The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling denying a murder defendant's request for reimbursement of expert witness expenses, highlighting ongoing challenges in indigent defense funding across the state.

In *Ex Parte: South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense v. Kenneth Henry Eastwood*, the high court upheld Circuit Court Judge Maite Murphy's decision that Kenneth Henry Eastwood was not entitled to reimbursement from the South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense for expert witness expenses incurred during his murder trial. The court issued its memorandum opinion on Nov. 19, 2025, in Appellate Case No. 2024-000583.

The case arose from Orangeburg County, where Eastwood sought compensation for expert witness costs following his murder trial. Eastwood was represented by Ashley B. Cornwell of Cornwell Law Firm, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, while the Commission on Indigent Defense was represented by Executive Director James Hugh Ryan, III and Deputy Director and General Counsel Hervery B. O. Young. The State was represented by Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown.

The court's decision was issued as a memorandum opinion with no precedential value, meaning it cannot be cited or relied upon as precedent in future proceedings except as provided by Rule 268(d)(2) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.

The case centers on South Carolina's constitutional obligation to provide legal defense for indigent defendants who cannot afford representation. To fulfill this duty, the state legislature enacted the South Carolina Defense of Indigents Act, which establishes the framework for providing legal assistance to those unable to pay for their own defense.

Under sections 17-3-50 and Provisos 61.1 and 61.4 of the yearly Appropriations Acts, the legislature designed ex parte proceedings that allow indigent defendants to request expert fees. These provisions enable defendants who qualify for indigent defense services to seek compensation for necessary expert witnesses, such as forensic specialists, mental health professionals, or other technical experts whose testimony may be crucial to their defense.

The legislature also empowered the Supreme Court to establish rules and regulations for proper administration of the Defense of Indigents Act under section 17-3-110. The court fulfilled this responsibility through Rule 602 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules and a detailed order setting forth procedures for processing indigent defense vouchers, known as the Voucher Order, issued on Sept. 29, 2006.

Additionally, the legislature granted the Commission on Indigent Defense authority to develop policies and procedures to carry out the Act under sections 17-3-310(G)(2) and 17-3-340(I). The Supreme Court's Voucher Order also authorized the Commission to establish additional procedures for administering indigent defense services.

The denial of Eastwood's reimbursement request reflects the complex legal framework governing indigent defense in South Carolina and the limitations placed on state-funded legal representation. While the state has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate defense for those who cannot afford it, the specific procedures and eligibility requirements for expert witness reimbursement are governed by detailed statutory and regulatory provisions.

The case highlights ongoing challenges in indigent defense funding, particularly in serious felony cases like murder where expert testimony can be critical to mounting an effective defense. Expert witnesses in criminal cases can include forensic scientists, ballistics experts, DNA analysts, mental health professionals, and other specialists whose testimony may be essential to challenging the prosecution's case or establishing an affirmative defense.

For defendants facing serious charges who qualify for indigent defense services, the availability of expert witness funding can significantly impact the quality of their representation. The costs of hiring qualified experts can be substantial, often running into thousands of dollars for complex cases requiring multiple specialists.

The Supreme Court's affirmance of the trial court's ruling suggests that Eastwood's request did not meet the established criteria for reimbursement under the applicable statutes, rules, and Commission policies. The specific grounds for the denial were not detailed in the publicly available portions of the memorandum opinion.

This decision comes at a time when indigent defense systems across the country face increasing scrutiny over funding adequacy and resource allocation. Many states struggle to balance the constitutional requirement to provide effective assistance of counsel with budget constraints and growing caseloads.

The case also underscores the importance of following proper procedures when seeking expert witness reimbursement in indigent defense cases. The elaborate framework established by the legislature and Supreme Court requires strict compliance with filing deadlines, documentation requirements, and approval processes.

Moving forward, the decision may influence how defense attorneys approach expert witness requests in indigent cases and could impact the Commission's policies regarding reimbursement criteria. While the memorandum opinion has no precedential value, it provides insight into how courts apply the existing statutory framework governing indigent defense funding in South Carolina.