Attorney Grant B. Smaldone is a trial lawyer focused on criminal defense in state and federal courts in Charleston, SC, and Eastern South Carolina.
Grant takes criminal defense and your freedom seriously. He is a member of the South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (SCACDL) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). He is a former prosecutor, a former public defender, and he has a proven track record of acquittals and dismissals in criminal cases ranging from traffic violations to murder prosecutions.
Grant accepts state and federal criminal defense cases in Charleston County, Dorchester County, Georgetown County, Horry County, and the surrounding areas in Eastern South Carolina.
If you’ve been charged with a crime in the Charleston, SC area, call at (843) 808-2100 or fill out our online contact form to set up a free consultation to discuss your case.
Can police stop you for questioning as you are walking down the street? Are you “free to leave” when police officers with guns visible say, “Hey, can I ask you a few questions?” If you are driving on the highway, police must have probable cause to stop your vehicle and detain you on the side ...
Can a person be convicted of murder under the theory of “the hand of one is the hand of all?” In State v. Young, decided February 5, 2020, the SC Supreme Court held that mutual combat, a theory that is usually argued by the prosecution to negate self-defense, can also result in criminal liability for ...
In State v. McCall, decided yesterday, February 5, 2020, the SC Supreme Court upheld a warrantless blood draw in a felony DUI case finding that there were “exigent circumstances” in a situation that describes every felony DUI case. Although the US Supreme Court has held in Missouri v. McNeely that a warrant is required before ...
State v. Huntley, decided five years before City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, held that, where a breathalyzer’s simulator test was run using a simulator solution with a .10 percent alcohol content instead of .08 alcohol content, it did not require suppression of the breath test results because the defendant could not show any prejudice ...
