Conservative Media Silent about South Carolina Man who Gets Away with ‘Murder’ of Former Fire Chief

Devon Dunham and Ernest Martin Stevens
  • Save
  • Save
Hardeeville, South Carolina: Devon Dunham confessed to fatally shooting former volunteer fire chief Ernest Martin Stevens, 77, in a public parking lot in 2017, but a jury refused to convict him after deliberating for only two hours. Mr. Stevens was sitting in his Ford F-150 truck in a parking lot when Dunham approached the elderly man and unloaded all eight rounds in his 9 mm handgun, killing Stevens, who was  unarmed. Dunham’s defense attorney said Dunham wanted a ride but felt threatened by Stevens, and was in a “blind panic” when he began firing shots. The defense attorney said that because there was no intent to harm, it was not murder. Under South Carolina law, murder is defined as the killing of any person with malice aforethought, and all 12 jurors must agree on whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty. Because Dunham was not convicted of murder, the charge of possessing a weapon during the commission of a violent crime was dropped.

Although Devon Dunham confessed to fatally shooting former Hardeeville volunteer fire chief Ernest Martin Stevens in a public parking lot in 2017, a Jasper County jury found him not guilty of murder Thursday.

Dunham breathed an audible sigh of relief through his face mask after hearing the verdict and softly fist-bumped his attorney.

The jury deliberated less than two hours.

Stevens, 77, was shot to death just before 9 a.m. Aug. 10, 2017, while sitting in the driver’s seat of his Ford F-150 truck in the Argent Square parking lot near his home off Ulman Street in Hardeeville.

Dunham, 28 and living at Hardeeville at the time, was arrested related to the killing a day later in Savannah. His trial started Tuesday in Ridgeland on charges of murder and possessing a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

Because he was not found guilty of murder, he could not be found guilty of the latter charge.

Throughout Tuesday and Wednesday, 19 witnesses were called, including neighbors who saw or heard the shooting, law enforcement officers involved in the investigation and arrest, and experts who reviewed evidence such as a 9 mm handgun, spent bullets, the autopsy report, footprints at the scene and Dunham’s confession to police.


During closing arguments on Thursday, 14th Circuit Solicitor Duffie Stone wove together a story of a frustrated Dunham searching for a ride when he came across Stevens.

“… He sees a target,” Stone said. “A 77-year-old man alone with a running truck. What great fortune for Devon Dunham, a vulnerable elderly man by himself.”

Stone alleged Dunham walked up to Stevens, told him to give him the truck, then unloaded all eight rounds in his 9 mm handgun when Stevens tried to drive away.

“He shot Mr. Stevens because he was losing his ride,” Stone claimed, adding here’s no argument of the facts because “most of what I told you Devon Dunham told you” in his admission to police.

Dunham’s defense attorney, Beaufort-based Jeffery Stephens, said Dunham wanted a ride but felt threatened by Stevens, and that’s when he began firing shots.

Read full article here…


Information Liberation:

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary


For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Frank J. Verderber
Frank J. Verderber
1 year ago

As is always he case, certain information missing. The verdict should be a slam dunk, However did the defendant have a license to carry; did the defendant have a criminal background, was the defendant a member or closely associated with members of BLM or ANTIFA or Black Muslims? Additionally, was the jury all African American – was the judge? The implication of this article suggests that the defendant was found NOT guilty, because he was a negro, at a time when social justice demanded a form of reparation. However, without the additional information, no specific determination can be rationally accepted.… Read more »