by JENN WOOD
***
The legal battle stemming from Michael Pearson‘s wrongful conviction has shifted from questions of innocence to questions of accountability – with South Carolina prosecutors trying to limit the liability of a system that failed in its commitment to uphold justice in his case.
In new federal court filings (.pdf), the S.C. attorney general’s office is asking a judge to dismiss claims made against the state in Pearson’s civil lawsuit — arguing prosecutors cannot be held liable for positions they took while defending his conviction.
Pearson’s attorneys disagree.
In a response filed this week (.pdf), they argued the attorney general’s office went beyond its traditional role as an advocate and assumed responsibility for investigating evidence that Pearson was innocent — only to delay his release despite mounting evidence he did not commit the crime.
The dispute presents what could become one of the most consequential legal questions arising from Pearson’s exoneration: can state prosecutors be held civilly liable for how they handle credible evidence of innocence after a conviction has already been obtained?
***
A CASE YEARS IN THE MAKING
As FITSNews previously reported, Pearson spent more than fifteen (15) years in prison following his conviction in the 2010 home invasion and robbery of Clarendon County businessman Edward “Slick” Gibbons.
From the beginning, the case against him rested largely on a single piece of evidence: a fingerprint recovered from the exterior of Gibbons’ stolen Chevrolet El Camino. Investigators found no fingerprints belonging to Pearson inside the vehicle, no DNA linking him to the crime scene and no eyewitness capable of identifying him as one of the attackers.
Nonetheless, prosecutors argued the fingerprint – combined with circumstantial evidence connecting Pearson to co-defendant Victor Weldon – was enough to prove he participated in the violent robbery.
A Clarendon County jury agreed, convicting Pearson in 2012 and sentencing him to sixty (60) years in prison.
The conviction almost did not survive appellate review. In 2014, the S.C. court of appeals reversed Pearson’s convictions, ruling the state’s evidence amounted to little more than suspicion. But two years later, the supreme court reinstated the conviction, finding the fingerprint evidence and surrounding circumstances sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
For years afterward, Pearson remained behind bars with no clear path to freedom.
***
S.C. third circuit solicitor Ernest “Chip Finney. (FITSNews)
***
Then, the case began to unravel. In 2023, Weldon — whose DNA had been found on the duct tape used to bind Gibbons during the attack — admitted his own involvement in the crime and repeatedly stated Pearson was not one of the perpetrators. According to court filings, Weldon identified other participants, provided detailed statements regarding the robbery and later passed a polygraph examination while excluding Pearson from any involvement.
Investigators subsequently corroborated Pearson’s long-maintained alibi using information that had been available since the original investigation. Additional witnesses allegedly implicated other suspects rather than Pearson.
The mounting evidence eventually prompted an extraordinary reversal from third circuit solicitor Ernest “Chip” Finney. At an August 2025 hearing before S.C. circuit court judge Robert Hood , Finney belatedly acknowledged that “credible evidence” established a reasonable probability Pearson had not committed the crime. Hood subsequently vacated Pearson’s convictions and ordered his release after more than fifteen years in prison.
Days later, prosecutors formally dismissed all charges.
What had once appeared to be a closed case had become one of South Carolina’s most prominent wrongful-conviction controversies — with the focus having now shifted from whether Pearson was innocent to whether government officials acted appropriately after evidence of his innocence emerged.
***
RELATED | MICHAEL PEARSON WALKS FREE
***
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ARGUMENT
Notably, the attorney general’s office does not argue in its motion that Pearson is guilty. Nor does it dispute that solicitor Finney informed state prosecutors in July 2025 that Pearson was innocent.
Instead, the office argued Pearson has sued the wrong party.
According to the motion, Pearson was already a convicted inmate when the attorney general’s office became involved in the case and prosecutors never arrested, detained or imprisoned him. As a result, the filing contends the office cannot be liable for false imprisonment.
The motion further argued prosecutors owed Pearson no independent legal duty requiring them to act on innocence evidence in the manner alleged by the lawsuit. Perhaps most significantly, state attorneys argue that everything challenged by Pearson occurred within the context of post-conviction litigation — activity they say is protected by prosecutorial immunity.
The filing relied on prior South Carolina and federal cases holding prosecutors cannot be sued for legal positions they take while defending criminal convictions, including positions taken during post-conviction relief proceedings.
According to the Attorney General’s Office, even Pearson’s allegation that prosecutors relied on procedural arguments to oppose his release falls squarely within protected prosecutorial conduct.
***
PEARSON’S RESPONSE: “INVESTIGATION IS NOT ADVOCACY”
Pearson’s attorneys paint a very different picture.
In their response, they argued the state cannot hide behind prosecutorial immunity because the conduct at issue was investigative rather than advocative.
“Investigation is not advocacy,” the filing stated.
According to Pearson’s attorneys, the attorney general’s office repeatedly represented that it was conducting its own review of innocence evidence while simultaneously advancing procedural arguments that delayed Pearson’s release.
The response argued that once prosecutors undertook an investigation into Pearson’s innocence claims, they assumed a duty to act reasonably and could be held liable if they failed to do so. The filing also pointed to Rule 3.8 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires prosecutors who become aware of clear and convincing evidence of innocence to make reasonable efforts to remedy wrongful convictions.
Pearson’s attorneys contended state prosecutors had access to overwhelming evidence supporting his innocence and nevertheless continued to fight his release.
One of the more unusual aspects of the dispute is that Pearson’s attorneys are relying heavily on the attorney general’s own court filings from 2025. Those filings show state prosecutors eventually supported releasing Pearson on bond while his PCR proceedings continued.
In asking the state supreme court to grant bond, prosecutors cited concerns expressed by judge Hood, who stated he had “never read an application with as much information and data that potentially supports someone being innocent.”
At the same time, the office stopped short of conceding Pearson’s innocence – and continued to challenge whether some of the evidence met the legal standards necessary for post-conviction relief.
Pearson’s attorneys argued those filings demonstrate prosecutors recognized the strength of the innocence evidence while continuing to rely on procedural obstacles that kept him incarcerated.
***
RELATED | MISSTEPS, POLYGRAPHS AND A SINGLE FINGERPRINT
***
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT…
The court is not yet being asked to decide whether Pearson’s allegations are true. Instead, the immediate question is whether the attorney general’s office can be sued at all.
If the motion to dismiss is granted, the office could be removed from the case before discovery begins.
If the court allows Pearson’s claims to proceed, the litigation could move into discovery — potentially opening the door to internal communications, investigative records and sworn testimony concerning what state prosecutors knew about Pearson’s innocence and when they knew it.
For Pearson, the lawsuit has always been about more than overturning a conviction.
That battle has already been won.
The fight now is over whether the officials who handled evidence of his innocence can be required to answer for what happened after that evidence emerged.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Jenn Wood (Provided)
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
SOUND OFF…
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.