Case Explained: Daniel William Spade: A Conviction Affirmed, a Case Reopened, and a Prosecution Abandoned – Legal Perspective

Daniel William Spade: A Conviction Affirmed, a Case Reopened, and a Prosecution Abandoned

By James Seidel | Crime and Cask | CC News Network | Broken Badges

2010–2011: Allegations and Arrest

In September 2010, Daniel William Spade, then a Virginia resident and Washington, D.C.–area businessman, traveled to Spartanburg County, South Carolina, for court-authorized visitation with his biological daughter. According to later court findings, the child alleged that Spade sexually assaulted her during that visit at a Duncan-area hotel.

The allegation was not immediately reported to law enforcement. Court records show that months later, the child experienced anxiety, panic attacks, and behavioral changes. In March 2011, the child disclosed the alleged abuse to her maternal grandmother.

On April 11, 2011, the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office received the report. Spade was arrested the following month and charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 11 — among the most serious offenses under South Carolina law.

2014: Jury Trial and 35-Year Sentence

After nearly three years of pretrial litigation, Spade’s case went to trial in February 2014 in Spartanburg County General Sessions Court.

According to appellate records, the State’s case relied almost entirely on testimonial evidence. The child, then seven years old, testified that Spade forced her to perform a sexual act in a bathroom near the hotel’s pool area. The child’s mother testified that following visits with Spade, the child displayed panic attacks, regression in speech, and fear of the dark.

Multiple therapists testified that the child disclosed sexual abuse during counseling sessions. A forensic interviewer from the Children’s Advocacy Center testified regarding the child’s statements during a recorded forensic interview. No physical or medical evidence was introduced at trial.

Defense counsel challenged inconsistencies in the child’s accounts, the delayed disclosure, the absence of physical corroboration, and investigative procedures. The defense also objected to the participation of a privately appointed special prosecutor and raised concerns regarding delayed disclosure of therapy and investigative records.

On February 26, 2014, the jury convicted Spade. Circuit Judge R. Keith Kelly sentenced him to 35 years in prison, requiring service of 80 percent before parole eligibility.

2014–2017: Conviction Affirmed on Direct Appeal

Spade appealed, raising multiple issues including evidentiary exclusions, jury selection challenges, the appointment and authority of a special prosecutor, and late disclosure of records.

In an unpublished opinion issued July 6, 2016, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error. The South Carolina Supreme Court later declined review, rendering the conviction final on direct appeal.

Post-Conviction Relief: Conviction Vacated and New Trial Ordered

After exhausting direct appeals, Spade sought post-conviction relief (PCR).

In October 2020, the Spartanburg County PCR court vacated Spade’s conviction and granted a new trial, concluding that errors occurred during the original proceedings. The ruling followed a multi-day evidentiary hearing that included testimony from trial participants and review of investigative and forensic materials

The State appealed the PCR ruling, which stayed its effect and kept Spade incarcerated while appellate review continued.

Internal Affairs Inquiry and Allegations of Investigative Misconduct

Separately, in December 2020, Spade’s appellate counsel, E. Charles Grose Jr., submitted a formal request to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) seeking an internal investigation into the conduct of the lead detective in Spade’s case, Angela Nicole Cantrell, then employed by the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office and later assigned to SLED.

The request alleged multiple instances of misconduct, including false testimony, suppression of exculpatory information, and inconsistent statements across proceedings.

In February 2021, SLED notified counsel that its Office of Professional Responsibility had completed the investigation and had taken “appropriate action,” though the agency declined to disclose findings due to confidentiality rules governing personnel matters. Of course they did.