Left: Jamie Lee Komoroski (via Charleston County (S.C.) Sheriff’s Office). Middle: image from the scene of the crash (via Folly Beach (S.C.) Police Dept.). Right: Aric Hutchinson and Samantha Miller, moments after getting married on April 28, 2023 (via GoFundMe).
A sheriff is on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees after denying media requests for the jailhouse calls of Jamie Komoroski, a 25-year-old DUI defendant who made national news in April after she allegedly killed a bride leaving her wedding reception.
A judge ruled Monday that Charleston County Sheriff Kristin Graziano must pay $33,175 to cover the legal fees of Gray Media Group, which sued after being stonewalled on its request for the calls under South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act.
“This action involves the request for public records under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act and privacy issues related to recordings held by CCSO. Upon review of the Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees, the Court observed the descriptions of work completed is of the nature and extent expected in this type of action,” wrote Retired South Carolina Supreme Court Justice Jen H. Toal. “Further, given the lack of relevant case law on these specific issues as explained in the Court’s Final Order on August 1, and review of the Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees, the first factor, the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case, weighs in favor of an attorney fee award.”
How we got here
On April 28, Jamie Komoroski allegedly got behind the wheel of a rental car while drunk and struck a golf cart carrying newlyweds Samantha Miller, 34, and Aric Hutchinson, 36, as well as Hutchinson’s brother-in-law Benjamin Garrett and Garrett’s son. Tragically, Miller lost her life on her wedding night.
Komoroski allegedly had a .261 BAC and drove at speeds of 65 mph in a 25 mph zone before hitting the golf cart in a “drunken haze” in Folly Beach.
Following the deadly crash, Komoroski was booked into jail in Charleston County on felony DUI and reckless homicide charges. As of Tuesday afternoon, the defendant remains held at the jail without bond. But between the crash and the present day, Komoroski made damning jailhouse calls from the Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center that the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office initially released to the Post & Courier. That was in mid-May. After the content of the calls went public, the sheriff’s office said the release of the materials was “erroneous,” and cited a FOIA exemption to block additional requests.
As the judge recounted it:
On June 6, 2023, CCSO sent the following response to Plaintiff, The Post & Courier, and multiple other news outlets:
“Subsequent to a prior FOIA production, counsel and other interested parties have raised concern that similar record releases would materially interfere with the administration of justice. For this reason, we are acting in good faith and denying release of communication records within FOIA exemptions stated in S.C. Code of Law Sec. 30-4-40 (B) and (C) for privacy and the administration of justice.”
On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff objected in writing to the denial of its request and made specific reference to CCSO’s prior disclosure of these public records to The Post & Courier. In response, CCSO informed Plaintiff that the prior release of records to The Post & Courier was “erroneous” and that CCSO had issued a “clawback request.” CCSO further cited an additional exemption in that “the release ‘(F) would endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”” At no time did CCSO inform Plaintiff which exemptions applied to specific recordings.
Read Related Also: Brazilian teen who posed as a female to live with 62-year-old woman found buried in her backyard SMILES as he's arrested for her murder
After Gray Media Group filed suit in late June seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, Komoroski’s lawyers in early July moved to intervene in the case.
What Jamie Komoroski said in the jailhouse calls and how her lawyers responded
In the calls obtained by the Post & Courier, Komoroski was quoted telling family and friends things like “I can’t believe this is my life and my whole life is going to be over”; “Oh my God. I just can’t believe this happened to me. Why me? I’m going to be here for years and years and years and years”; and “But I wanted to make sure that I could say an apology and they said I would be able to say an apology.” The newspaper also reported statements where Komoroski called the incident a “freak accident obviously” and said that she felt like “a terrible person.”
When Law&Crime asked Komoroski’s attorneys Nathan Williams, Chris Gramiccioni, and Deb Gramiccioni about these words in May, the lawyers said these were “statements of a distraught young woman seeking guidance and support from her family, as many daughters do.”
The lawyers asserted that the calls should never have been released for reasons of privacy and trial fairness.
“The SC FOIA statute sets forth specific exemptions for the unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, and where the public dissemination of the communications would deprive an individual of the right to a fair and impartial trial. The release of private conversations between a parent and their incarcerated loved one is simply not what was contemplated by the FOIA statute,” the statement said. “It is easy to envision the obvious chilling effect such disclosure has on communications with family members for any incarcerated individual accused of wrongdoing – individuals who nonetheless retain the constitutional presumption of innocence, as well as privacy and due process rights.”
The ruling
The judge determined the contested recorded calls are “public records.” As a result, Gray Media Group was awarded $33,175 for the legal wrangling it undertook over the issue. The judge found the “time spent devoted to this matter has been extensive and necessary”:
On August 1, 2023, the Court entered a Final Order on August 1, 2023, finding for the Plaintiff and ordering the relief sought by Plaintiff. Specifically, the Court found, among other things, the recorded calls and visits requested by Plaintiff to be public records pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-20(c); CCSO failed to determine which exemptions, if any, applied to the specific recordings, as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40 and relevant case law pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-100; and the Plaintiff as the prevailing party may be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter.
Law&Crime reached out to the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office for comment.
Read the court’s ruling here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
