in the Alex Murdaugh case.
During the Murdaugh trial, prosecutors leaned on the disgraced lawyer’s “prior bad acts” — specifically his extensive financial fraud — to establish a motive, arguing he killed his wife and son to distract from his financial crimes. The trial judge allowed over 12 hours of this testimony as Murdaugh elected to take the stand in his defense.
Read more Chemicals with toxic bite found in SC crops years after farms used tainted fertilizer