South Carolina Judge Dismisses Husband’s Murder Indictment Because Prosecutor Failed to Disclose Wife’s Suicidal Statements

We have a crazy case going on here in South Carolina. Michael Colucci was charged and indicted by a grand jury for murder in connection with the death of his wife, Sara Moore-Colucci at their family’s jewelry store warehouse in Summerville. The case went to a first trial back in 2018, which resulted in a hung jury. The second trial was supposed to start this week, but then a big Brady violation was discovered.

Specifically,

The defense argued in its motion that the lead investigator in the case had knowledge of a conversation between Moore-Colucci and her mother, Barbara Moore, during which Moore-Colucci mentioned suicide ideations by hanging and that the investigator withheld that information from the written case file. The defense also insinuated that the main prosecutor in the first trial knew about those suicidal thoughts but prevented that information from coming out in court.

Reading his order, Young said Moore went to her daughter’s home two weeks before her death and found her daughter in a very emotional state and that Moore-Colucci said she wanted to kill herself by hanging but did not want to do that to her children.

Moore was so upset by the conversation that she wanted to have her daughter hospitalized, Young said. After her daughter’s death, Moore testified that she told the lead investigator about the incident within a few days.

According to the defense, this information was not shared with them until last week, leaving them unprepared to address it at trial. The judge agreed, quashing the indictment without prejudice, meaning the prosecution can take the case back to a new ground jury down the road. 

But the judge urged that the Attorney General not merely take the same case back to the grand jury, proclaiming:

“This court recognizes this is an unusual remedy. However, this is an unusual case. This court urges the Attorney General to present a fuller case to the grand jury than is usually done in state court in South Carolina. The goal is to do justice, and this case deserves a fresh restart in order that the citizens of South Carolina can have full confidence in whatever the jury’s verdict might be.”

-CM