Man Found Not Guilty Of Murder and Other Charges, But Guilty of Grand Larceny In April 2021 Case

By Betsy Finklea
A man was found not guilty of three of four charges in an April 2021 murder case in General Sessions Court today (Thursday).
The jury deliberated two hours and 15 minutes before rendering their verdict.
Jameel Mercer was found not guilty of murder in the death of Dominic Howard, not guilty of armed robbery, and not guilty of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. He was found guilty of grand larceny.
During the sentencing, Jamie Scruggs of the Fourth Circuit Public Defender’s Office told the judge that Mercer had a mother who loves and cares for him, and he hoped this would be a turning point in his life.
Dominic Howard’s family chose not to make a statement or address the court on sentencing.
The judge sentenced him to the S.C. Department of Corrections for five years. He receives credit for time served of 174 days.
Prior to the verdict, John Jepertinger of the Fourth Circuit Solicitor’s Office gave his closing argument. He spoke about the Ten Commandments and said that he believed that Mercer coveted what Howard, who had recently gotten a civil settlement, had. He talked about what money gives a person. He then went through the details of the case he presented discussing Mercer’s economic status as relayed by five relatives who testified; the fact that when video was found of Mercer driving Howard’s car that the decals and specialty plate had been removed long before police had even discovered Howard’s body; the fact that he had a large amount of money; and that he ran when he was spotted by law enforcement at Love’s Truck Stop. He also spoke about the testimony of an informant. He said he hoped the jury could see the evidence in the case and prayed they had the desire to see justice done.
In his closing argument, Jamie Scruggs of the Fourth Circuit Public Defender’s Office talked about a popular TV football segment which reviewed the mistakes of the past week on the field. He said the name of the segment was called “Come On, Man.” He said he had been sitting at the trial all week with that show stuck in his mind and said that he was sure that the jury was confused as he was. He said he wondered how this guy (speaking of the defendant) was on trial for malice murder. He said he was sitting their wondering why they couldn’t answer the questions when they (the State) bear the burden of proof. He said there were so many unanswered questions.
Scruggs said there was nothing that showed when Howard checked into the Relax Inn. He said there was no evidence from anybody that the Kia owned by Howard was at the motel. He said there was no evidence of any link between Jameel and Dominic including nothing on the cell phones and social media accounts. Howard’s best friend didn’t know who Jameel was, he said.
He said there was no evidence that showed that Mercer even knew anything about the fact that he got a settlement check.
Scruggs said that the state’s case was built on assumptions and not on hard verifiable facts. He said the state wanted them to assume this was a malice murder in a case where there is no link between the suspect and the victim.
Scruggs said the timeline was the key to this case pointing to examples of when rigormortis had set in the body versus when the state said the crime occurred which he said was problematic for the state. He said their case starts to unravel at this point and then talked about testimony that conflicted with the timeline. He also spoke about the informant and said that his testimony did corroborate the state’s case. Scruggs said nothing matched in the state’s case. He said there were items of evidence including swabs that had not been tested that were in the sheriff’s evidence room that could answer the questions in this case. He said the state presented a disjointed theory. Scruggs said this case was infected with reasonable doubt and that convenience is not the conclusion. He asked the jury to find a verdict of not guilty. Public Defender Nathan Scales was the co-counsel on this case.