Jimmy's Story

In April 2004, Jimmy Causey was tried and wrongfully convicted for the robbery/home invasion of Columbia defense attorney Jack Swerling. The crime occurred at his home in the Spring Valley subdivision located in Northeast Columbia.

No one was murdered, assaulted or physically harmed in any way, yet Jimmy was sentenced to life without parole for this crime. The reason he received such an extremely harsh sentence was due to Mr. Swerling’s political influence within the courts and local government because it is rare for someone to receive life without parole for robbery.

From the very beginning, the trial was an absolute farce. There was an employee from the clerk of the court’s office named Ms. Cox telling members of the jury Jimmy was guilty before the trial even began. Some of the jurors were asking her if she knew approximately how long the trial would take, and she informed them that due to it being an open and shut case the trial should only take three to four days. A member of the jury pool named Mrs. Locke, informed the judge that she was friends with one of Mr. Swerling’s family members, but was still allowed to serve as a juror. Then at the sentencing, Mr. Swerling bragged (on record) about how he and the judge had been good friends for more than 30 years. Judge Thomas Cooper was originally scheduled to preside over the trial but recused himself a few days prior, and judge Jimmy Williams presided. Jimmy was tried in Jack Swerling’s courthouse, in front of Jack Swerling’s jury, by a Jack Swerling’s judge.

After Jimmy was charged with this crime, we contacted ten attorneys concerning his representation, but all declined claiming a conflict of some sort.

Jimmy was eventually appointed an attorney from the Richland County Public Defender’s office. His case was tried by the chief solicitor along with two assistants, so Jimmy’s attorney was joined by two assistants at trial. This attorney essentially assisted the state in his prosecution. His pretrial investigation consisted of a trip to Mr. Swerling’s house. He met with Jimmy for two short periods prior to trial and for approximately 15 minutes on the morning of the trial.

After being appointed, we contacted the attorney’s office and gave him the names and contact information of several people who Jimmy wanted him to interview and call to testify at the trial. The witnesses were never contacted or called to testify.

Then on the morning of the trial, the attorney informed Jimmy that he was not calling any witnesses to testify. Jimmy then demanded he request a continuance so his witnesses could be interviewed and called to testify, but the attorney stated that we would not be able to get a continuance due to Mr. Swerling having to be in Federal Court the following week. The attorney made a unilateral decision to proceed with the trial. Approximately three months after the trial, an employee from the Public Defender’s office, who Jimmy attended high school with, informed him that the Chief Public Defender’s wife actually worked for Mr. Swerling at the time of the trial

Jimmy’s wrongful conviction was not just predicated on the incompetence of his attorney; it was also due to corruption within the Richland County Court system. They withheld exculpatory evidence, used hearsay, and perjured testimony throughout the trial.

Prior to the date of trial, they had absolutely nothing connecting Jimmy to the crime, except for the confession/out of court statement of a man named Dwayne Wilson. He was a co-defendant in the case, testifying for the state, in order to receive a reduced sentence, or should I say, no sentence.

His confession, as well as his implication of Jimmy in the robbery, resulted from threats and coercion by police and prosecutors. He was already facing life without parole for a separate armed robbery and kidnapping, but his attorney was able to work out a ten-year plea agreement due to him testifying for the state in that case. However, after he testified, the state reneged on the agreement and told him that if he did not confess to the Swerling robbery, they would not go along with his plea for the previous robbery. So, of course, he provided a full “false” confession.

As previously stated, prior to the date of trial, the sole evidence against Jimmy was the co-defendant’s statement.

But low and behold, on the very day the trial was to begin, the solicitor was able to produce a positive identification by one of the victims. The so-called positive identification was a textbook unduly suggestive identification and should not have been allowed. An unduly suggestive identification occurs when the police or prosecutors display a single suspect or defendant in front of a victim or witness and asks, “Is this him?” This type of identification has been condemned throughout the country because they often lead to mistaken identifications and wrongful convictions.

In Jimmy’s case, approximately 45 minutes before the trial was to begin, the solicitor had one of the victims, Mrs. Swerling, come in and take a seat in the courtroom. He then had the bailiff escort Jimmy into the courtroom (in handcuffs) in an attempt to elicit a positive identification from her. At trial Mrs. Swerling stated that she saw Jimmy’s photo in the newspaper the previous day but was unable to identify him as being one of the robbers. But just as soon as she saw the bailiff escort Jimmy into that courtroom wearing those handcuffs, she informs the solicitor that she could now identify him as one of the robbers, the gunman. This courtroom identification took place nearly two years after the date of the robbery, and at no time during that two-year period did she ever indicate to the police or anyone that she could potentially make an identification.

At trial Mrs. Swerling stated that she only got one brief look at the gunman and remained face down on the floor for the remainder of the robbery. She stated that her identification was based on her recollection of the face she saw on the date of the robbery, but on the date of the robbery, she was not able to provide any type of description of the gunman’s face. She could not even recall whether or not he had any facial hair. Investigator Eric Barnes testified that he spoke to the family on the date of the robbery about the possibility of doing a composite drawing, but they were unable to assist him. There is also the fact that the robbers had stockings covering their faces. The South Carolina and U.S. Supreme Courts have ruled that these types of suggestive identification procedures are not admissible due to the substantial likelihood of misidentification, but the judge disregarded these rulings in Jimmy’s case and allowed the identification. Jimmy was also denied his right to counsel when the identification occurred. He informed the solicitor that he wanted to speak to his attorney prior to entering the courtroom, but his request was denied.

Then there was the statement/confession and trial testimony given by the co-defendant. Not only was his confession coerced by the police, it actually sounded as if it was written by the police. He used the terms; we “approached”, we “proceeded”, the gloves were “blue in color”, and Jimmy’s truck was “white in color”. Those sound like words used by police officers, not of a 19-year-old with an eighth-grade education. His statement and trial testimony were unbelievable because virtually everything he said that took place during the robbery was inconsistent to that of the Swerling family, even the times did not add up.

The co-defendant said he and Jimmy parked in a wooded area 300 to 500 feet to the left of Mr. Swerling’s house while committing the robbery. The problem with that is, there are no wooded areas to the left or anywhere near the Swerling home and it is surrounded by other homes. In order for them to have had a vehicle anywhere near Mr. Swerling’s house while committing the robbery, they would have had to park in someone’s yard or driveway for nearly an hour without anyone seeing it. The police spoke to all surrounding neighbors on the date of the robbery, but no one saw anyone or any vehicles. The neighbor at 10 North Lake Drive, which is the home to the left of Mr. Swerling’s, told the police he arrived at his house shortly before 10 p.m., but did not see anyone or any vehicles.

The co-defendant’s statement also conflicts with the K-9 report. When they brought out the K-9 unit after the robbery occurred, the dog trailed in the opposite direction to the wooded area he described. The K-9 report states that the dog picked up human scent in the backyard area, led them around to the garage, up the driveway, and stopped along the side of the street. This would indicate that the people were picked up by someone along the side of the street. Mr. and Mrs. Swerling said that just before the persons left, they heard what appeared to be one of them talking on a phone in the kitchen say, “pick us up in 10 minutes.” The K-9 report was withheld from his attorney. Jimmy did not see the K-9 report until the time when he filed his Post Conviction Relief.

The co-defendant said that when they arrived at Mr. Swerling’s house it was still light outside, but as soon as it got dark, they exited the truck and entered the backyard from the left side of the house. He said that he could see the Swerling family eating dinner through the back porch window. The robbery occurred in late June, which is daylight savings time, so it does not get dark until approximately 9pm. Mr. and Mrs. Swerling said they did not arrive at their house until 9:40 p.m. and did not sit down to eat until around 10 p.m. If Jimmy and Dwayne entered the backyard at 9 p.m., that would have been 40 minutes before the Swerling’s got to their house and an hour before they ate dinner. The co-defendant stated they were in the backyard for several minutes before entering the house but could not even recall if there was a swimming pool in the backyard, and the pool is only 12 to 18 feet from the back porch. He stated that once they entered the house and he bound the family with duct tape, he got Mr. Swerling’s wallet out of his back pocket, but Mr. Swerling said he was not carrying his wallet when the robbery occurred. He stated his wallet was in his car. The co-defendant said he went out to the garage and searched Mr. Swerling’s car, but Mr. Swerling stated his car was parked in the driveway and Mrs. Swerling’s car was parked in the garage. What is significant about that is that both the daughter Stephanie and Mrs. Swerling’s cars were not searched. The co-defendant said he did not cut the upstairs phone lines or steal money from the women’s purses that were in the upstairs bedroom, but Mr. and Mrs. Swerling said the gunman stayed in the den and held them at gunpoint while the second person searched the house. If the co-defendant did not cut the phone lines or steal the money from the purses, who did? His story does not make sense or add up. He said Jimmy wanted to rob Mr. Swerling because he had messed up on Jimmy’s previous trial. These were criminal charges that Jimmy had back in the early 90’s. Mr. Swerling worked out a plea bargain and Jimmy pled guilty. The description of the gunman given by the Swerling’s after the robbery is inconsistent. Mr. Swerling said the gun was held in the person’s right hand; Jimmy is left-handed.

Mrs. Swerling said that due to the gunman wearing a shear neutral colored stocking, she could see that he had dark or black hair. Mr. Swerling also said the gunman had dark hair. Stephanie Swerling, the daughter, said the gunman had long hair and spoke with a heavy country accent. Jimmy has never had long hair and does not speak with a heavy country accent. At the time of the robbery, Jimmy had blonde hair. Artana Cassidy, Jimmy’s former hair stylist, testified at his PCR hearing and provided a computer printout that reflected the exact dates he came to her salon and the services she provided. She stated that she dyed the entire top portion of his hair blonde on 6/15/02, which is only 12 days before the robbery occurred. She also stated that he never had long hair.

Mr. Swerling said that the second person that entered the room was thinner than the gunman, but at that time, Jimmy was the thinner of the two. He weighed 205 lbs., the co-defendant weighed 220 lbs. At the trial, both the investigator and the co-defendant gave perjured testimony concerning their weights. The solicitor knew their testimony was false, because he had the booking sheets on the table in front of him that reflected their weights, heights, etc.

While holding the family at gunpoint, the gunman told Mr. Swerling that he had done something to a friend or family member. He also stated that he had gone to high school with his son Brian and that he lived in the Spring Valley area. Jimmy has never attended Spring Valley High School or lived in the Spring Valley area. Jimmy has always lived and attended school in the Lower Richland area of Columbia. Mr. Swerling said that the way the gunman spoke to his daughter made him believe that he knew her.

When the co-defendant gave the police his statement on May 13, 2003, he told them he could not recall where they went or what was done after the robbery. But nearly a year later, when he shows up to testify, he suddenly recalls that they went to Jimmy’s girlfriend Heather’s house. Heather told police that Jimmy had stayed at her house on the date of the robbery, so the co-defendant changed his story so it would be consistent to Heather’s statement.

When the robbery was over, they discovered that the only thing missing from the house was Mr. Swerling’s cell phone and approximately $40.00 from the women’s purses. The police were puzzled by this, because they left behind many valuable items that could have easily been sold for cash. A few days after the robbery, a jogger found Mr. Swerling’s cell phone on the side of the road, but the phone was found in the opposite direction to where Heather lived at the time. The police were puzzled by this as well, because the phone was found on Hard Scrabble Road. Heather lived off of Screaming Eagle Road, which is in the opposite direction. When the police asked how the phone could have gotten on Hard Scrabble Road the co-defendant said, “I don’t know.” The co-defendant said he only duct taped the daughter’s hands because he ran out of tape, but the jogger found a half-used roll of duct tape just a few yards from where he found the cell phone. Not only did the co-defendant lie about his involvement in the crime, he also lied about Jimmy’s involvement as well. By doing so, he was able to buy his way out of a life sentence.

After Jimmy’s conviction he filed a direct appeal and then a post-conviction, but they were an absolute joke. He was subjected to systemic bias throughout the entire judicial process. His appellate attorney refused to raise the issues concerning the unduly suggestive identification and the conflict between the judge and Mr. Swerling. She actually filed an Anders brief, which basically tells the judge that she reviewed the record but found no appealable issues. Once the appeal was denied, Jimmy filed a PCR. The PCR hearing took over 3 years to schedule. Jimmy’s hair stylist and three other witnesses who were with him on the date the robbery occurred were called to testify. All are respectable people with no criminal history, but the judge ruled that they were not credible and denied the PCR.

At the time the robbery occurred, Jimmy owned a business called Causey Tree Experts. Causey Tree Experts was one of the biggest independently owned tree services in Columbia. They performed work for Richland County Public Works, City of Columbia, SCDC and several apartment and condominium complexes. They also did residential work and cleared lots for new construction. Jimmy had a nice home that was purchased in 2000 and had a baby boy that was seventeen months old at the time. His life and business were doing great, but then for some reason, according to police, he decided to go out and rob his former attorney that had represented him a decade earlier. It does not make sense.

His conviction and sentence were an egregious miscarriage of justice. Due to Jimmy’s appellant remedies being EXHAUSTED/DENIED, several friends and family members are organizing a RALLY at the STATE HOUSE. This is to bring his WRONGFUL CONVICTION to the attention of the GOVERNOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, and SOUTH CAROLINA CITIZENS. Jimmy has now spent 23 years in prison due to this egregious MISCARRIAGE of JUSTICE.

In the months following the RALLY, we will be submitting a PETITION to the GOVERNOR requesting that he commute Jimmy’s sentence to TIME SERVED. One may feel this letter does not concern you, not knowing Jimmy or being familiar with this case, but his WRONGFUL CONVICTION was due to corruption within the judicial system. This type of corruption could happen to a family member or friend of yours.

If you feel that Jimmy has received an UNFAIR TRIAL or SENTENCE, please be available to attend the RALLY Saturday, June 6th, 2026 . Your support could make all the difference.