North Myrtle Beach Businessman Files Motion Seeking Recusal of Judge Eugene C. Griffith Jr. in Scott Spivey Wrongful Death Lawsuit
On Tuesday, June 9, 2026, an attorney for North Myrtle Beach businessman Weldon Boyd filed a motion in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina, seeking the recusal of Judge Eugene C. Griffith Jr.
The motion, filed by Kenneth R. Moss of Wright, Worley, Pope, Ekster & Moss, PLLC, alleges that Judge Griffith's impartiality in the wrongful death lawsuit brought by Scott Spivey's family, with Boyd as a defendant, may reasonably be questioned.
The motion outlines several points to support the request for recusal. It references an administrative order issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court on June 4, 2026, which reminded judges of their obligation to self-disqualify when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned.
Boyd's legal team claims to have recently learned of facts demonstrating Judge Griffith's personal participation in settlement negotiations involving the plaintiff and co-defendant Kenneth Williams. Specifically, an affidavit suggests that Judge Griffith discussed a potential grant of immunity to Defendant Williams in exchange for testimony that Boyd intentionally caused Spivey's death, during a stand-your-ground hearing held between February 17-20, 2026.
Further allegations in the motion include that Boyd's counsel learned of events on February 22, 2026, which, upon recall of personal knowledge from the stand-your-ground hearing, led to the belief that such conversations regarding immunity and fabricated testimony took place.
The motion also points to a Motion to Reconsider filed on June 3, 2026, which detailed facts evidencing bias on the part of Judge Griffith against Boyd. The recent disclosures, coupled with the attorney's recollection of conversations, have led Boyd to believe that Judge Griffith cannot be fair and impartial.
The motion also details "Other Acts and Omissions by Judge Griffith," including an alleged ex parte meeting with media representatives on February 12, 2026, prior to issuing an Order on Media Coverage on February 17, 2026. Boyd and his counsel were reportedly not made aware of this meeting.
Additionally, the motion claims the Order on Media Coverage, filed on February 17, 2026, was not filed until more than an hour after the stand-your-ground hearing convened, violating court rules regarding the timing of such orders. The order also allegedly permitted more cameras in the courtroom than allowed by rule, and there are no records documenting the number of cameras present at any given time.
Furthermore, the motion asserts that media outlets authorized for coverage did not file the required requests prior to the proceedings, and the judge did not designate locations for media equipment as required by rule. Public documents confirm that no record was kept of the identity of media representatives present during the proceedings from February 17-20, 2026, despite the clerk of court being required to maintain a journal. The motion also notes that participating media representatives were required to be familiar with published Bench-Bar-Press Guidelines, but none of the applications reflected this affirmation.
The motion concludes that these acts and omissions, while not direct evidence of bias, demonstrate Judge Griffith's cavalier oversight of media coverage, including instances where cameras may have been operating when the court was not in session, in violation of the media coverage order.
Boyd formally moves for Judge Griffith to recuse himself from further participation in the proceeding and reserves the right to supplement the motion with legal memoranda.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
