Background
Ryan Lenard Manigo, a pretrial detainee in the Colleton County Detention Center, was arrested on July 2, 2023, and charged with five counts of murder, arson in the first degree, two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, two counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of kidnapping, six counts of possession of a deadly weapon in the commission of a violent crime, burglary in the first degree, attempted murder, and incest. The charges remained pending. After local media obtained and published recordings of Manigo’s jail telephone calls, he sought to appeal a circuit court order that allowed the release of those recordings.
On appeal, Manigo argued (1) pretrial detainee telephone calls are categorically exempt from disclosure under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); (2) releasing the calls violated his federal and state constitutional rights to privacy, a fair trial, equal protection, and due process; (3) FOIA’s statutory exemptions independently shielded the recordings; and (4) the release violated public policy. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of any of those arguments.
The Court’s Holding
Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Thomas held that the circuit court’s order permitting disclosure of the pretrial telephone calls was an interlocutory, not a final, order and therefore not immediately appealable. Under Rule 201(a), SCACR, an appeal may be taken from “any final judgment, appealable order or decision.” South Carolina law has long held that a criminal defendant may not appeal until a conviction and sentence have been rendered. The court surveyed the four categories of interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330 and concluded that none applied: the disclosure order did not involve the merits of the underlying criminal case, did not prevent a judgment from which an appeal might be taken, did not grant or refuse a new trial, and did not strike any pleading.
The court also rejected Manigo’s prejudice argument. Because Manigo had not yet been tried, convicted, or sentenced, any error by the circuit court could not be shown at this stage to have caused him cognizable harm. Pretrial publicity does not automatically prejudice a criminal defendant under South Carolina law; courts require evidence of actual juror bias rather than presuming prejudice from media exposure alone. Adequate voir dire examination—including a motion to change venue or targeted juror questioning—remains the primary safeguard. The court further noted that the calls might never be introduced at trial, and admissibility challenges could be raised when and if they were offered as evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A circuit court order allowing disclosure of a pretrial detainee’s jail telephone calls is an interlocutory order under § 14-3-330; a criminal defendant may not appeal it before conviction and sentencing because it does not involve the merits of the underlying case or affect a substantial right that determines or discontinues the action.
- South Carolina courts require evidence of actual juror bias — not presumed prejudice from pretrial publicity — before reversal will be granted; adequacy of voir dire examination is the primary safeguard, and bare assertions of subconscious juror influence are insufficient.
- The State’s interlocutory appellate rights in the pretrial context are broader than a defendant’s: a pretrial suppression order that “significantly impairs the prosecution” may be immediately appealable under § 14-3-330(2)(a), but a defendant seeking to suppress media coverage faces a higher threshold.
- Challenges to the admissibility of jail calls at trial may be renewed when the evidence is actually offered; a mootness risk remains if the calls are never introduced.
Why It Matters
For South Carolina criminal practitioners, Manigo reinforces the strict limits on interlocutory appeals by criminal defendants before conviction. It is not enough that a defendant believes pretrial publicity has damaged his jury prospects; without actual juror bias demonstrated through voir dire, the appellate courts will dismiss such an appeal as premature. Defense counsel facing high-profile cases should focus instead on the procedural tools available at trial—change-of-venue motions, extended voir dire, and targeted juror challenges—rather than interlocutory filings the court will dismiss without reaching the merits.
The decision also provides a practical note on FOIA and jail phone-call disclosure: orders permitting such disclosure are most likely interlocutory in the criminal context, and a pretrial detainee’s appellate challenge must wait unless one of the narrow § 14-3-330 exceptions applies. Although this is a published opinion and therefore binding precedent, the FOIA exemption questions Manigo raised remain unresolved, leaving open for a future case whether South Carolina law shields pretrial detainee calls from disclosure under FOIA’s categorical exemptions.