The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy protections prevent the state from retrying John Joseph Erb for murder and voluntary manslaughter after complications arose during jury polling at the conclusion of his original trial. The court's decision, issued November 26, 2025, reverses a Charleston County Circuit Court ruling that would have allowed the retrial.
The case centers on Erb, who was arrested March 20, 2020, for the murder of Donald Blake and indicted on that sole count in August 2023. The legal dispute emerged after problems occurred during the jury polling process following the conclusion of Erb's trial, though the specific nature of those issues was not detailed in the court's opinion.
Justice George C. James, Jr., writing for the court, stated that the justices issued a common law writ of certiorari to the circuit court to determine whether the trial court erred in finding the state could retry Erb for murder despite the jury polling complications. The court unanimously concluded that such a retrial would violate constitutional double jeopardy protections.
The case underwent an unusual procedural history at the state's highest court. The Supreme Court initially heard oral arguments on April 22, 2025, and filed an opinion on September 3, 2025. However, Erb's legal team filed a petition for rehearing, which the court granted. Rather than ordering additional briefing or argument, the justices dispensed with further proceedings and issued a substitute opinion that withdrew and replaced their original ruling.
The November 26 order was signed by all five justices: Chief Justice John W. Kittredge and Justices John Cannon Few, George C. James Jr., D. Garrison Hill, and Letitia H. Verdin. This unanimous decision demonstrates the court's clear agreement on the double jeopardy issue.
Double jeopardy protections, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and incorporated against state action through the Fourteenth Amendment, generally prevent prosecutors from trying defendants multiple times for the same offense. The doctrine serves to protect individuals from the harassment and expense of repeated prosecutions and preserves the finality of criminal proceedings.
The specific circumstances that led to this case highlight the critical importance of proper jury procedures in criminal trials. Jury polling, which occurs after a verdict is announced, allows the court to confirm that each juror agrees with the stated verdict. Problems during this process can create complex legal issues regarding whether jeopardy has attached and a valid verdict has been reached.
Erb was represented by a team from the Charleston Public Defender's office, including Senior Assistant Public Defender Benjamin Andrew Mack, Circuit Public Defender Cameron Jane Blazer, and Assistant Public Defender Timothy Patrick Corbett Jr. The state's case was handled by multiple attorneys from the South Carolina Attorney General's office, including Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, and several other senior prosecutors, along with Charleston County Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson.
The case originated in Charleston County Circuit Court under Judge Bentley J. Price. The circuit court's decision to allow a retrial was ultimately reviewed and reversed by the state Supreme Court through the certiorari process, which allows higher courts to review lower court decisions on matters of significant legal importance.
This ruling establishes important precedent for South Carolina criminal procedure regarding the interplay between jury polling issues and double jeopardy protections. The decision clarifies that certain problems arising during the conclusion of a criminal trial can trigger constitutional protections that bar subsequent prosecution attempts.
The court's decision to dispense with additional briefing and argument after granting rehearing suggests the justices found the legal issues sufficiently clear to resolve without further input from the parties. This streamlined approach allowed for a quicker resolution while ensuring the defendant's constitutional rights were protected.
For prosecutors statewide, this ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of careful attention to trial procedures, particularly during the critical jury polling phase. The decision reinforces that procedural missteps during trial conclusions can have significant consequences for the state's ability to pursue criminal charges.
The reversal means Erb cannot be retried for murder or voluntary manslaughter in connection with Donald Blake's death, effectively ending the prosecution's case against him. This outcome demonstrates how constitutional protections can provide definitive resolution even in cases where initial trial proceedings encounter complications.