-- of
Click here to see a list of stop words.
119th Session, 2011-2012 Journal of the House of Representatives
(Statewide Session)
The House assembled at 10:00 a.m. Our thought for today is from Proverbs 3:34: "To the humble he shows favor." Let us pray. Help us to know, dear God, that life is about You and not us. Guide each of these Representatives and staff to pursue the task set before them. Give them the knowledge to do the right things for the people of this great State. Under Your direction, the way is made plain. Bless our Country, her leaders, our State, Governor, Speaker, staff, and all who serve in these Halls of Government. Look upon our defenders of freedom as they protect us, and be their stronghold. Heal the wounds, those seen and those hidden, of our warriors. Hear us O Lord, as we pray. Amen. Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER. After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. BARFIELD moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of his sister, JoAnn Barfield Johnson, which was agreed to.
The House stood in silent prayer for the victims of the shootings in Tucson, Arizona.
The following was received:
January 13, 2011 Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications. This Report is designed to assist you in determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found all candidates discussed in this Report to be qualified. The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified means that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office and the Commission's evaluative criteria. The attached Report details each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria.
Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, January 18, 2011. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until January 18, 2011. In sum, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate's candidacy until the time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact the Commission office at 212-6623.
Sincerely,
Dear Fellow Members: This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate's contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate's behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Fall 2010 screening. Section 2-19-70(C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (Commission). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-70(C) provides that "the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate's qualifications" (emphasis added). Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding their candidacy; please note that six members of the Commission also are legislators. In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the 48-hour period expires following the release of the Commission's report. The Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours have expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates' qualifications. The Commission would again like to remind members of the General Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense and must be considered when determining a candidate's fitness for judicial office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at 212-6629 (T-Th).
Sincerely,
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law that went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted. The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experiences (lawyers, teachers, businessmen, bankers, and advocates for various organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.
The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental health, and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following: While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact a candidate's fitness for judicial service. The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another. Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the Canons, etc. is his or her completed and sworn questionnaire. Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions. This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously, as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report, as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, and Family Court.
SENATOR MCCONNELL AND SENATOR KNOTTS We voted against waiving screening hearings, pursuant to Section 2-19-40, for the judges screened for re-election and continued retired status listed in the motion made to waive their appearance at the Public Hearing, as the investigation of these candidates did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received. While we have no problems with the records of any of these judges and have confidence in their future service on the bench, we believe that each and every judge should have to be screened when they are offering for initial or continued service on the bench. Twenty minutes of time for a candidate with the commission is not too much to ask in return for the benefits of being a judge. The public deserves an open and transparent process wherein judges are put under oath and asked questions about their work ethic and prior service and experience. This is the only chance the legislature has, as representatives of our constituents, to hear from judicial candidates and ask questions of them before entrusting them with the solemn duty of judging others. We would like to remove the statute that allows for waiving of judge candidates and have offered bills to do so. However, until that bill passes, we will continue to oppose efforts to waive candidates from screening. People should at least expect that a judge every few years comes before the Commission and explains his past service and asks for future service. Waiving a candidate forecloses that expectation of the people and the opportunity to hear a candidate in person and under oath. For that reason, we voted no.
Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to SC Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Short since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received. Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Short meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Short was born in 1947. He is 64 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Judge Short provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Short. Judge Short demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge Short reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Short testified he has not:
Judge Short testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Judge Short to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Short described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Judge Short reported that he has taught the following law related courses:
Judge Short reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Short did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Short did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Short has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Short was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry. Judge Short reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV. Judge Short reported the following military service: "U.S. Army, June 1968; entered active duty August 1971; discharged from active duty November 1971; served SC National Guard until 1973; discharged U.S. Army Reserve 1974; highest rank attained was 1st Lieutenant; Present Status, Inactive Reserve; Honorably Discharged as Captain. Serial number: XXX-XX-XXXX."
Judge Short reported that he has held the following public offices:
Judge Short appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Short appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Short was admitted to the SC Bar in 1971. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: I began the general practice of law in November 1971, in Chester, SC, with Mr. Fred H. Strickland and Mr. E. K. Hardin, who later became Probate Judge of Chester County. In late 1972, I became a partner in the firm and, in approximately June 1973, Mr. Strickland was tragically killed in a house fire, and I became senior partner at the age of 26. Mr. William C. Keels graduated from law school in June 1973, and he and I began practicing law together at that time. I was honored to have been elected to the SC Circuit Court At-Large Seat #8 on February 1, 1991, and served continuously until February 1999, when I was elected Resident Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit. I was elected to the SC Court of Appeals in May 2004.
Judge Short reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
Judge Short provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions: Judge Short further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies: "I withdrew from the SC Court of Appeals, Seat #6 on February 4, 2003, after having been selected one of the three candidates selected by the Judicial Merit Selection Committee.
"I withdrew as a candidate from the SC Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Seat on approximately January 27, 2010."
The Commission believes that Judge Short's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Piedmont Citizens Committee reported that Judge Short is "Well-qualified" in all evaluative areas: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Judge Short is married to Linda Huffstetler Short. He has two children.
Judge Short reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Short provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Judge Short further reported:
"While I was practicing law, I had the pleasure to serve and to gain valuable experience on the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline."
The Commission commented that Judge Short has served very well on the Court of Appeals for six years and is an asset to the bench. The Commission found Judge Short qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Court of Appeals.
Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to SC Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Williams since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested, the investigation did not reveal any significant issues to address, and no complaints were received. Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Williams meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Williams was born in 1956. He is 54 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Williams provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Williams. Judge Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge Williams reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Williams testified he has not:
Judge Williams testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Judge Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Judge Williams described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: (a) Annual Judicial Conference 8/03 - 8/09; (b) National Foundation for Judicial Excellence (Judicial Symposium) 7/05-7/10; (c) 4TH Amendment Seminar (National Judicial College) 3/08; (d) Essential Skills for the Appellate Judge, (National Judicial College) 7/1/06; (e) SC Drug Court Conference 8/23/06, '07, '08; (f) Civil Law Update 1/27/06, 1/08; (g) Criminal Law Update 1/27/06, 1/07, 1/08; (h) Family Court Judges Conference 4/03 - 4/08; (i) Mini Summit on Justice for Children 8/22/06; (j) Hot Tips for Domestic Law Practitioners 9/22/06; (k) Family Court Bench and Bar 12/01/06; (l) New Appellate Judge Conference (New York University) 7/10/05; (m) Criminal Law Update 1/21/05; (n) Trial and Appellate Advocacy 1/22/05; (o) Hot Tips For Domestic Law Practitioners 9/23/05; (p) Annual Judicial Symposium 7/15/05-07; (q) SC Defense Lawyers Annual Meeting 11/05 - 11/09; (r) SC Bar Family Law Section 1/23/04; (s) Revised Lawyers Oath Seminar 8/27/04; (t) Wofford and the Law 9/24/04; (u) SC Bar Family Law 1/24/03; (v) SC Association for Justice Conference 8/04-08; (w) Annual Solicitors Conference 9/03,'05, '06; (x) N.C./SC Appellate Judges Conference 3/05, 3/07; (y) National Association of Drug Court Professionals 6/04, '06, '08.'10.
Judge Williams reported that he has taught the following law related courses:
Judge Williams reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Williams did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Williams did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Williams has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Williams was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Williams reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV.
Judge Williams appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Williams appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Williams was admitted to the SC Bar in 1982. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: (a) 1982-95: General practice of law with primary emphasis on family law and personal injury law; (b) 1982-91 Scott, Mathews, and Williams, PA; (c) 1991-95 Trotter and Williams, PA; (d) 1991-95 Part-time municipal judge for Irmo, SC; (e) 1995-2004 Judge, SC Family Court; (f) 2004-present Judge, SC Court of Appeals.
Judge Williams reported that he has held the following judicial offices: Judge Williams provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions: (a) Hooper v. Rockwell, et al. - 334 SC 281, 573 S.E.2d 358, (1999); (b) Truitt v. Truitt - 361 SC 272, 603 S.E.2d 867 (Ct.App.2004); (c) State v. Lynch, 375 SC628, 654 S.E. 2d 292 (Ct.App.2007); (d) State v. Funderburk, 367 SC 236 , 625 S.E.2d 248 (Ct.App.2006); (e) McLaughlin v. Williams, 379 SC 451, 665 S.E. 2d 667 (2008).
Judge Williams further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
The Commission believes that Judge Williams' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Williams to be "Well-qualified" for all nine criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee further stated in summary, "Judge Williams is truly an asset to our State and our Judiciary. The Committee has the utmost appreciation for his honorable service on the Court of Appeals, in the Richland County Drug Court and in the community. The Committee believes he is most eminently qualified to continue his service on the Court of Appeals, and the Committee is confident he would continue to serve in an outstanding manner." Judge Williams is married to Sharon Childers Williams. He has two children.
Judge Williams reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Williams provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Judge Williams further reported: I assisted in the design and implementation of the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court Program, a comprehensive drug treatment court for juvenile offenders with serious drug problems. I continue to preside over the drug court on Monday evenings. We recently celebrated our 13-year anniversary of the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court. I am gratified and appreciative the support and encouragement received from members of the Bar since serving on the bench. I will continue to strive to improve in hopes of better serving the people of South Carolina.
I believe my 13 years of experience as a practicing lawyer, nine years of experience on the Family Court, and six years of experience on the Court of Appeals gives me a broad range of experience to continue serving on the Court of Appeals.
The Commission commented that they were very impressed by Judge Williams' 13 years of service on the Richland County Drug Court and with his six years of service on the Court of Appeals. The Commission found Judge Williams qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Court of Appeals.
Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Benjamin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Benjamin was born in 1972. She is 38 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Benjamin provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1997. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Benjamin. Judge Benjamin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge Benjamin reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Benjamin testified she has not:
Judge Benjamin testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Judge Benjamin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Benjamin described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Judge Benjamin reported that she has taught the following law related courses: Judge Benjamin reported that she has published the following:
"Why Doesn't She Leave? The Psychology of a Domestic Violence Victim." The American Bar Association Affiliate Newsletter, Volume 26 Number 2, Nov/Dec 2000. The Commission's investigation of Judge Benjamin did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Benjamin did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Benjamin has handled her financial affairs responsibly. A complaint was filed by Dr. Marie Faltas against Judge Benjamin's candidacy for this judicial position. In summary, the complaint alleged that Judge Benjamin's conduct during a preliminary hearing in municipal court showed a lack of legal knowledge and integrity. Specifically, Dr. Faltas stated that Judge Benjamin erred in not allowing Dr. Faltas to argue that a city ordinance was unconstitutional, and that Judge Benjamin erred by telling Dr. Faltas that yelling and screaming were not protected forms of speech. The Commission heard testimony from and reviewed documents provided by Dr. Faltas, and the Commission heard testimony from Judge Benjamin in response to the Dr. Faltas' allegations. After careful consideration, the Commission determined that this complaint was without merit, and found that Judge Benjamin exhibited great patience with Dr. Faltas during her hearings.
The Commission also noted that Judge Benjamin was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry. Judge Benjamin reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. She further reported, "I have never applied for a rating." Judge Benjamin reported that she has held the following public office:
"I served on the Juvenile Parole Board from July 2001 - June 2004. I was appointed by Governor James H. Hodges, Jr."
Judge Benjamin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Judge Benjamin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Judge Benjamin was admitted to the SC Bar in 1997.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: Judge Benjamin made the following statement regarding her experience: Criminal Court - My criminal experience as an attorney dates back to my days as an Assistant Solicitor in the Richland County Solicitor's office. I was assigned to the Juvenile prosecution section and handled detention hearings, juvenile trials, Juvenile truancy cases and I participated on the Juvenile Drug Court team. After leaving the Solicitor's office, I worked in the Prosecution division of the Attorney General's Office. There I was assigned as a special prosecutor handling Violence against Women and children matters. I traveled the state prosecuting criminal domestic violence cases, criminal sexual conduct cases, criminal sexual conduct with minor cases and other related offenses. I also was assigned to handle elder abuse cases and serve on the Elder Abuse interagency task force. I entered private practice when I left the Attorney General's office and handled criminal matters of all types in State court. I also was appointed to serve on the Juvenile Parole Board from 2001-04. I was elected by the board as Vice-Chair from 2002-03. I currently serve as a Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia. I handle a range of misdemeanor crimes to include Criminal Domestic Violence cases and Driving Under the Influence cases. I have been a Municipal Judge for the past six years. I preside over bond court, criminal court, preliminary hearings and jury trials. Civil Court - While employed at the Attorney General's office I was assigned to handle the then new Civil Commitments of Sexually Violent Predators. I handled these cases statewide and won one of the first jury trials of this kind. In addition to working part-time at the City of Columbia municipal court, I practice law with my father at the Gist Law Firm. Our office focuses on employment law, family law, contract law, and civil litigation. Most of our work is representing Plaintiffs although at times, we have represented defendants. A huge part of our employment practice is in federal court with the remaining part of our civil practice being in state court. I have primarily handled contract disputes and personal injury matters in state court.
Judge Benjamin reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Judge Benjamin reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Judge Benjamin reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Judge Benjamin provided, "My law partner and I work together during federal court trials. I solely handle my Family Law trials and civil trials."
The following is Judge Benjamin's account of her five most significant litigated matters: The following is Judge Benjamin's account of the civil appeal she has personally handled: McKinney vs. Richland County Sheriff's Department, 431 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2005) Judge Benjamin reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Judge Benjamin reported that she has held the following judicial office: I am a City of Columbia Municipal Judge. I was appointed in July of 2004. Judge Benjamin provided the following regarding her significant orders: As a Municipal Judge I handle traffic court, criminal court, Criminal Domestic Violence court and Quality of Life court. These cases do not usually warrant formal judicial opinions and orders other than form orders. I recently had a case upheld on appeal regarding the constitutionality of a City Ordinance, City of Columbia vs. Boatwright. Judge Benjamin further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"I had an unsuccessful bid for Family Court (Fifth Circuit, Seat 1) in February 2010."
The Commission believes that Judge Benjamin's temperament would be excellent. The Midlands Citizens Committee found Judge Benjamin to be "Well-qualified" for all nine criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary: "Judge Benjamin is both an eminently qualified and a most highly regarded candidate. The committee is confident that she would make an outstanding judge on the Circuit Court." Judge Benjamin is married to Stephen K. Benjamin. She has two children.
Judge Benjamin reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Judge Benjamin provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: (a) Edventure Children's Museum; (b) Congaree Girls Scouts; (c) Appleseed Legal Justice Center Board; (d) St. John Preparatory School Board; (e) Columbia Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta; (f) USC Community Advisory Board. Judge Benjamin further reported: My experience as a prosecutor, private attorney, Parole Board Member, and Municipal Judge has afforded me the opportunity to practice in many areas of the law. My experience reflects positively upon my candidacy, I have experience in both civil law and criminal law.
During my time as a Municipal Judge I have received excellent ratings from my peers, lawyers appearing before me, police officers, jurors and community members. I have been a fair and impartial judge and I believe in treating everyone with dignity and respect.
The Commission commented that Judge Benjamin exhibited extreme patience and judicial temperament during the Public Hearing and as a municipal Court judge. They noted her poise and her respectfulness, which would be an asset on the Circuit Court. The Commission found Judge Benjamin qualified and nominated her for election to the Circuit Court.
Fifth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Hood meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Hood was born in 1975. He is 35 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Hood provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 2001.
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hood. Mr. Hood reported that he has made $86.55 in campaign expenditures for postage, paper, and envelopes.
Mr. Hood testified he has not: The Commission found Mr. Hood to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hood described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hood did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hood did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hood has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Hood was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Hood appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Hood appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Hood was admitted to the SC Bar in 2001.
Handled prosecution cases as an Assistant Solicitor including violent crimes, property crimes, white collar crimes, and misdemeanors.
Prosecutor for the Statewide Grand Jury. Handled multi-county drug trafficking cases, large scale securities fraud cases, and white collar/public corruption cases throughout the state. United States of America v. Jamar Robinson 4th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 05-5276 Unpublished
January 11, 2007.
The Commission believes that Mr. Hood's temperament would be excellent.
Mr. Hood is married to Kristina Kirk Hood. He has two children. The Commission found Mr. Hood qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.
Fifth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Meadors meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Meadors was born in 1961. He is 49 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Meadors provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Meadors. Mr. Meadors demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Meadors reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Meadors testified he has not: The Commission's investigation of Mr. Meadors did not reveal evidence of any found grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Meadors did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Meadors has handled his financial affairs responsibly. The Commission also noted that Mr. Meadors was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
A complaint was filed by Dr. Marie Faltas against Mr. Meadors' candidacy for this judicial position. In summary, this complaint alleged that Mr. Meadors showed no respect for the integrity of the courts. Specifically, Dr. Faltas stated that Mr. Meadors refused to review evidence that Dr. Faltas said was proof that attorneys in Mr. Meadors' office had misled the circuit court in a criminal matter involving Dr. Faltas. The Commission heard testimony from and reviewed documents provided by Dr. Faltas, and the Commission heard testimony from Mr. Meadors in response to the Dr. Faltas' allegations. After careful consideration, the Commission determined that this complaint was without merit.
Mr. Meadors reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Meadors further reports: "Not listed. I have been a prosecutor my entire career."
Mr. Meadors appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Meadors appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Meadors was admitted to the SC Bar in 1988 after taking the bar exam twice. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: I started my legal career in the Fifth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office as an assistant solicitor. From 1988-91, I prosecuted everything from magistrate court offenses to rapes, armed robberies and murders. From 1991-95, I worked for the SC Attorney General's Office in the State Grand Jury Division. Under the supervision of (now) Judge Cameron Currie, I was part of a team that prosecuted major drug conspiracies statewide. In addition to presenting evidence to the State Grand Jury and prosecuting the cases, we also handled the civil forfeiture aspect of the cases. During this time I personally prosecuted numerous cases around the state, including a multi-county drug conspiracy case involving 8 defendants that culminated in a conviction after a three week jury trial in Kershaw County. I also was the lead prosecutor in the second child pornography prosecution and the first money laundering case for the State Grand Jury. In addition, I was also appointed a Special Assistant US Attorney and worked with the US Attorney's Office in the presentation of evidence to the Federal Grand Jury and preparation of a joint federal/state drug conspiracy prosecution. From 1995-2003, I was the First Assistant Solicitor in charge of the Kershaw County Solicitor's office in the Fifth Judicial Circuit. I was responsible for the prosecution of all General Sessions Court and Family Court cases in Kershaw County. From 2003 to the present, I have been the Deputy Solicitor for Fifth Judicial Circuit (Richland and Kershaw). I have been responsible for the supervision of over 30 attorneys and the prosecution of criminal cases in the Fifth Judicial Circuit. As Deputy Solicitor, I have primarily tried murder cases. Throughout my career I have prosecuted over ten thousand cases, and more than 100 murder cases. Mr. Meadors made the following statements regarding his experience: I have been involved in the prosecution of hundreds of jury trials including non violent and violent felonies. In the past five years I have primarily prosecuted murder cases including Homicide by Child Abuse and Felony DUI Resulting in Death cases.
Cases I have tried in the past year: I handled a case in Kershaw County juvenile court where a child shot and killed his brother.
Some of the cases I have tried over the past five years: I have also prosecuted five Capital Murder cases, two of which went to trial. In one of these cases, I conducted the first hearing in the state on the applicability of Capital Punishment to a defendant claiming mental retardation. My significant experience trying cases in General Sessions Court has provided me a solid foundation to become a circuit court judge. As a result of my trial experience I have dealt with all aspects of criminal law including evidentiary issues such as eyewitness identification, DNA evidence, competency of defendants, search and seizure, and other related issues. I have presented and cross-examined experts in forensic psychiatry, forensic pathology, statistics, bloodhounds, eyewitness identification, fingerprints, crime scenes, firearms and ballistics, gun-shot residue and other fields of expertise.
My experience in civil matters includes assisting in handling asset forfeitures in drug cases, driving offenses, and judicial commitment proceedings. Because the rules of evidence are the same in both criminal and civil trials, my trial experience in General Sessions Court provides me with a good foundation which I can build upon to become proficient in Common Pleas Court. Furthermore, I have studied the rules of civil procedure and have followed the changes in the law by reading the Advance Sheets. Prior to taking the bench, I will continue to educate myself by attending Common Pleas Court when possible and reviewing CLE materials involving civil matters." Mr. Meadors reported that he most often served as Chief Counsel.
The following is Mr. Meadors' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
Mr. Meadors reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.
The Commission believes that Mr. Meadors' temperament would be excellent. The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Meadors to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee further stated in summary that they were "most impressed by Mr. Meadors. He is the most experienced candidate we interviewed, and his character and temperament are outstanding in every way. We believe Mr. Meadors is most eminently qualified to serve on the Circuit Court, and we are confident he would serve our state in an outstanding manner." Mr. Meadors is married to Patricia Ann (Rogers) Meadors. He has four children.
Mr. Meadors reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Meadors provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Board of Directors, July 1999 - 2002; Chair of the Club Service Committee, July 1999 - 2002 Health and happiness committee 2007 - present.
Paul Harris Fellow.
Board of Directors - January 2009 - present. Prior Board member. Mr. Meadors further reported: The biggest influence on my life has been my father and mother, Bishop Jack Meadors and the late Hannah Meadors. My siblings and I were raised to treat people with fairness and respect. My parents instilled in all of us the value of service to others. These values have shaped my personal life and professional career. We were also taught that there are rules and that there are consequences when the rules are not followed. I learned early in life that my greatest power was my power to choose. After 22 years as a prosecutor, dealing with victims, law enforcement, attorneys and judges I have the temperament, experience and judgment to be an effective Circuit Court Judge As an assistant solicitor I was named "Victim/Witness Assistant of the Year" in the State of Maryland in 1989. I was nominated by the parents of a murder victim in a case I prosecuted in Richland County. The family was from Baltimore and their son was attending Columbia Bible College. I was appointed by the Governor to the State Child Fatality Review Board - 2007 -present. In 2005, I was the recipient of the Ernest F. Hollings Award for excellence in State Court prosecution. I received this award for my work on six murder cases in 2005.
I am a member of Shandon United Methodist Church in Columbia and periodically teach the Sunday school. In addition I have coached the girls' basketball team for over twenty years. I am currently chairperson of the Staff- Parish Relations committee at my church.
The Commission commented that Mr. Meadors has an outstanding reputation as an attorney. They noted that his extensive criminal trial experience would be a great asset to the judicial system if he were elected as a Circuit Court Judge. The Commission found Mr. Meadors qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.
Fifth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Roche meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. Roche was born in 1966. She is 44 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Ms. Roche provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1994. She was also admitted to the Louisiana Bar in 1996. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Roche. Ms. Roche demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Ms. Roche reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Roche testified she has not:
Ms. Roche testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Ms. Roche to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Roche described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Roche reported that she has taught the following law related courses:
Ms. Roche reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Roche did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Roche did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Roche has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Roche was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry. Ms. Roche reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. She further reported, "As a Workers' Compensation Commissioner, I am not listed." Ms. Roche reported that she has held the following public office:
Member, Commissioner, SC Workers' Compensation Commission from July, 2006 to present. Chairman from July, 2008 to present. This is an appointed position.
Ms. Roche appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Roche appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Roche was admitted to the SC Bar in 1994. She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: (a) The Honorable Robert F. Chapman, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, September 1994-October 1996. Law Clerk. Duties included preparing bench memoranda and drafting opinions. (b) Phelps Dunbar, New Orleans, LA, October 1996-December 1996. Associate Attorney. Areas of practice were commercial and construction litigation. (c) South Carolina Court of Appeals, June 1997-August 1998. Law Clerk to the Honorable Carol Connor and Staff Attorney. Duties included preparing bench memoranda and drafting opinions. (d) Barnes, Alford, Stork and Johnson, August 1998-June 2006. Associate/Partner. My practice consisted of more than half workers' compensation. I also dealt with medical malpractice, construction and general litigation, and appellate advocacy." Ms. Roche made the following statements regarding her experience: I have no experience in criminal matters. I worked on one post-conviction relief case while I was practicing. I recently, however, spent six months on the Richland County Grand Jury as a juror. Because of that, I spent time studying the elements of various felonies and received first-hand knowledge of the grand jury. I feel strongly that with study and a period of observation, I can confidently preside over criminal proceedings.
Before being appointed to the Workers' Compensation Commission, my practice was a defense practice mostly before state court and the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. My practice was approximately 75% workers' compensation. I also worked on medical malpractice cases. I did some work on construction litigation and general litigation as well. Because of my clerking background, I did a fair amount of the firm's appellate work on various issues. I have argued various motions before the circuit court and federal district court, tried cases before the Workers' Compensation Commission and magistrate's court, and appeared before the South Carolina Court of Appeals and South Carolina Supreme Court.
The following is Ms. Roche's account of her five most significant litigated matters: 354 SC 412, 581 S.E.2d 481 (2003)
This case revolved around whether South Carolina had personal jurisdiction over a plaintiff for cross-claims in a foreclosure action. The supreme court decided the issue on one of the grounds argued.
This case involved whether an employer/employee relationship existed between the workers' compensation claimant and the employer. Although I lost this case at the Supreme Court, after winning below, the Supreme Court recently reversed itself and overruled this case.
This workers' compensation case involved whether the claimant could recover for mental injuries without underlying physical injuries. The case went through many levels of appeals with the defendants prevailing.
This workers' compensation case involved the heart attack standard and the doctrine of laches. This worker's compensation case involved issue of notice and injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of employment. The case went through many levels of appeals.
The following is Ms. Roche's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled: Ms. Roche's reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Ms. Roche further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"In 2009, I was an unsuccessful candidate for Circuit Court, Judge, At-Large, Seat 8."
The Commission believes that Ms. Roche's temperament would be excellent. The Midlands Citizens' Committee found Ms. Roche "Well-qualified" in all nine evaluative areas: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. In summary, they stated that they were "most impressed by Ms. Roche. She has a most outstanding academic background and a sincere commitment to service to our state. She is eminently qualified to serve as a Judge of the Circuit Court, and we are confident that she would continue to serve our state in an outstanding manner." Ms. Roche is married to James Lawrence Roche, Jr. She has one step-child. Ms. Roche reported that she was a member of the following bar association and professional association: SC Bar. Ms. Roche provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: Ex officio board member of the SC Workers' Compensation Education Association. Ms. Roche further reported:
"Because of my position as a workers' compensation commissioner, I have experience in hearing contested cases, running a courtroom, dealing with attorneys and their clients as well as dealing with pro se litigants. I also have experience in ruling on cases and issuing orders. Although I have a great deal of academic ability, I also have the common sense and temperament to be an effective judge."
The Commission commented that Ms. Roche is poised and has an excellent reputation as a Commissioner on the Workers Compensation Commission. They noted that she expressed an excellent attitude on temperament, respect for litigants, and writing orders. The Commission found Ms. Roche qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
Fifth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Shadd meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Shadd was born in 1974. He is 36 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Shadd provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 2000. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Shadd. Mr. Shadd demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Shadd reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Shadd testified he has not:
Mr. Shadd testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Shadd to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Shadd described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Mr. Shadd reported that he has not taught any law related courses.
Mr. Shadd reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Shadd did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Shadd did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Shadd has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Shadd was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry. Mr. Shadd reported with regard to his Martindale-Hubbell rating, "I am listed in Martindale-Hubbell, but it does not appear that I have any rating. If I am, I am not sure of the rating."
Mr. Shadd reported that he has held the following public offices:
Mr. Shadd appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Shadd appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Shadd was admitted to the SC Bar in 2000. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: "I began my legal career at Johnson, Toal & Battiste, PA as an associate from graduation until December 2006 specializing in criminal defense, plaintiff's personal injury and domestic and family law. I started the Shadd Law Firm, LLC in January 2007 specializing in the same areas of law. I am a solo practitioner." Mr. Shadd made the following statements regarding experience: I have handled several criminal cases in the past five years ranging from small misdemeanors to those involving the death of a child. I have only represented those accused of crimes from magistrate's court, juvenile court, Circuit Court as well as in federal court. These cases have been throughout the state but primarily in this Circuit. Most cases have ended in either a plea, prosecutorial and judicial dismissals or some pretrial intervention program. A few have resulted in trial. I have also been involved in some civil cases including, but not limited to, personal injury, defamation, contractual disputes and medical negligence. These have also been handled on the magistrate level, Master in Equity and in the Court of Common Please. While I have gone to trial on a minority of these cases, most end in a settlement prior to trial. I have primarily represented plaintiffs but have also represented a few individual and institutional defendants. I recognize that I may be lacking in this area but will compensate for the shortfall through CLE's, researching of case law and counsel with other members of the Bench.
Mr. Shadd reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Shadd reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Shadd reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows: Mr. Shadd provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Shadd's account of his five most significant litigated matters: The following is Mr. Shadd's account of the civil appeal he has personally handled: "John and Jane Doe, as Parents, Natural Guardians and Next Friends of Anonymous Child, Appellants v. Cassius Rojas and Richland County School District #2, Respondents (Unpublished Opinion, SC Court of Appeals), I represented the individual defendant. The District's counsel won summary judgment which was appealed and affirmed." The following is Mr. Shadd's account of the criminal appeal he has personally handled: US v. Anthony R. Hutchinson, 04-5093-Unreported (4th Cir.) Mr. Shadd further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
Fifth Circuit Solicitor-lost in primary election 2010.
The Commission believes that Mr. Shadd's temperament would be excellent. The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Shadd to be "Well-qualified" for all nine criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, "[We were] very impressed with Mr. Shadd and enjoyed his interview. We are equally impressed by his commitment to the community. We feel certain that he is eminently qualified to serve our State on the Circuit Court and knows that he would serve in an outstanding manner." Mr. Shadd is married to Taminika Lashelle Shadd. He has four children. Mr. Shadd reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: (a) ABA; (b) NBA; (c) Federal Bar Association; (d) SC Bar-Young Lawyers Division Hunger Project Chair (2003-04) Annual Conventions Co-Chair (2006-07) Standing Committee Member (2006-07) Membership Publicity Chair (2008); (e) National Football League Players Association-Contract Advisor (Agent).
Mr. Shadd provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Board Chair 2007-09
2009 Distinguished Service Award recipient;
Board Chair 2007-09; Mr. Shadd further reported:
Throughout my practice and in my life experience, I have represented all walks of life and come into contact with people of all stripes. I have seen that in every person, they want fairness. Oftentimes, it is about winning and losing, but in the end, litigants want to have a fair shake or fair shot. They despise when things are stacked against them or they perceive that the judge did "not like them" or have some special relationship with opposing counsel. I have advocated for people in my profession as well as with certain charitable organizations. I believe I have done well so far. Helping people was the main reason I became an attorney. It still remains so. I believe everyone should respect the rule of law, which I love and will defend. There should also be a feeling amongst our society of confidence in fairness, equity and the courtroom is open, blind, and unbiased for anyone with a legitimate dispute that can be resolved in the courtroom. A judge should promote those things and shun personal biases. She should apply the law and rules to the facts while not rewarding friends or punishing enemies. Our society depends on it. Now I would like to play a different role as a member of our great Bench. Judges should be prepared, kind, humorous, unbiased and take their jobs seriously. I have been that way in my career and life and would bring those same qualities if honored to be chosen to do so.
The Commission commented that Mr. Shadd made an impressive presentation at the Public Hearing. They noted his excellent reputuation and his active involvement in his local community. The Commission found Mr. Shadd qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
Fifth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED 1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Tzerman meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Tzerman was born in 1955. He is 55 years old and a resident of Camden, South Carolina. Judge Tzerman provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Tzerman. Judge Tzerman demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge Tzerman reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Tzerman testified he has not:
Judge Tzerman testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Judge Tzerman to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Tzerman described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Judge Tzerman reported that he has not taught any law related courses.
Judge Tzerman reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Tzerman did not reveal evidence of any found grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Tzerman did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Tzerman has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Tzerman was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Tzerman reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
Judge Tzerman appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Tzerman appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Tzerman was admitted to the SC Bar in 1981. Mr. Tzerman made the following statements regarding his experience: My experience in criminal matters in Circuit Court is more limited than my experience in civil matters. However, I have represented defendants in guilty pleas and have handled probation violations, including during a term of Court in Kershaw County the week of July 19, 2010. The last jury trial I handled in General Sessions was more than (5) years ago. It was a DUI 2nd trial. I have handled many civil matters since being admitted to practice in 1981. I have represented plaintiffs and defendants. I recently tried a case in the Court of Common Pleas in Kershaw County the week of August 2, 2010. I represent two (2) defendants. Early in my career, I represented the plaintiff in the matter of Lever v Wilder Mobile Home Corp. which was a trespass/nuisance case in Richland County before retired Justice, then Judge James Moore. The verdict was affirmed on appeal and the case is often cited for the South Carolina definition of nuisance. Recent civil cases I have handled include Brown v Brazel and Russell and Jeffcoat, 08-CP-28-811, a fraud and conversion case in Kershaw County. The matter was settled through mediation in 2009. Another recent matter in Common Pleas was Rohrig v Durham, State Farm Insurance and Phoenix Life Insurance, 2008-CP-29-1082, a Lancaster County case involving securities fraud and unfair trade practices that was settled after discovery.
Judge Tzerman reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Judge Tzerman reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Judge Tzerman reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Judge Tzerman reported that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Tzerman's account of his five most significant litigated matters: The following is Judge Tzerman's account of the civil appeal he has personally handled: Lever v Wilder Mobile Homes, Inc., decided 11/5/84 - 322SE2d692. Judge Tzerman reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Judge Tzerman reported that he has held the following judicial office: Kershaw County Master-in-Equity April 2000 - Present (appointed).
Judge Tzerman provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions: Judge Tzerman reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
Family Court Judge in 2008.
The Commission believes that Judge Tzerman's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Midland's Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Tzerman to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary: "Judge Tzerman is a very eminently qualified and highly regarded candidate. We are confident that he would most ably serve on the Circuit Court in an outstanding manner." Judge Tzerman is married to Mitzi G. Rutland Tzerman. He has one child.
Judge Tzerman reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Tzerman reported that he was not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations.
The Commission commented that they were impressed by Judge Tzerman's service as a Master-In-Equity for ten years, and they were grateful for his dedication to his duties in that court. They noted that Judge Tzerman is well-experienced and has great integrity. The Commission found Judge Tzerman qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
Thirteenth Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Englebardt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Englebardt was born in 1964. He is 46 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Englebardt provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989. He was admitted to the NC Bar in 1990. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Englebardt. Mr. Englebardt demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Englebardt reported that he has not spent any money on campaign expenditures.
Mr. Englebardt testified he has not:
Mr. Englebardt testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Englebardt to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Englebardt described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Englebardt reported that he has taught the following law related courses: Mr. Englebardt reported that he has published the following books and/or articles:
I have authored course materials for NBI Seminars "What to Expect in Your First Civil Trial in South Carolina," December 2004 and "How a Mediator Can Help You," a chapter in course materials for NBI Course "Mediation, A Valuable Tool for Litigation," July 2007. I also wrote course materials on the February 2010, Greenville Bar CLE. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Englebardt did not reveal evidence of any found grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Englebardt did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Englebardt has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Englebardt was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Englebardt reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
Mr. Englebardt appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Englebardt appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Englebardt was admitted to the SC Bar in 1989. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: "Since I graduated from law school my legal practice has been with three law firms. I began as an associate at Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard where I had served as a law clerk between my second and third year of law school. I started work in August 1989 and was admitted to the Bar in November of that year. I then was admitted to the NC Bar after the February Bar Exam in 1990 and have been admitted to the United States District Court in South Carolina and all three districts in North Carolina. As a result of having spent some time working in the defense of the asbestos cases I have practiced in all three federal districts in North Carolina as well as the district of South Carolina on a variety of other cases as well. Additionally, I have tried cases in State Court of North Carolina as well as many cases in South Carolina. In January of 1998 I became a shareholder at Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard where I continued until January of 2001, shortly after the merger where that firm became known as Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd. In January of 2001, I became a partner at Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney & Turner, P.A. I served as managing shareholder at that firm from July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. In September 2005 I became a shareholder at Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A. My practice has focused generally on the areas of insurance defense litigation, though I have handled a variety of plaintiff's cases as well as a small number of criminal/domestic matters. In 2000 I became certified as a mediator and have practiced as a mediator, mediating over 500 cases pending in both State and Federal Court. I am proud to have been listed in "Best Lawyers in America" since 2007 for my ADR practice. Also, I am now serving with regularity as an arbitrator, requiring me to make rulings and decisions as a nonjury judge. I was recently honored by my selection as a South Carolina "Super Lawyer" in the General Litigation category." Mr. Englebardt made the following statements regarding his experience: Criminal: My experience in criminal matters is admittedly limited. I have appeared in traffic court on a couple of occasions in the past for clients, but have never fully handled a significant criminal matter. I have also participated in Youth Court, presiding over misdemeanor criminal matters arising in the schools. This has given me some additional exposure to the criminal process in terms of the procedures and penalties, as well as interaction with members of law enforcement and members of the Criminal Defense Bar who oversee the program. Additionally, several times in the last few months I have attended General Sessions Court as an observer, trying to get a feel for the ebb and flow of criminal procedure. Obviously, I will need to overcome my lack of experience in criminal matters were I to be elected as a circuit judge, however, I have always prided myself as being a quick learner and, despite not having had a true criminal practice, I have always kept abreast of the case law involving criminal cases by reading the advanced sheets regularly. Obviously, it will take some study as well as listening to become familiar with criminal procedure, however, I believe I have a good handle of the Rules of Evidence and would be able to overcome my lack of experience in criminal matters to be an effective circuit judge.
Mr. Englebardt reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Englebardt reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Englebardt reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows: Mr. Englebardt reported that he has served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Englebardt's account of his five most significant litigated matters: The following is Mr. Englebardt's account of the five civil appeals he has personally handled: (a) Bear Enterprises v. County of Greenville, 319 SC 137, 459 S.E.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1995); (b) Camlin v. Bilo, 311 SC 197, 428 S.E. 2d 6(Ct. App. 1993); (c) Threatt Michael Construction Company v. C&G Electric, 305 SC 147, 406 S.E.2d 374 (Ct. App. 1991); (d) Preckler v. Owens- Corning, 60 F.3d 824, 1995 WL 417731 (4th Cir. 1995); (e) Lindsey v. Vann, 2004-UP-442 (Ct. App). Mr. Englebardt reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
Mr. Englebardt further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
The Commission believes that Mr. Englebardt's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Englebardt to be "Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament." Mr. Englebardt is married to Helen Elizabeth Burris. He has three children.
Mr. Englebardt reported that he was a member of the following bar association and professional association:
Mr. Englebardt provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: Mr. Englebardt further reported: When I ran for Circuit Court seat in 2003, I wrote about watching my parents work as volunteers as drug counselors while I was a child and how their experiences affected my views on equal justice under the law. While I still have those feelings, obviously a great deal has happened in my life since that time. In 2005, my wife, sons and I made the decisions to add the 13 year old daughter of a family friend who had passed away to our family. This child had been adopted by her grandmother (the family friend who died) at a young age after her birth parents lost their parental rights. This forced me to quickly learn to have a great deal of patience and to be firm with my judgments in dealing with not only the normal issues of a larger family but also with raising a teenager (now two teenagers). Additionally, obviously there are some special issues that arise in raising someone who has been through what my daughter has been through. Not only did her birth parents lose custody of her and both eventually ended up in prison, but also she had to deal with losing the only parent she ever really new to cancer. As a result I think I have had to develop a sensitivity and at the same time a toughness that I am not sure I had previously. Moreover, I have been exposed to a different side of our legal system as I watched her birth parents work in and out of the criminal justice and prison system. While I have only been an interested observer as to these machinations, I have found the actions of the solicitor's office, the appointed defense counsel, the parole officers, and even the sentencing judges to be quite educational, especially since that area of the law is one I have had the lease exposure to in my career.
As a result of all this, I believe I am better suited to sit on the circuit court bench than I was at the time of my first campaign. I also believe that the patience and friendships I have made during my previous runs for a seat n the Circuit Judge bench will serve me well if elected.
The Commission noted that Mr. Englebardt has excellent legal experience and enjoys an exemplary reputation in the legal community. The Commission commented on Mr. Englebardt's extensive Alternative Dispute Resolution experience and considered that it would positively assist his service on the Circuit Court. The Commission found Mr. Englebardt qualified and nominated to serve as a Circuit Court judge.
Thirteenth Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Mabry meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Mabry was born in 1963. He is 47 years old and a resident of Simpsonville, South Carolina. Mr. Mabry provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Mabry. Mr. Mabry demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Mabry reported that he has made $91.62 in campaign expenditures for postage and stationary.
Mr. Mabry testified he has not:
Mr. Mabry testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Mabry to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Mabry described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(not approved) 7/25/07;
Mr. Mabry reported that he has taught the following law related courses:
Mr. Mabry reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Mabry did not reveal evidence of any found grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Mabry did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Mabry has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Mabry was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry. Mr. Mabry reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Mabry further reported: "I have never sought a rating in Martindale-Hubbell nor has anyone recommended me for a rating."
Mr. Mabry reported that he has held the following public offices:
Mr. Mabry appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Mabry appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Mabry was admitted to the SC Bar in 1988.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: South Carolina Attorney General's Office, (Capital Litigation Section),
Capital appeals/Capital post-conviction relief/Federal habeas corpus;
Civil Litigation/Primarily insurance defense/Some Plaintiff's work;
Office Management /Criminal prosecution/Docket Administration;
Criminal prosecution; (General Practice) Civil litigation (Plaintiff), Criminal defense, Real Estate, Preparation
of Wills/Powers of Attorneys/Etc. Law Clerk (Awaiting Bar Results), After passing the Bar Exam did some limited Plaintiff's and Criminal Defense work. Mr. Mabry made the following statements regarding his experience: Criminal Matters: I have almost fifteen (15) years' experience handling criminal matters in the circuit and appellate courts of this state. From 1989 to 2001, I tried criminal cases in the circuit courts of Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties and one case in Greenville County. During those years, I tried approximately 100 jury trials. For the past three years, as an Assistant Attorney General, I have represented the State of South Carolina in handling capital and non-capital murder appeals. During that time period, I represented the State in three capital murder appeals that were argued before the South Carolina Supreme Court: State v. Freddie Eugene Owens, State v. Stephen Stanko, and State v. Mikal Mahdi. All three convictions and corresponding death sentences were affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court in published opinions. In addition to those appeals, I have briefed numerous non-capital murder appeals to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. All of these convictions have been affirmed. I am currently preparing the briefs to be filed before the South Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Harry Justus (Capital Appeal), and State v. Jeffrey Motts (Capital Waiver of Appeals). As Deputy Solicitor (1994-2001), I prosecuted five (5) capital murder cases. All five defendants were convicted of murder, four (4) were sentenced to death. The only defendant who was not sentenced to death, the jury deadlocked on what sentence to impose. That defendant was later sentenced to death after he murdered his cell-mate at Perry Correctional Institution. While Deputy Solicitor, I also prosecuted and tried other major high profile felony cases such as non-capital murders and a felony DUI death case. As an assistant solicitor for the 7th Judicial Circuit (1989-94), I prosecuted murder, armed robbery, burglary, DUI, rape, and drug cases for the 7th Circuit Solicitor's Office. The largest drug case I tried involved the seizure of over 700 pounds of marijuana. My criminal practice has not been limited to criminal prosecution. I also defended a young man charged with Reckless Homicide in Greenville County. The case was tried to a jury verdict, and the defendant was acquitted. Additionally, as both an Assistant Solicitor and a Deputy Solicitor, I have handled hundreds of guilty pleas before the circuit courts of Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties. These involved guilty pleas to Murder, Felony DUI, Trafficking in Drugs, Kidnapping, Rape, and other felony and non-felony offenses. Additionally, as Deputy Solicitor, I administered the criminal docket for Spartanburg County for several years. As part of my responsibilities as Deputy Solicitor, I set goals and deadlines for the Assistant Solicitor's in the office to dispose of old cases. As a result of the setting of these goals and the accomplishment of them by the Assistant Solicitor's, the 7th Circuit had the lowest percentage of cases over one (1) year old among the sixteen (16) judicial circuits. The 7th Circuit also led all circuits in the swift disposition of criminal cases These accomplishments were confirmed by South Carolina Court Administration records at the time and by a published newspaper article in the Greenville News in approximately 1996-97. (I do not remember the exact date of the article) Civil Matters: For the past three years, as an Assistant Attorney General, I have represented the State in several capital post-conviction relief (PCR matters). Under South Carolina law, these matters are considered civil matters and are subject to the Civil Rules of Procedure. I have been involved in the trial of four (4) capital PCR matters. I am currently drafting a proposed order for circuit judge Casey Manning in the capital PCR matter of Charles Shuler v. State. I just finished handling a Capital PCR trial before the Honorable "Ned" Miller in Greenville County. I am currently handling three (3) pending capital PCR matters throughout the State: Mahdi v. State (Calhoun County), Stanko v. State (Georgetown County), and Evins v. State (Spartanburg County). From 2001-06, as an associate with the law firm of Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd, P.A., in Greenville SC, I was a civil litigator. My practice was predominantly defending personal injury lawsuits, including wrongful death, catastrophic injury, and minor injury. While an associate at the Haynsworth Law Firm, I tried jury trials in Circuit Court of Common Pleas and one case in United States District Court. I also tried cases in the magistrate's court of Spartanburg and Greenwood County. My civil practice has not been limited to defense work. I have acted as a plaintiff's attorney in two civil cases, obtaining jury verdicts on behalf of my clients in both cases in the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville County. One major case I successfully defended while at the Haynsworth Law Firm was recently affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. The case dealt with whether a local oil jobber and Motiva (a Texaco oil distributor), had control over the driver of a wrecker for an independent operator of a Texaco branded filling station, so as to impose agency liability. Additionally, I handled numerous civil lawsuits that were resolved prior to trial. Most of these cases were resolved through the mandatory mediation program imposed in Greenville County. Some of these cases involved negotiation after the mediation in order to successfully resolve these cases in the best interests of both clients.
Mr. Mabry reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Mabry reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Mabry stated: "I served as sole counsel, chief counsel, and associate counsel in these matters over the past five years."
Owens was sentenced to death twice for the murder of Irene Graves. During his first trial, Owens murdered his cell-mate Christopher Lee. Both of Owens' first two death sentences were overturned by the SC Supreme Court. In Owens third sentencing proceeding, he was sentenced to death a third time. The above cited decision finally affirmed Owens' death sentence for the murder of Irene Graves. I handled the appeal from Owens' third sentencing proceeding for the State.
Locklair murdered Tammy Bridges in Spartanburg County while out on bond for the murder of Chris Jones in Laurens County. Locklair was convicted of Bridges murder and sentenced to death. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence. As far as I am aware, it was the first decision by our Supreme Court recognizing that the aggravating circumstance of "the use of a dangerous instrumentality" can be applied to the use of a firearm. The Supreme Court also held that it was proper for the trial judge to order the defendant to undergo a psychiatric examination by the State's expert where the defendant was going to assert mental illness as a defense or as a mitigating circumstance, equaling the playing field for both sides in cases where psychiatric testimony will be offered. I prosecuted this case at the trial level.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's grant of summary judgment to Motiva (a Texaco oil distributor) and a local "jobber", finding there was no evidence of actual agency regarding the operation of a wrecker belonging to a local independently owned and operated but Texaco branded filling station. I argued and won the summary judgment motion below.
Mikal Mahdi murdered Captain James Myers, an off duty police officer on his own farm in Calhoun County. Mahdi had already murdered a convenience store clerk in North Carolina prior to murdering Captain Myers. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Mahdi's death sentence in the above opinion. I handled the appeal for the State. Stephen Stanko murdered his girlfriend and sexually assaulted and attempted to murder his girlfriend's teenage daughter in Georgetown County. Stanko then withdrew money from his girlfriend's bank account and drove to Conway in his girlfriend's car. Stanko then murdered a friend, stole his friend's truck and drove to Columbia, SC. Stanko then drove to Augusta, Georgia, where he was apprehended a few days later by U.S. Marshalls. Stanko was convicted of his girlfriend's murder and the assault on the daughter and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Stanko's convictions and death sentence in the above opinion. I handled the appeal for the State. Stanko has subsequently been sentenced to death for the Conway murder as well. Mr. Mabry reported that he has not personally handled any civil appeals.
The following is Mr. Mabry's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled: Mr. Mabry further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"I ran for at-large seat 11 in 1998, but withdrew before public hearing."
The Commission believes that Mr. Mabry's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Mabry to be "Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament." Mr. Mabry is married to Mary Yvonne Knabe Mabry. He has two children. Mr. Mabry reported that he was a member of the following bar association and professional association: SC Bar Association. Mr. Mabry provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: Fountain Inn First Baptist Church (Deacon, but not in the past 5 years). Mr. Mabry further reported: My 21 years' of experience as a practicing trial attorney will be invaluable in serving as a Circuit Court Judge. Over the past 21 years, I have observed Circuit Court Judges in our state and what does work and does not work in the administration of justice. I have observed this while acting as a prosecutor, a criminal defense attorney, a plaintiff's attorney, and a civil defendant's attorney. I have learned that a Circuit Judge must be calm, patient, courteous, understanding, and possess a sense of humor. A Circuit Judge should never abuse a party, witness, juror, clerk, court reporter or an attorney. It has been my experience that more work gets done, when everyone involved in the judicial system is relaxed, not anxious and fearful. While a Circuit Judge must be firm, productive, and focused, he must also remember that he is working with fallible human beings, like himself. These are only a few of the things I have learned in 21 years of interacting with judges, juries, attorneys, and court personnel. I also believe my prior work experience uniquely qualifies me to be elected as a Circuit Court Judge. As Deputy Solicitor for the 7th Judicial Circuit, I routinely reviewed all SLED investigations of misconduct by law enforcement or public officials in Spartanburg County. As part of this responsibility, in several of these cases, the elected Solicitor required me to write legal or formal memoranda regarding whether criminal charges should be brought or not brought against a particular individual. Solicitor Gossett routinely relied on my opinion letters or memoranda in making charging decisions. While Deputy Solicitor, I also routinely reviewed criminal investigations being conducted by the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office and other law enforcement agencies and gave legal advice during those investigations, such as whether police had sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant or issue an arrest warrant. While Deputy Solicitor, and acting as docket administrator, I interacted extensively with resident Circuit Judges and those judges rotating through our circuit. As an Assistant Attorney General, I still interact with Circuit Judges throughout this state in scheduling and trying Capital PCR matters. While an Assistant Solicitor and Deputy Solicitor, I also dealt extensively with victims of crime and their families.
As a civil litigant's attorney, I came to learn what civil litigant's expect from the judicial system, and how resolution of matters prior to a jury verdict is often in the best interests of all parties and the judicial system. In representing a criminal defendant through trial, I learned the stress and anxiety that a charged individual goes through. All of these experiences, I believe, uniquely qualify me to serve as the resident Circuit Judge for the 13th Judicial Circuit.
The Commission commented that Mr. Mabry's twenty-two years of legal experience, especially in the criminal area, would serve him well on the Circuit Court. They noted his public service, first with the Solicitor's office and now with the Attorney General's office. The Commission found Mr. Mabry qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
Thirteenth Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Mackenzie meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Mackenzie was born in 1966. He is 44 years old and a resident of Greenville, SC. Mr. Mackenzie provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1993. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Mackenzie. Mr. Mackenzie demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Mackenzie reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Mackenzie testified he has not:
Mr. Mackenzie testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Mackenzie to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations. Mr. Mackenzie described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: (a) Legal Ethics in South Carolina 2/11/05; (b) 15th Annual Criminal Law Practice in South Carolina 11/18/05; (c) South Carolina Family Court Bench Bar 12/2/05; (d) 5th Annual Federal Criminal Practice in SC 9/8/06; (e) 22nd Annual SC Criminal Law Update 1/26/07; (f) SC Civil Procedure Update 2/16/07; (g) Divorce Mediation Training for Professionals 11/29-12/3/07; (h) Ethical Issues for Lawyers in Electronic Age 2/20/08; (i) Federal Criminal Practice Seminar 10/16/08; (j) Family Law Intensive Workshop 11/21/08; (k) 6th Annual Federal Practice 12/16/08; (l) Federal Rules of Evidence (Tangled Web) 12/17/08; (m) 2009 Hot Tips from the Coolest (Family Law) 9/18/09; (n) Federal Criminal Practice Fall 2009 10/29/09.
Mr. Mackenzie reported that he has taught the following law related courses: Mr. Mackenzie reported that he has published the following article:
Handling Traffic Cases in South Carolina (SC Bar CLE Division, copyright 1996), contributing author. Mr. Mackenzie disclosed to the Commission that he had been charged with certain criminal violations during the time he was in high school and college. The Commission commented that Mr. Mackenzie had been forthright in discussing the problems he had when younger and had learned from his experiences. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Mackenzie did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Mackenzie has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Mackenzie was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Mackenzie reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
Mr. Mackenzie appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Mackenzie appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Mackenzie was admitted to the SC Bar in 1993. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: I began my legal career as an Assistant Solicitor at the Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor's Office in Greenville. I began working there as an attorney in August of 1993, and I left the office in September of 1998. I was initially assigned to the Traffic Unit where I prosecuted automobile related offenses such as Driving Under the Influence, Felony Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Homicide. I handled hundreds of such cases. I personally tried numerous D.U.I. cases before a jury. I personally tried one felony D.U.I. case to a jury and obtained a guilty verdict. I was eventually promoted to be the head of the Traffic Unit. After a couple of years, I was promoted to the Violent Crimes section of the Solicitor's Office. There I prosecuted felonies such as murder, manslaughter, arson, armed robbery and burglary, etc. I handled hundreds of these kinds of cases. Most of them resulted in guilty pleas. I personally tried two murder cases before a jury and obtained guilty verdicts in both. I also personally tried armed robbery and burglary cases before juries and obtained guilty verdicts. Three of these cases resulted in sentences of life without parole. As an Assistant Solicitor, I personally participated in numerous jury trials in circuit court. I also assisted in a death penalty prosecution. During my latter years at the solicitor's office, I was one of two Team Leaders for the office. All of the attorneys in the office were assigned to one of the two teams. As team leader, it was my duty to ensure that the members of my team were prepared to conduct jury trials and guilty pleas in circuit court. It was also my duty to oversee the General Sessions jury trial and guilty plea dockets. I generated the jury trial docket and published it. I then coordinated it with the circuit court judges and made sure that court remained in session and ran smoothly from one jury trial to the next. I also oversaw the guilty pleas docket to make sure that criminal cases moved efficiently through circuit court. While working at the solicitor's office, I was also appointed to be a Special Assistant United States Attorney during the years 1994 through 1998. I was a member of the Upstate Violent Crimes Task Force which was focused on the investigation and prosecution of firearms offenses in federal court. I personally tried one Felon in Possession of a Firearm case before a jury in United States District Court and obtained a guilty verdict. While working as a Special Assistant United States Attorney, I underwent and passed a Full Field F.B.I. Background Investigation and Security Clearance. I went into private practice in 1998. I worked as an associate for the firm of Brown, Massey, Evans, McCleod and Haynsworth from September through December 1998. There I practiced general civil litigation, some probate matters and criminal defense. I have been a partner with the firm of Barrett-Mackenzie, LLC since December, 1998. My business partner is my wife, Lynn Barrett. Lynn practices exclusively in the area of domestic relations/family court. My practice is about fifty per cent criminal defense and fifty per cent family court. I practice before the following courts: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, General Sessions Court, The Court of Common Pleas, Family Court, and various magistrate courts. Mr. Mackenzie made the following statements regarding his experience: I have extensive experience in criminal matters. I was a prosecutor for five years. I prosecuted a wide variety of cases in both circuit and magistrate court. This included violent crimes, drug crimes, traffic offenses, burglaries, larcenies, shoplifting, etc. When I first went into private practice, I worked as a contract attorney through the Greenville office of Indigent Defense. Criminal Defense remains about fifty percent of my practice today. I believe that at one time or another I have handled every kind of General Sessions Court case. These cases have involved a multitude of legal issues. I have handled thousands of cases in General Sessions Court. Most of these cases were resolved prior to trial. However, I have also personally tried numerous cases before a jury. I have some experience with death penalty cases. I was certified to be lead counsel for death penalty defense by the South Carolina Supreme Court on July 7, 2000. A few years ago I served as second chair in a death penalty case in Greenville. In that case the solicitor eventually withdrew the death penalty notice and the defendant pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter. I also have a lot of experience in federal criminal cases both at the trial and appellate levels. I have twice orally argued cases before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. I won both of these cases by published opinion. I have been appointed by the Fourth Circuit to both its CJA Appellate Panel and Capital Appellate Panel of Attorneys. I have handled numerous cases in federal district court. Most of these cases have related to drugs or unlawful possession of firearms. Since 1998, I have also practiced extensively in family court. I have handled a wide variety of cases involving a multitude of legal issues. I have handled cases involving divorce, child custody, child visitation, child support, decrees of separate maintenance and support, alimony, asset and debt division, adoption, child abuse and neglect, and termination of parental rights. I have handled hundreds of family court cases. I have participated in a wide variety of motions and merits hearings. With these cases, I have become very experienced in the rules of civil procedure. In December 2007, I completed a 42-hour training course in Divorce and Family Mediation conducted by Atlanta Divorce Mediators, Inc. For the last few years I have served on a volunteer basis as a mediator at the Upstate Mediation Center in Greenville. I mediate family court cases about once or twice a month. I have also handled some cases in the Court of Common Pleas. My experience in Common Pleas is not as extensive. However, I have handled some cases such as cases under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals from magistrate court cases, actions for Post Conviction Relief and a couple of mortgage foreclosures before the Master in Equity. I believe that I represented the accused in the first Sexually Violent Predator case that went to trial in Greenville County. The accused was committed under the Act, but his commitment was reversed on appeal. I believe that my extensive experience in General Sessions Court has prepared me to preside over circuit court including the Court of Common Pleas. I have personally participated in numerous jury trials. The rules of evidence are the same in both General Sessions and Common Pleas Courts. I have also become quite experienced with the rules of civil procedure through my experience with hundreds of cases in family court. Although I do not have much experience in jury trials in Common Pleas Court, the breadth of my legal experience easily compensates for this.
Mr. Mackenzie reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows: Mr. Mackenzie provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Mackenzie's account of his five most significant litigated matters: Mr. Mackenzie reported that he has not personally handled any civil appeals.
The following is Mr. Mackenzie's account of the criminal appeals he has personally handled:
The Commission believes that Mr. Mackenzie's temperament would be excellent. The Upstate Citizens Committee reported that Mr. Mackenzie is "Qualified" in all evaluative areas: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Mr. Mackenzie is married to Gwendolynn Wamble Barrett. He has two children.
Mr. Mackenzie reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Mackenzie provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Mr. Mackenzie further reported:
"I have always been a hard worker. Any success I have had as a lawyer has been the direct result of hard work and dedication."
The Commission commented that Mr. Mackenzie has a good reputation in the legal community. They noted that during his public hearing, he provided honest answers, and was very candid, which would be an asset on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found Mr. Mackenzie qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.
Thirteenth Circuit, Seat 2 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Verdin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Verdin was born in 1970. She is 40 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Verdin provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1997. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Verdin. Judge Verdin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge Verdin reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Verdin testified she has not:
Judge Verdin testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Judge Verdin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Verdin described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Bits, Bytes, and Clips: The Brave New World of E-Discovery and Evidence 01/25/08;
Judge Verdin reported that she has taught the following law related courses:
Judge Verdin reported that has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Verdin did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Verdin did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Verdin has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Verdin was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry. Judge Verdin reported regarding her Martindale-Hubbell rating, "I was not listed in Martindale-Hubbell prior to my election, and my understanding was because I was employed by a government agency and did not request a listing." Judge Verdin reported that she has held the following public office:
"I have never held any public office other than Family Court Judge."
Judge Verdin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Judge Verdin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Judge Verdin was admitted to the SC Bar in 1997. She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: I believe that my experience for the Circuit Court bench is unique and encompasses all areas of Circuit Court. Before being elected to the Family Court bench, my legal experience was evenly divided between criminal and civil law. I practiced for five years in the Solicitor's Offices in the Thirteenth and Eighth Circuits. During that time, I prosecuted cases in every unit of the office, with my final years there spent prosecuting violent crimes. Furthermore, while at the Greenville County Solicitor's Office, I participated in a death penalty trial. I also practiced for five years with the law firm of Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney and Terrell, P.A., focusing mainly the in areas of government liability defense and insurance defense. I did at times represent Plaintiffs in lawsuits and also represented criminal defendants. My practice was varied, encompassing probate, real estate, general corporate and family law, as well. I have had the privilege of serving my state in the capacity of Family Court for two years. During that time, I sat with the South Carolina Supreme Court as an Acting Justice on a probate case. I have also served as the Chief Administrative Judge in Greenville County for the past year. During that time, I have worked closely with all agencies involved with Family Court, the Sheriff's Office, the Detention Center director, and the Clerk of Court to develop policies and administer cases more efficiently and effectively for all involved.
Judge Verdin reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years, prior to her service on the bench, as follows:
Judge Verdin reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years, prior to her service on the bench, as follows:
Judge Verdin reported the percentage of her practice in trial court, prior to her service on the bench, as follows: Judge Verdin provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Verdin's account of her five most significant litigated matters: The following is Judge Verdin's account of the civil appeal she has personally handled: Cox and Rider v. City of Charleston, Rueben Greenberg, Joseph Riley, Captain Chin, Charleston Police Department, Officer Davis, City of Travelers Rest, Mann Batson and Timothy Christy, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, July 26, 2005, 416 F.3d 281. Judge Verdin reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Judge Verdin reported that she has held the following judicial office: Seat 3, Greenville County Family Court; June 2008-present.
Judge Verdin provided the following regarding her significant orders or opinions:
The Commission believes that Judge Verdin's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Upstate Citizens Committee found Judge Verdin "Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Judge Verdin is married to Charles Smith Verdin, IV. She has two children.
Judge Verdin reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: a. Criminal Law Section; b. Family Law Section.
Judge Verdin provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Judge Verdin further reported:
"I appreciate the Legislature giving me the opportunity to serve as a Family Court judge for the past two years. My experience as a Family Court judge has been the most rewarding of my professional life. I have been faced with what may be some of the toughest decisions in the legal field, but I have attempted to approach these matters with an open, and hopefully, fair mind. I have endeavored to deal with matters before me efficiently and justly. I would like to bring to the Circuit Court bench the knowledge that I have gained as a Family Court judge. I also believe that my legal experience, equally divided between civil and criminal law, would give me a broad base of knowledge to effectively carry out my duties as a Circuit Court Judge."
The Commission commented that Judge Verdin has been a respected Family Court Judge during her two years on the bench. They noted that Judge Verdin's excellent score on the Commission's Practice and Procedures test and her able intellect would assist her in serving on the Circuit Court bench. The Commission found Judge Verdin qualified and nominated her for election to the Circuit Court.
Kellum W. Allen
(1) Constitutional Qualifications: Judge reported that he has taught the following law related course: "I spoke at the 'Cool Tips' Family Law CLE at the USC Law School on 4/25/03."
Judge Allen reported that he has not published any books or articles.
Judge Allen reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV.
Judge Allen appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Allen appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Allen was admitted to the SC Bar in 1976. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: 1976-78 Greenville County Public Defender's Office - General Sessions & Family Court Juvenile; 1978-98 Kirkland, Wilson, Moore, Allen, Taylor, & O'Day, P. A. - General Trial Practice with emphasis on Civil & Family Court; 1998-Present Family Court Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit - Seat 1. Judge Allen made the following statements regarding his experience: I have the broad experience needed by a Circuit Judge. Immediately, after law school, I worked for 2 years, first as an assistant and then was promoted to the position of Deputy Public Defender in Greenville County. These years were exclusively devoted to criminal cases. I tried dozens of cases in General Sessions of all types including murder. Thereafter, I went into private practice from 1978-98 with the West Columbia law firm of Kirkland, Taylor, Wilson, Moore, and Allen. My practice was all types of litigation, particularly complex torts such as medical malpractice and products liability. I primarily represented plaintiffs, but I did some defense work, as well. This was in both Common Pleas and the Federal system. I maintained a substantial practice of Worker's Compensation, Family Court, and continued some criminal defense in General Sessions Court. I handled appeals in all these areas, as well. During those 20 years, I served three stints as a Municipal Judge for the City of West Columbia where I presided over criminal jury trials, signed warrants, and set bonds. Now in my 13th year as a Family Court Judge for the 11th Circuit, I have heard thousands of domestic cases, child support contempt cases, DSS cases, and juvenile criminal cases in these years on the Bench. Therefore, because I have substantial experience in all fields, I am immediately prepared and qualified to hear any matter that would come before the Circuit Court. Judge Allen reported the frequency of his court appearances, prior to his service on the bench, as follows: (a) Federal: several times per week; (b) State: several times per week. Judge Allen reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters, prior to his service on the bench, as follows: (a) Civil: 60%; (b) Criminal: 5%; (c) Domestic: 35%. Judge Allen reported the percentage of his practice in trial court, prior to his service on the bench, as follows: (a) Jury: 50%; (b) Non-jury: 50%. Judge Allen provided that, prior to his service on the bench, he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Allen's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
My Client, the plaintiff, successfully appealed a directed verdict by the trial Judge. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial Court and ruled for the plaintiff. This is a frequently cited case for the doctrine of apparent authority.
My client, the plaintiff, successfully appealed the trial Court's sustaining of the defendant's demurrer. The case was reversed in favor of the plaintiff by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. This was an "important question of novel impression in South Carolina". It establishes law in the area of foreseeability and proximate cause.
The following is Judge Allen's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
The following is Judge Allen's account of two criminal appeals he has personally handled:
Judge Allen reported that he has held the following judicial offices: (1) April 3, 1979-March 8, 1982; (2) May 7 1991-March 3, 1992;
(3) September 15, 1994-April 10, 1995. (1) July 1, 1998 - June 30, 2004; (2) July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2010; (3) July 1, 2010 - Present.
Judge Allen provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions: Diane Stribling (Op. No. 4129 - Filed 6/26/06).
Judge Allen further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
The Commission believes that Judge Allen's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent. The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Allen to be "Well-qualified" for all nine criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary: "This committee believes that Judge Allen is truly an asset to our State and our judiciary. We have the utmost respect and appreciation for his honorable service on the Family Court for the Eleventh Circuit. We believe he is most eminently qualified to continue his service to our State on the Circuit Court, and we are confident he would continue to serve in an outstanding manner." Judge Allen is married to Jane Inman Allen. He has two children.
Judge Allen reported that he is a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Judge Allen provided that he is a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
Judge Allen further reported:
The Commission commented that Judge Allen has an outstanding reputation as a jurist on the Family Court Bench, which would serve him well in transitioning to the Circuit Court. They noted his excellent presentation and demeanor at the public hearing. The Commission found Judge Allen qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Brooks meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Brooks was born in 1961. He is 49 years old and a resident of Lexington, South Carolina. Mr. Brooks provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1990. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Brooks reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Brooks testified he has not:
Mr. Brooks testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Brooks to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Brooks described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Mr. Brooks reported that he taught the following law related course: "Criminal Law at Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College."
Mr. Brooks reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Brooks did not reveal evidence of any found grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Brooks did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Brooks has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Brooks was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry. Mr. Brooks reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Brooks further reported: "I have never sought a rating by Martindale-Hubbell." Mr. Brooks reported that he has held the following public office:
"I was appointed to the Richland County Solid Waste Committee from 1991-1995."
Mr. Brooks appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Brooks appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Brooks was admitted to the SC Bar in 1990. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: (a) 1990-1994 - Brooks Law Firm - I was an associate in a general practice with an emphasis on criminal and civil litigation; (b) 1994 - present - Law Offices of Charles J. Brooks, II - I am the owner of a general practice with an emphasis on criminal and civil litigation. Mr. Brooks made the following statements regarding his experience: "I have been a trial lawyer my entire legal career. I have tried many criminal matters in our Court system from the beginning of the cases at bond hearings; to preliminary hearings that deal with probably cause issues; to motions hearings that usually deal with evidentiary issues; to trials and/or [sic] pleas. I have also tried many civil cases in which I have represented Plaintiff's and Defendant's. I have represented clients in a range of cases that involve contractual disputes, personal injury and malpractice, family law, and probate."
Mr. Brooks reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Brooks reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Brooks reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows: Mr. Brooks reported that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Brooks' account of his five most significant litigated matters: Mr. Brooks reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals. Mr. Brooks further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"I was a candidate for Circuit Court Judge in 2002, but withdrew my name from consideration."
The Commission believes that Mr. Brooks' temperament would be excellent. The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Brooks to be "Well-Qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary, "The Committee was very impressed with Mr. Brooks and we enjoyed his interview. We believe his temperament and character are outstanding in every way. Mr. Brooks is eminently qualified to serve on the Circuit Court and we believe he would serve our State in a most outstanding manner." Mr. Brooks is married to Anne Wilkins Brooks. He has three children.
Mr. Brooks reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Brooks provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
The Commission commented that Mr. Brooks has an outstanding reputation as an attorney in his community. They noted his keen intellect and his kind demeanor. The Commission found Mr. Brooks qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Frick meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Frick was born in 1975. He is 35 years old and a resident of Winnsboro, South Carolina. Mr. Frick provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 2001. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Frick. Mr. Frick demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Frick reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Frick testified he has not:
Mr. Frick testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Frick to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Frick described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Mr. Frick reported that he has not taught any law-related programs.
Mr. Frick reported that he has not published any books and/or articles. He further reported, "I have spoken to school children, community groups, and law enforcement about various legal issues in the past." The Commission's investigation of Mr. Frick did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Frick did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Frick has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Frick was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Frick reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. He further reported, "I have not found it necessary to subscribe to the services of Martindale-Hubbell."
Mr. Frick appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Frick appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Frick was admitted to the SC Bar in 2001.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
Assistant Public Defender;
Assistant Solicitor-Gun Crime Prosecutor & Juvenile Prosecutor for Darlington County;
Assistant Attorney General- general prosecution & animal fighting prosecutions;
Assistant Solicitor- Violent Crimes Prosecutor & Chief Prosecutor for Fairfield County; Associate & Winnsboro Office Manager-
General practice in criminal law, domestic law, personal injury, worker's compensation, and social security disability;
Assistant Public Defender (part time contract attorney); Assistant Public Defender & Chief Public Defender for Fairfield County. Mr. Frick made the following statements regarding his experience: "Serving as a prosecutor in two judicial circuits, an Assistant Attorney General handling matters throughout the state, a public defender in two judicial circuits and a general practitioner attorney with a focus on criminal law, I have handled almost all criminal offenses from traffic tickets to murder. In my private practice I dealt with a wide variety of issues in personal injury from minor incidents to severely debilitating injuries, worker's compensation, limited work in contract disputes and researched areas of employment law. While my experience is clearly skewed toward criminal law, I feel that my work in civil matters is broad enough to ensure my competence with any civil matters before the bench."
Mr. Frick reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Frick reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Frick reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Mr. Frick provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Frick's account of his five most significant litigated matters: Mr. Frick reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals. Mr. Frick further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"I announced I would run as a candidate for SC House of Representatives Seat #41 in the 2008 election, however, I ultimately did not file to run. In 2009, I was a candidate for Circuit Court at Large Seat #8. I was found qualified, but not nominated by the committee."
The Commission believes that Mr. Frick's temperament would be excellent. The Piedmont Citizen's Committee found Mr. Frick "Qualified" for eight of the evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, and judicial temperament. The Committee found him "Unqualified in the category of experience and noted that he "needs additional and more varied experience and is not ready to assume a judgeship." Mr. Frick reported that he believed that he has the experience necessary for the position. Mr. Frick is married to Ruxandra Elena Tudor. He has one child.
Mr. Frick reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Frick provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Mr. Frick further reported:
"In my career, I have thus far handled legal matters in some 30 of the 46 counties of our State. In each county, I have heard someone say that some particular issue "only happens in..." I can expressly say that in my experience that the judicial system essentially metes out justice in the same way, with the same type of cases, and the same circumstances throughout South Carolina. With my experience I can most assuredly say that defendants are rather much the same throughout the state, law enforcement proceeds in much the same way throughout the state, cases are prosecuted and defended in rather much the same way, and all entities are suffering from a want of funding, whether perceived or real. However, I have found that, particularly in the world of prosecution and public defenders, information is not readily exchanged on how to deal with particular issues. I would like to work toward the facilitation of the exchange of ideas that would help in expediting the handling of cases in our legal system. I would particularly like to do this in the criminal justice system and would like to work toward seeing "best practices" in all facets of the justice system, criminal and civil, implemented for the betterment of the seeking of justice for all involved in our court systems be they civil litigants, victims of crime, or criminal defendants." The Commission commented that Mr. Frick has a good reputation in his local community. They also noted his public service as an assistant solicitor, assistant attorney general, and work as a public defender. (12) Conclusion: The Commission found Mr. Frick qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Hall meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Hall was born in 1954. He is 56 years old and a resident of York, South Carolina. Mr. Hall provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988. He was also admitted to the NC Bar in 1988. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Hall reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Hall testified he has not:
Mr. Hall testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Hall to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hall described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Mr. Hall reported that he has not taught any law-related programs. Mr. Hall reported that he has published the following:
Clergy Confidentiality: A Time to Speak and a Time to Be Silent, by Lynn Buzzard and Dan Hall, 1988 Christian Management Association. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hall did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hall did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hall has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Hall was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Hall reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Mr. Hall appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Hall appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Hall was admitted to the SC Bar in 1988.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Mr. Hall made the following statements regarding his experience: "I have been an Assistant Solicitor for the past eleven years. I currently prosecute class A, B, or C felonies. I am employed as an assistant solicitor. I have no experience in civil matters in the past five years. I was in private practice from 1991 - 99 and had a limited experience in the court of common pleas. My practice included criminal defense, personal injury, probate and some limited litigation in common pleas. I took and passed the North Carolina and SC Bar exams during the same week in 1988. I believe that I have the intellectual ability to quickly develop the necessary skills to preside in common pleas court."
Mr. Hall reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Hall reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Mr. Hall reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Mr. Hall provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Hall's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
Murder trial in which boyfriend stabbed girlfriend to death in a rage of domestic violence. Defendant was sentence to life without parole;
Burglary First Degree trial in which a seventy year old widow's home was invaded while she was alone. Victim was physically attacked. Defendant was sentence to a thirty year prison sentence;
Burglary First Degree, Armed Robbery and Kidnapping trial in which the defendant was involved in a home invasion, robbery and assault on the victim. Defendant was sentence to a thirty year prison sentence;
Defendant was charged with murder. The case was trued billed by the grand jury. In preparing for trial and investigating this case evidence was discovered absolving this defendant of the murder. The defendant had been wrongfully charged. I dismissed this case; I defended at trial an indigent, mentally handicapped defendant charged with threatening public housing officials. The defendant was found not guilty at trial. Mr. Hall reported that he has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals. Mr. Hall reported that he has held the following judicial office: Municipal Judge - City of York, SC - appointed by York City Council. January 1993 - May 1999. Signed criminal warrants, set bonds and held preliminary hearings for General Sessions criminal matters occurring in the city limits. Presided over plea court, bench trials and jury trials for criminal or traffic charges in the City of York in which the statutory penalty was no greater than 30 days in jail or the fine was not more than $200.
Mr. Hall further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
The Commission believes that Mr. Hall's temperament would be excellent. The Piedmont Citizens Committee found Mr. Hall "Well-qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. They stated in summary: "The Committee was impressed by his extensive experience including his work and employment outside the legal profession. We find him to be physically and ethically fit. We believe his judicial temperament would be excellent. He has an excellent reputation." Mr. Hall is married to Cathleen McCreight Hall. He has four children. Mr. Hall reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: (a) York County Bar Association, Treasurer, 1992; (b) SC Bar Association; (c) NC Bar.
Mr. Hall provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
The Commission commented that Mr. Hall has an excellent reputation and noted the Piedmont Citizens' Committee's highly favorable description of his character. They noted that Mr. Hall had proven himself a very capable trial lawyer who has good life experiences which would serve him well on the Circuit Court. The Commission found Mr. Hall qualified and nominated him for election to the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hocker meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Hocker was born in 1952. He is 58 years old and a resident of Laurens, South Carolina. Judge Hocker provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hocker. Judge Hocker demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge Hocker reported that he has made $100.00 in campaign expenditures for paper, postage and stationery.
Judge Hocker testified he has not:
Judge Hocker testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Judge Hocker to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hocker described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Judge Hocker stated that he has taught the following law-related courses or lectured at bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs:
Judge Hocker reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hocker did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hocker did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hocker has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Hocker was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Hocker reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
Judge Hocker appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Hocker appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Hocker was admitted to the SC Bar in 1981. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: "May 15, 1981 to current: I have been a sole practitioner in Laurens, South Carolina. I have had a general practice with significant experience in Circuit Court-both criminal and civil. I have also been the Associate Probate Judge for Laurens County since March of 1984 which will be discussed [below]." Judge Hocker made the following statements regarding his experience: Criminal: I would incorporate by reference my response to [my most significant litigated matters (c) and (d)] concerning two significant cases in General Sessions that I have handled. I have represented criminal clients in General Sessions (and even Magistrate's Court) my entire practice. I typically will receive 8-12 court appointments a year and approximately at least this same number of privately-paid cases annually. I have represented clients charged with a variety of offenses, i.e. murder, felony DUI, possession and distribution of drugs. The vast majority of criminal cases result in a guilty plea but I have experience throughout my 29 1/2 years in trying cases before a jury. Civil: I would incorporate by reference my response to [my most significant litigated matters (a), (b), and (e)] concerning three significant cases in Common Pleas that I have handled. I have extensive experience dealing with a wide variety of cases, both jury and non-jury. The two most recent cases that I have tried in Court were (1) a breach of contract/fraud case dealing with a sale of an antique automobile. I represented the Defendant. The case was tried before a jury with a verdict in favor of the Defendant. (2) A deed-set-aside case. I represented the Plaintiff. The case was tried non-jury with a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. My practice has been more Plaintiff-oriented but I do represent Defendants. A sampling of what I currently have pending in my Common Pleas practice is as follows: A quiet title action representing the Plaintiff; Representing the Defendants in a fourteen causes of action land dispute case. I also represent The Palmetto Bank and The City of Laurens Commission of Public Works, which provides additional cases in the civil area."
Judge Hocker reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Judge Hocker reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Judge Hocker reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Judge Hocker provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Hocker's account of his five most significant litigated matters: I represented the Plaintiffs. This case involved a horrible vehicle accident with these two brothers. They both sustained severe 2nd and 3rd degree burns over most of their bodies. Suit was filed and a settlement was reached in 1997. This case is significant for several reasons. One, novel computer technology was used by the Plaintiff in the mediation process.
Secondly, it is significant because the Plaintiffs were and are a living example of a true will to live and remain productive citizens, which they are today. Thirdly, significant discovery took place.
I represented the Defendant Palmetto Bank. This case involved a suit by the Plaintiff-employer against three Banks. The Plaintiff had an employee who stole $145,000.00 over several years by making out and endorsing numerous checks written on accounts with the Defendants. These checks were made payable to the Bank and each time a deposit was made to The Palmetto Bank. Extensive discovery took place. The case was significant because the law was very competitive between the UCC code and the requirements and duty of care placed upon a customer in contrast to the basic principals governing a banking institution's duty of care.
This criminal case dealt with a teacher charged with criminal sexual misconduct with five underage students. There was a tremendous amount of publicity nationwide. I was one of the two lawyers representing this Defendant. The case was significant for several reasons. One, the vast majority of teachers charged in this state and other states were only involved with one student and this case had five. Secondly, it was significant simply because of the media attention it had from the day of the arrest to the sentencing.
I represented the Defendant who had been charged with armed robbery. He had been in jail/prison the majority of his life. He was accused of going into a Subway restaurant in Clinton, SC at midnight (closing time) and robbing the store. The robbery was on surveillance video. The Defendant was very accustomed to the legal system so he continuously filed motions, briefs, objections, etc. contrary to my advice. This case was significant for several reasons. First, he required me to file a Motion with the Court to allow a "re-enactment" of the crime wherein he would be allowed to wear what the "person" was wearing and would act out exactly as the person on the video in an attempt to offer the comparison of the videos as not being him. To the shock of everyone, the Court granted the Motion. The "re-enactment" was done but never an issue. This is due to the fact the only real evidence that the State had (and it was not the video) was the identification by the store clerk. However, under legal principles, we were successful in getting the photo identification line-up and the resulting testimony/in-court identification suppressed. The trial Judge agreed with our defense that the identification was clearly tainted hereby justifying a suppression of the clerk's testimony. Consequently, a motion for directed verdict was made and granted. A lady died and left a significant life insurance policy naming, not her husband-the Plaintiff, but an uncle-the Defendant. This lady died of cancer and made the beneficiary change from the husband to the uncle in the latter stages of her illness. I represented the Defendant uncle. He claimed that she made the change to him because she trusted him to insure that her three children (not all by the husband) would be taken care of. The significant issue in the case was whether or not she had the mental capacity to effectuate the change of beneficiary. Significant also was the fact that we had to recreate the last months of this cancer-stricken lady's life on the issue of competency. The case was resolved with the Plaintiff receiving nothing and the Defendant receiving the entire policy proceeds (he agreed to put a portion of the money in trust for the children). Also, it should be noted that a companion Interpleader action was filed by the Insurance Carrier."
The following is Judge Hocker's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
I was the trial lawyer but associated another lawyer for the appeal. I was not shown as counsel but was copied with all correspondence from the Court of Appeals and I assisted counsel with the appeal. The case was novel on the issue of equitable division of Walmart stock options in a divorce. I represented the Wife who was awarded 55% of the Husband's stock options along with a monetary award concerning these options. The Wife prevailed on the amount of stock options awarded her by the trial court.
I represented the father of a teenage daughter who accused him of sexual abuse. The significance of this case was the Court's defining "sexual abuse" to the facts of the case. We were successful in obtaining a reversal and remand in the case.
I represented the Defendants in this deed reformation case. I was successful in getting the Court to reverse the trial court's reformation of the subject deed. The case sets out good law with respect to deeds, mutual mistakes in deeds, and property descriptions. (Note: I had only been out of law school four years when the appeal was decided).
This case was appealed by the mother in a visitation case. I represented the father. The issue being whether the father's previously ordered supervised visitation should be changed. The Lower Court ruled in favor of the father. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The case was significant for several reasons. During the time the case was tried, issues of visitation being supervised or unsupervised were fairly uncommon. Too, the Guardian ad Litem played a role in this case possibly somewhat differently than a Guardian ad Litem today. I represented the Plaintiff in a nursing home liability suit against the Defendant nursing home. The Lower Court granted summary judgment in the Defendant's favor. The appellate court affirmed the ruling finding no liability. Justice Goolsby gave a strong dissent which is significant because it sets out a good review of nursing home liability." Judge Hocker reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Judge Hocker reported that he has held the following judicial office: I have been the Associate Probate Judge for Laurens County since March of 1984 (26 1/2 years) and appointed by the elected Probate Judge. Probate Courts in South Carolina have jurisdiction over Estates, Mental Commitments, Conservatorships and Guardianships. During my tenure on the bench, I have presided over numerous cases not only in Laurens County but across the State. I have had the honor and privilege of being appointed by the Supreme Court to preside over many cases in other counties for a variety of reasons. I have had the opportunity to preside over jury trials as well as non-jury cases during my tenure. Even though non-jury cases are the most prevalent in Probate Court, I would like to give some of the following examples of jury trials I have presided over (non-exclusive list). (Note: Probate jury trials are identical to Circuit Court jury trials in all respects. A jury trial in Probate Court is conducted either in conjunction with a term of Common Pleas Court in Circuit Court or a special Probate jury term is authorized by the Supreme Court. In either situation, a Circuit Court jury pool is utilized). Examples: (1) Barnett Estate-Anderson County: Six day jury trial with five lawyers and numerous lay and expert witnesses. Since this was the only case for that week of Circuit Court, I did all the initial jury pool qualification before the jury pool was voir dired for the particular case. (2) Owings Estate-Laurens County: Four day jury trial with five lawyers and numerous lay and expert witnesses. The same is true in this case concerning jury pool qualification. (3) Lester Estate-Newberry County: Two day jury trial in September 2008. A special term of court was scheduled with a Circuit Court jury pool summoned and used. As in the above cases, I presided over all aspects of the trial including jury qualification, jury voir dire, pre-trial and post-trial matters. (4) Grice Estate-Greenville County: Four day jury trial in October 2009 concerning a Will contest. The point being to the above summary of jury trial Judicial experiences is that I exercised the same role as that of a Circuit Court Judge and did everything that is required of a Circuit Court Judge presiding over a civil jury trial. It should also be noted that the Probate Court handles a wide variety of civil issues. The rules of evidence are the same in Probate Court as in Circuit Court. The Probate Court follows the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Hocker provided a list of his most significant orders or opinions:
The Primary issue in this case was whether the Plaintiff had a common-law marriage with the decedent thus allowing him to inherit from the Estate. I ruled against the Plaintiff and my Order was appealed to Circuit Court and then to the Court of Appeals. Both appellate Courts affirmed my ruling.
There were several issues in this case: 1. Jurisdiction of a DHHS claim; 2. The distinction between a Medicaid lien for nursing home services and a Medicaid lien for medical services provided as a result of an accident; 3. The right of the Court to sua sponte reopen the record. Both the Circuit Court and Court of Appeals affirmed my ruling.
An emergency action was filed by a banking institution seeking a Protective Order and seeking a declaration as to the competency of Ms. Williams with respect to a very substantial investment account held by the bank. Several hearings were held in the case. At one time eight lawyers were involved. Ms. Williams also filed an extraordinary Writ of Prohibition in the SC Supreme Court (case number unknown) objecting to my jurisdiction over the case. This Writ action was ultimately dismissed. The merits of the case before my court were ultimately dismissed after the competency issue was resolved.
This case involved a very significant and somewhat novel issue related to the effect, if any, of a trust on a spouse's claim to an elective share in the Estate. My Order was appealed to the Court of Appeals. This case is ongoing which involves a large Estate and a substantial controversy among the family members along with a companion case involving two bonding companies which had bonds in place when a prior Personal Representative was in office. There have been 15-20 separate hearings along with a six day jury trial on the issue of the validity of the Last Will and Testament. Judge Hocker further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies: I was found qualified but not nominated as a candidate for the Eighth Circuit Seat No. 2 in the fall of 2008.
I was found qualified and nominated as a candidate for the Eighth Circuit Seat No. 1 in the fall of 2009 and went to a close floor vote in February 2010.
The Commission believes that Judge Hocker's temperament would be excellent. The Piedmont Citizens Committee found Judge Hocker "Well-qualified" for constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, and mental stability and found him "Qualified" for physical health. They noted his ethical fitness as "excellent." For his professional and academic ability, they noted: "He appears to be well-qualified concerning his professional and academic ability. For his experience, they stated "extensive, well qualified." When staff questioned the Chair of the Committee why the categories of character, reputation, and judicial temperament received no comments or findings, he stated that no members from the Committee in the area where Judge Hocker practiced attended the meeting or gave him a report of their investigation. Thus, the Chair contended that the Committee members who were present were unable to make a determination regarding these criteria. Judge Hocker is married to Susan Gayle Lindler Hocker. He has two children.
Judge Hocker reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Judge Hocker provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: "I am active in my church which is First United Methodist Church in Laurens. I serve as Chairman of the Church Council and I teach an adult Sunday school class. I have been active with the Boy Scouts serving as Troop Committee Chairman. I belong to the Kappa Alpha Order Court of Honor which is an elite organization of men across the State who are Kappa Alpha alumni. Several years ago, I received the South Carolina Pro Bono Service Award. Finally, I was voted 'Best Attorney' in 2009 by the subscribers to the Clinton Chronicle." Judge Hocker further reported:
I believe I am qualified for the position of Circuit Court Judge for the following reasons:
Finally, I am humbled in having the opportunity to apply for this position. I believe that the above factors that I have listed have influenced me in being the type of Judge I have been and the type of Judge that I will continue to be whether (and hopefully) in the Circuit Court arena or continue in the Probate Court arena. The Commission commented that Judge Hocker has an excellent reputation as an Associate Probate Judge. They noted his "down-to-earth" demeanor and his legal experience would benefit him on the Circuit Court bench. (12) Conclusion: The Commission found Judge Hocker qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. McCall Tanner meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. McCall-Tanner was born in 1973. She is 37 years old and a resident of Bluffton, South Carolina. Ms. McCall-Tanner provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1998. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. McCall-Tanner. Ms. McCall-Tanner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. McCall-Tanner reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. McCall-Tanner testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Ms. McCall-Tanner to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. McCall-Tanner described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Ms. McCall-Tanner reported that she has taught the following law related courses: Ms. McCall-Tanner reported that she has not published any books or articles. (4) Character: The Commission's investigation of Ms. McCall-Tanner did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. McCall-Tanner did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. McCall Tanner has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. McCall-Tanner was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
Ms. McCall-Tanner reported that she is not listed in Martindale-Hubbell. She further reported, "I guess this is because I have been a prosecutor the majority of my career."
Ms. McCall-Tanner appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. McCall-Tanner appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. McCall-Tanner was admitted to the SC Bar in 1998. She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: I graduated from law school in May 1998. Admitted to the SC Bar in November 1998. Worked for Perrin, Perrin, Mann, & Patterson in Spartanburg, SC until August 1999. This was a general practice law firm that was involved in civil plaintiff and defense, real estate, and probate work. I worked on a contract basis and was paid by the hour to do legal research and basic file preparation. I went to work for the 14th Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office in August 1999. I handled juvenile, magistrate, misdemeanor, felony, and death penalty cases. In November 2001, I went to part-time status with the Solicitor's Office and focused on the prosecution of criminal sexual conduct against minor cases for them. From November 2001 until January 2003, I also worked part-time with the Law Office of Duffie Stone. This was a general civil practice firm but primarily focused on Insurance Reserve cases. I left the Law Office in 2003 and returned to work full-time with the Solicitor's Office. In January 2006, I was promoted to Deputy Solicitor in the 14th Circuit and this is my current position. Since January 2009, I have headed a trial team that focuses on the prosecution of career criminals and violent offenders. In March 2010, I was sworn in as a Special Assistant United States Attorney and have been working with federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies on a multiple defendant murder case and various other drug and gun offenders. Ms. McCall-Tanner made the following statements regarding her experience: I have handled criminal matters of all varieties. I have been involved in several death penalty cases. While the guilt phase of a death penalty trial involves heightened concentration on all the usual areas of criminal procedure, the penalty phase is a unique procedure. It is a rare opportunity to present victim impact and defendant history to a jury for consideration. In prosecuting other violent felonies the issues have been as diverse as the facts surrounding them. Constitutional matters involving searches, seizures, arrests, detention, interrogation, discovery, and representation are daily concerns. In handling misdemeanors and lower court charges, when incarceration is not the most desired option, there is an effort to explore solutions involving restitution and behavior management. Alternative programs such as drug court, batterer's counseling, and public service become important components of the process. This is similar to issues faced when prosecuting juvenile court matters in Family Court. By its nature, Juvenile Court does not seek to punish but attempts to rehabilitate youths. I often found myself dealing with agencies such as the Department of Social Services and School Counselors more than the Department of Juvenile Justice. While my experience in handling civil cases is much more limited than my criminal experience, I have had a lot of exposure to civil matters. Criminal cases often involve issues of restitution, forfeiture, and liability. Balancing these competing interests is a constant part of plea negotiation. My career in criminal law has also exposed me to Domestic and Probate matters. There is no doubt that many criminal matters are born out of domestic situations. Likewise, mental illness and substance abuse are frequent elements. Therefore, limiting the description of my experience as a prosecutor to only criminal would be a huge understatement.
Ms. McCall-Tanner reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Ms. McCall-Tanner reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Ms. McCall-Tanner reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. McCall-Tanner provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. McCall-Tanner's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
This was a death penalty trial for a woman charged with kidnapping, robbing, torturing, and murdering a young, handicapped man. The significance of this case was the exposure to what can only be described as a void of humanity. This young woman gave an audio-taped confession that detailed what she did to her victim. There were many points on the tape where she laughed through her description of events. Someone like her, and something like her crime, puts many other things into perspective.
This was the trial of a man charged with burglarizing, robbing, and murdering an elderly man in his own home. The significance of this case was the unique "method" of murder. During the robbery, Williams severely beat the victim. The excitement of the attack caused the victim to suffer a sudden and lethal heart attack. While the cause of death was heart attack - the manner of death was homicide. It was a novel and interesting case to argue. But for the defendant's actions, the victim might still be alive today. The jury agreed and convicted Williams of murder. I suspect that as our population ages we will unfortunately see more of these scenarios.
This was the trial of a man who, along with a co-defendant that testified against him, was charged with the kidnapping and robbery of a couple visiting our town on vacation. Howard was also charged with the rape of the woman. The significance of this case was the complexity of the evidence and its presentation. There were extensive pre-trial arguments over DNA, lab contamination, discovery, handwriting samples, and many other topics. While the evidence against the defendant was primarily circumstantial, it was overwhelming once put together.
This was the trial of a young man who was charged with the Armed Robbery of a little family owned grocery store. The significance of this case was the lessons I learned while trying it three times. The victim was by far one of the most credible witnesses I have ever encountered and the fact that she and her 80 year old grandmother had a gun pointed in their faces motivated me to continue. The first trial was a hung jury. I had an opportunity to speak with some of the jurors after the trial and they gave me some "pointers". I discovered there was a mistake when the second trial was a hung jury. I focused on the details the first jury thought were important instead of just trying the case. By the time the third jury convicted Costa I had reevaluated many things about how I prepared for and presented cases. Almost as important, I came to believe what I've heard seasoned lawyers say: "if you ever get a chance to listen at the jury deliberation door - don't!" It's true - they are not talking about what you think or wish they were... This was the case of a mentally challenged man who was charged with a criminal sexual assault on a child. The significance of this case was that it shows the limitations of the Criminal Justice System and forced me to search for other alternatives. Staples had been charged with raping a child before. The prosecutor who handled that case dismissed the charges once a mental evaluation indicated he was mentally retarded and therefore not competent to stand trial. Years passed, Staples molested another child, and the case came to me. The mental evaluation obviously presented the same challenge as before. He could not be prosecuted in General Sessions. However, the option of just turning him loose back into the community didn't seem adequate. I made it my job to educate myself enough to take Staples through the Probate Court system.
Ms. McCall-Tanner reported that she has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals.
The Commission believes that Ms. McCall-Tanner's temperament would be excellent. The Low Country Citizens Committee found Ms. McCall-Tanner "Well-qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Ms. McCall-Tanner is married to P.J. Tanner. She has no children.
Ms. McCall-Tanner reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Ms. McCall-Tanner provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Ms. McCall Tanner further reported: I come from a humble background. I don't take anything for granted and I don't forget where I come from. I don't believe that anyone owes me anything in this world. I have always been a hard worker and I have earned everything that I have. I believe that you never take something that doesn't belong to you. I also believe that people can make honest mistakes, be remorseful, and therefore deserve a second chance.
I believe that mutual respect and honest communication are must haves for any success. I believe that listening is actually a skill. Nothing offends me more than someone thinking that I don't care. I want to be respected for my work, not a title I may hold or by an association I may have made. That is the kind of Judge I would be.
The Commission commented that Ms. McCall-Tanner is very intelligent and was well-spoken at the Public Hearing. They also noted her dedication to public service as a deputy solicitor. The Commission found Ms. McCall-Tanner qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. McDonald meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. McDonald was born in 1969. She is 42 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Ms. McDonald provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1994. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. McDonald. Ms. McDonald demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Ms. McDonald reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. McDonald testified she has not:
Ms. McDonald testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Ms. McDonald to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. McDonald described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Ms. McDonald reported that she has taught the following law related courses: Ms. McDonald reported that she has published the following:
Co-author, Recent Developments in Government Operations and Liability Law: Annual Update on Public Official Immunities, The Urban Lawyer, 1997. The Commission's investigation of Ms. McDonald did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. McDonald did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. McDonald has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. McDonald was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry. Ms. McDonald reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV. Ms. McDonald reported that she has held the following public offices:
"I have not held an elected public office, but I have been appointed by the SC Supreme Court to positions affiliated with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. From 1999-2002, I served as an Attorney to Assist Disciplinary Counsel. In January of 2003, I was appointed to the SC Commission on Judicial Conduct. I am currently serving my second term on the Commission."
Ms. McDonald appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. McDonald appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. McDonald was admitted to the SC Bar in 1994.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: (1) Stuckey Law Firm; (2) Sandra J. Senn, P.A.; (3) Clawson & Staubes; (4) Rhoad Law Firm (Bamberg); (5) Padgett Law Firm (Bennettsville); (6) Jennings and Harris (Bennettsville);
(7) Jay Ervin (Darlington). (1) Joye Law Firm (Mark Joye and Ken Harrell); (2) David Whittington; (3) Robert Gailliard; (4) John Price Law Firm; (5) E. Bart Daniel; (6) J. Brady Hair; (7) Larry Kobrovsky;
(8) Stanley Feldman. Ms. McDonald made the following statements regarding her experiences: Although my trial practice has focused on civil defense, the other areas in which I have worked will assist with the duties required of a judge in General Sessions Court as well. I have practiced constitutional law for sixteen (16) years, working on cases involving allegations of illegal search and seizure, violation of the right to counsel, Brady v. Maryland and the requirements of Rule 5, entrapment, and various questions of probable cause. I have tried over forty (40) cases as either lead counsel or co-counsel, and our work requires that I remain cognizant of decisions in the areas of constitutional and criminal law. In addition, I have personally handled at least forty-five (45) appeals, and I have assisted attorneys at other firms with at least twenty (20) others. On a pro bono basis, I serve as a prosecutor for the Attorney General's Criminal Domestic Violence Task Force. Most of the cases that I prosecute are in Orangeburg County (my last trial was in July); however, I recently assisted a Dorchester County CDV victim referred to me by the Task Force Coordinator. I have also worked with the Attorney General's Office on the appeal of a case interpreting portions of South Carolina's Sexually Violent Predator Act and the Federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Michau v. Charleston County, 434 F.3d 725 (4th Cir. 2006). I argued this case in Richmond in 2005. I have handled numerous post-conviction relief matters, as assigned to me pursuant to Rule 608 and for other attorneys. The criminal offenses in the matters I have handled have varied from minor offenses to assault and battery with intent to kill, voluntary manslaughter, and murder. Since our firm serves as counsel for the SC Sheriffs' Association, I have also had the honor of working with Sheriffs from all across the State of South Carolina. I have represented juveniles in Family Court as both appointed defense counsel and as a Guardian ad Litem, and I believe that the administrative skills gained through my community service leadership will assist with docket management and control. Finally, as my law partner is a member of the Attorney General's Dogfighting Task Force, in 2004, I was able to assist with the "custody trial" following the confiscation of 47 abused dogs from David Ray Tant, one of the nation's worst offenders in the area of dogfighting. We tried the forfeiture/custody case in Charleston County.
I have handled a variety of civil matters over the past five years. Five of these are discussed in detail in response to [my most significant litigated matters]. Some others include:
This was a declaratory judgment action seeking to require Folly Beach to provide sewer service to a remote property. The Honorable A. Victor Rawl dismissed the case, Sunset Cay appealed, and the SC Supreme Court affirmed. These are just a few of the cases that I have handled over the past few years. I am happy to provide additional information should the Commission need it.
Ms. McDonald reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Ms. McDonald reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Ms. McDonald reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. McDonald provided that she most often served as "sole counsel or co-counsel with another of my law partners."
The following is Ms. McDonald's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
This wrongful death action arose after a father held his infant hostage and threatened to kill the child and blow up the family's home. He also threatened several members of law enforcement responding to the scene. After an all-night stand-off, the father emerged from the house, holding a knife to the baby's neck. When he refused to remain in a location safe for the Charleston County SWAT team to retrieve the baby from the porch, a police sniper shot him in order to ensure the safety of the child and the officers on the scene. We were honored to represent the Charleston County Sheriff's Office in this matter, and after a four-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict;
My law partner and I represented the plaintiffs in this matter, which arose after Betty Sue Cowsert fell from the elevated, second-story porch of her Folly Beach home. The contractor who built the Cowsert home had failed to secure a portion of the porch railing in any way - it was not nailed, glued, or secured to the main railing area. When the railing gave way, Mrs. Cowsert fell, suffering serious injuries. Following the four-day trial, the jury returned a significant verdict for the plaintiffs;
This highly-publicized case arose after an officer with the City of North Charleston shot a man threatening officers with a knife and a screwdriver. The screwdriver had been sharpened to resemble an ice pick. After threatening an eight-months pregnant Piggly Wiggly cashier with the knife, the suspect led the officers across a busy parking lot and Rivers Avenue. He refused to drop the weapons and stabbed one of the officers in the chest, puncturing his shirt and vest. After repeated verbal commands to drop the weapons, the suspect charged the officers and was shot. The decedent's family subsequently filed a civil rights suit, alleging that the officers had violated the decedent's constitutional rights and committed excessive force against him. Following a five-day trial, the Honorable P. Michael Duffy granted all defendants judgment as a matter of law on all causes of action. The Fourth Circuit affirmed Judge Duffy's decision without oral argument. See Gregory v. Zumalt, 294 Fed.Appx. 792, 2008 WL 4410375 (4th Cir. Sept. 26, 2008)(unpublished); My law partner and I represent the City of Charleston in the cases arising from this tragic 2007 fire which took the lives of nine Charleston firefighters. This work has involved numerous matters, including representation during the SC-OSHA investigation, before the OSHA hearing officer, and throughout the investigations conducted by various federal agencies and law enforcement entities. Currently, our firm represents the City of Charleston in the pending wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits."
The following is Ms. McDonald's account of five civil appeals she has personally handled:
The following is Ms. McDonald's account of the criminal appeals she has personally handled: I have also advised attorneys handling criminal appeals in cases in which I have not otherwise been personally involved. Ms. McDonald further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
In 2009, I was found to be qualified, but not nominated, for the position of Circuit Judge, At-Large, Seat 8. The SC Bar found me to be "Well-qualified" in six of seven categories and "Qualified" in the seventh category.
The Commission believes that Ms. McDonald's temperament would be excellent. The Low Country Citizens Committee found Ms. McDonald "Well-qualified" for each of the nine evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Ms. McDonald is not married. She has one child.
Ms. McDonald reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Positions held for the Young Lawyers Division: Chair, Law School for Non-Lawyers project (1998) Co-Chair, Lawyers as Mentors project (1997) Chair, "Citizenship in Schools" project at Fraser Elementary School (1996) Co-Chair, Lawyers for Literacy project (1995) Delegate, American Bar Association Annual Meeting (Young Lawyers
Division), San Francisco (Summer 1997);
President, 1998-99;
Ms. McDonald provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
New York, NY (June 2006 - June 2009);
(This is my fourth term on the Board of Directors since 2000);
Municipal Leadership in Education Project (2001-03); District #20 (2000-01). Honors: Junior League of Charleston Community Impact Award (2002)
Law School:
Undergraduate: Ms. McDonald further reported: "My daughter, Susanne, starred as "Scout" in the Charleston Stage production of "To Kill a Mockingbird" in February of 2009. Watching her in that role - - and watching the character of Atticus Finch multiple times in a three-week period - - reaffirmed for me the knowledge that treating others fairly, with impartiality, with integrity, and with dignity is critical to the practice of law and our judicial system. These are characteristics that I would like to bring to the bench. If elected, I plan to be a judge known for her good temperament, patience, scholarship, work ethic, and willingness to make a decision."
Service has been an important part of my life for as long as I can remember, and I can think of nothing that I would rather do than serve the people of South Carolina in this position.
The Commission commented that Ms. McDonald made the highest score on the Commission's practice and procedure test and her great intellect would serve her well on the Circuit Court bench. They noted her active involvement with the Bar and in her community. The Commission found Ms. McDonald qualified and nominated her for election to the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. McGregor meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. McGregor was born in 1974. She is 36 years old and a resident of Irmo, South Carolina. Ms. McGregor provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1999. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. McGregor. Ms. McGregor demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Ms. McGregor reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. McGregor testified she has not:
Ms. McGregor testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Ms. McGregor to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. McGregor described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Personal Liability Litigation February 18, 2009;
Ms. McGregor reported that she has taught the following law related courses:
Ms. McGregor reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Ms. McGregor did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. McGregor did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. McGregor has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. McGregor was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
Ms. McGregor reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell and that she is not listed because, "I have never been employed in private practice."
Ms. McGregor appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. McGregor appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. McGregor was admitted to the SC Bar in 1999. She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: After graduating from law school, I began a judicial clerkship with the Honorable Henry F. Floyd in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina. Under the general supervision of the judge, I performed legal research, composed legal memorandums, opinions and orders. In July 2000, I was offered a job at the Richland County Public Defender's Office as an Assistant Public Defender. For three and a half years, I provided quality representation to the indigent population of Richland County in misdemeanor and felony criminal cases. I managed a team of four junior attorneys; my responsibilities included case review and mentoring. I also served as coordinator for Drug Court, which provided alternative dispositions for those convicted of drug offenses. I remained with that office until October 2003. In October 2003, I became an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office, District of South Carolina. As a federal prosecutor, I handled a wide variety of complex federal violations including crimes of violence, firearms, narcotics, human trafficking, child pornography, and immigration. From 2003 to 2007, I served as the District's Project Sentry Coordinator, responsible for community outreach and creation of initiatives related to the prevention of school gun violence. In October 2007, I accepted a temporary detail to the National Advocacy Center, Executive Office for United States Attorneys within the Department of Justice. As an Assistant Director I was responsible for the development, execution and management of federal training for Department of Justice and other Executive Branch personnel. While assigned to the Legal Programs and Legal Support Staff Training Teams I coordinated appearances of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and Solicitor General of the United States. During my tenure, I was asked by Department of Justice leadership to assist with special projects including Professionalism Training for Department of Justice Attorneys, as well as with background investigations for United States Attorney and United States Marshal candidates. In August 2010 I returned to the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's office where I am currently serving as the district's Project Safe Childhood Coordinator, responsible for the prosecution of childhood exploitation cases, community outreach and interdiction, and the district's Criminal Civil Rights contact, responsible for the prosecution of civil rights violations such as hate crimes and police misconduct matters. In early November, I was offered permanent employment with the Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys. As of November 22, 2010 I will return to the National Advocacy Center where I will serve as an Assistant Director. Ms. McGregor made the following statements regarding her experience: Over the past five years I have prosecuted criminal matters in federal court. I have had the opportunity to master issues related to narcotics, violent crimes, illegal weapon possession, bank robbery and homicides. My experience also extends to white collar crimes such as police misconduct, human trafficking, hate crimes, child pornography, social security fraud, and identity theft and immigration violations. The prosecution of these cases has allowed me to use become familiar with the grand jury and Title III (telephone wire taps), and even policy and procedures regarding the federal death penalty. Prior to working with the Department of Justice, United States Attorney's Office, I spent approximately three and a half years as a public defender. As a public defender in Richland County Circuit Court I have experience with everything from a preliminary hearing to jury trial. In order to balance my experience as it relates to civil issues, I would review the rules of civil procedure, rely on relevant continuing legal education materials, as well as using research tools like Westlaw and Lexis. Furthermore, when faced with a novel issue, I would turn to my fellow judges for advice.
Ms. McGregor reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows: January 2008 - July 2010 none
August 2010 - present weekly;
Ms. McGregor reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Ms. McGregor reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. McGregor provided that she most often served as "sole counsel in 70% of matters."
The following is Ms. McGregor's account of her five most significant litigated matters: Ms. McGregor reported that she has not personally handled any civil appeals.
The following is Ms. McGregor's account of five criminal appeals she has personally handled:
The Commission believes that Ms. McGregor's temperament would be excellent. The Midlands Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Ms. McGregor to be "Well-qualified" in all evaluative areas: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. The Committee stated in summary: "The Committee was very impressed with Ms. McGregor and we enjoyed her interview. We believe she has the character, work ethic, and energy to be an outstanding Circuit Court Judge. Ms. McGregor is eminently qualified to serve on the Circuit Court bench, and we believe she would serve our state in an outstanding manner." Ms. McGregor is married to Keith Shon McGregor. She has two children.
Ms. McGregor reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: Ms. McGregor provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization: Friends of the Richland County Public Library, Board Member. Ms. McGregor further reported:
"I have had the opportunity of serving as a law clerk, defense attorney, prosecutor, and juror. I have also been involved in the criminal justice system as the victim of a crime. I believe the combination of each one of these experiences has afforded me a unique perspective which renders me well suited for the bench. My experiences will allow me to empathize with victims, treat litigants professionally, and appreciate the sacrifices made by members of the community when they serve on our juries."
The Commission commented that Ms. McGregor appeared articulate and poised in her presentation at the Public Hearing. They noted that they were impressed by her attitude; that confidence and competency in the courtroom comes from good preparation. The Commission found Ms. McGregor qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge McLeod meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge McLeod was born in 1973. He is 37 years old and a resident of Walterboro, South Carolina. Judge McLeod provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since November 18, 2002. Judge McLeod met the jurisdictional requirement of practicing law for eight years on November 18, 2002, and this requirement must be met at the time of the candidate's election (proposed to be February 2, 2011) pursuant to SC Constitution Article V, Section 15. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge McLeod. Judge McLeod demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge McLeod reported that he had made $74.80 in campaign expenditures in mailing letters of introduction of members of the General Assembly.
Judge McLeod testified he has not:
Judge McLeod testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Judge McLeod to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge McLeod described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Judge McLeod reported that he has not taught any law-related programs.
Judge McLeod reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Judge McLeod did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge McLeod did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge McLeod has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge McLeod was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge McLeod reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell, but reported, "George Cone, a partner in the office has recently approached me regarding this, and we have tried to start the process. My law firm's rating is an 'A'."
Judge McLeod appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge McLeod appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge McLeod was admitted to the SC Bar in 2002.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Judge McLeod made the following statements regarding his experience: I have handled criminal matters since 2003. Most of the criminal matters handled were done initially as the Prosecutor for the City of Walterboro. I prosecuted all criminal matters in which the defendants requested a jury trial. The issues ranged from DUIs and DUSs to assault and batteries. I also prosecuted shop lifting, simple larceny, speeding, simple possession of marijuana, and other minor drug offense. In General Sessions, I defended two criminal sexual conduct with a minor cases. Both were resolved in my clients favor. Because of my involvement with the City, I was limited in General Session matters. Since I became a Magistrate for Colleton County, I have heard and handled all cases that would come before a magistrate. As a magistrate, I not only hear criminal matters, but also civil matters. I hear all misdemeanor level crimes and crimes with jail time less than 30 days, and those others allowed by law. I hear all civil matters with jurisdiction less $7,500.00. In addition, I hear evictions, claims and deliveries, preliminary hearings, restraining orders, and also hold bond court. My civil litigation experiences, in my private law practice, consist of mostly insurance defense matters. I handle private insurance companies but also handle insurance defense claims for state entities such as the Colleton County School District, Hampton County, the Town of Allendale and Allendale County to name a few. I have had experience in plaintiff tort actions as well. Two civil matters that I have been involved with post verdict were Bewersdorf v. SC DOT and Colleton County and Padgett v. Colleton County. I represented Colleton County in both matters. In the latter, I represented Colleton County solely and in the former, my father, Peden B. McLeod and I represented Colleton County. In both cases my client was granted a directed verdict. In the Bewersdorf case, a directed verdict was granted based on the Public Duty Doctrine and that there was no negligence on the part of the county. The Bewersdorf case was appealed to the Court of Appeals. I handled the appeal solely. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling pertaining to both defendants. The Appellant then asked for a writ of certiorari to the SC Supreme Court on the Court of Appeals' ruling in regards to the SC DOT only and did not ask for a writ of certiorari on the basis on the Court's ruling for my client. In the Padgett case, the lower court granted a directed verdict to my client on the open and obvious condition of the area in which the plaintiff fell. The plaintiff appealed the directed verdict and such ruling was overturned. A writ of certiorari was denied and the case was settled prior to a retrial. I do feel as if my experience as a prosecutor, private attorney, and a magistrate has given me a well-balanced approach in the law and would serve me well as a Circuit Court Judge. For any areas of the law where I lack experience from my law practice, I have had extensive experience in all facets of court while serving as a Law Clerk for a Circuit Court Judge. During law school, I worked in the Fifth Circuit Solicitor's Office and in the South Carolina Legislative Council, which consist of the Speaker of House, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the Code Commissioner and Director. All three positions, although none were long term, have helped prepare me for matters that would come before me as a Circuit Court Judge. In addition to the above, I would like to note that I am a certified mediator for both Common Pleas and Family Courts, both of which are now mandatory in my home circuit, the 14th Judicial Circuit. I have been certified since 2007. The training and mediations that I have been involved with also will help me gain experience in areas I may not have otherwise been exposed to in my practice of the law. My involvement with mediation, the magistrate court system, as prosecutor, as defense and plaintiff's attorney in a general practice setting, as well as knowledge gained from my time behind the bench as a law clerk has instilled in me, what I consider a well rounded legal, temperament that is well suited for the position as a Circuit Court Judge.
Judge McLeod reported the frequency of his court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Judge McLeod reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Judge McLeod reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows: Judge McLeod provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge McLeod's account of his five most significant litigated matters: The following is Judge McLeod's account of two civil appeals he has personally handled: (a) Bewersdorf v. SC DOT and Colleton County. 2007-UP-063; (b) Padgett v. Colleton County. Opinion #4542. Judge McLeod reported that has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Judge McLeod reported that he had held the following judicial office: Magistrate for Colleton County--Appointed in August 2007 - Presently serving. Jurisdiction: -Civil- Up to $7,500.00; Criminal- Misdemeanors and other offenses with jail time no more than 30 days or fine of $500.00; Countywide jurisdiction Appointed by Governor, Recommended by Senate County Legislative Delegation. Judge McLeod provided the following regarding his significant orders or opinions: "Orders generated by Magistrate Court are generally form orders. Upon appealed issues, a magistrate's Return is prepared and sent to the Circuit Court for a hearing." Judge McLeod further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"Unsuccessful candidate of South Carolina House of Representatives, District 121. June 2005, Special Election."
The Commission believes that Judge McLeod's temperament would be excellent. The Lowcountry Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge McLeod "Well-qualified" in the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, and judicial temperament. They found him "Qualified" in regards to experience. The committee noted that it has "concerns over the candidate's lack of experience." Judge McLeod is not married. He does not have any children.
Judge McLeod reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Judge McLeod provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Mr. McLeod further reported: After completing the bar exam, I was hired to serve as a Law Clerk for Jackson V. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge for the 14th Judicial Circuit. During my year of service with Judge Gregory, I conducted research for all stages of litigation that was coming before Judge Gregory. Such research was done for summary judgment motions, motions to change venues, motions to dismiss, and all other types of pre-trial motions. Also research was conducted on trial rulings, jury charges, and post-trial motions such as Judgments Notwithstanding the Verdict, Motions for New Trials, and Motions to Alter and Amend. In addition, research and composition was performed on rulings and orders that were to be issued by Judge Gregory. I was present at all the motion and non-jury terms of court as well as the General Sessions and Common Pleas terms of Court throughout the entire year, which obviously subjected me to many entire trials, many more than a practicing attorney would participate in over several years. After completing my law clerkship with Judge Gregory, I was hired by McLeod, Fraser, and Cone, primarily as a trial attorney, and subsequently hired by the City of Walterboro to serve as its City Prosecutor. During this time as City Prosecutor, I was responsible for preparing and prosecuting all jury trials involving city charges. I also was called upon to present evidence for the City at preliminary hearings. When I was appointed as City Prosecutor, the backlog of jury trials in City Court was tremendous. Municipal Court Judge Ray Woodard and I worked at the direction of City Council to reduce the backlog of cases. Although most attorneys did not like the remedy, the day for jury trials was moved to Saturdays, thus limiting the conflicts, which defendants and their attorneys had with schedules and judicial matters in other courts, which took priority over Municipal Court. With cooperation between the Municipal Judge and myself, the backlog of cases was drastically reduced. During my three-year tenure as City Prosecutor, I was, not only handling matters for the City, but also actively engaged in private general practice with McLeod, Fraser, and Cone. In August 2007, Governor Sanford appointed me as a Colleton County Magistrate. Senators Clementa Pinckney, John Matthews, and Larry Grooms, all of the Colleton County Senate Delegation, recommended my appointment to Governor Sanford. As a Magistrate, I have handled every stage of a criminal proceeding. I have issued arrest warrants and search warrants, issued bonds, held arraignments, and presided over preliminary hearings to decide whether to dismiss the criminal complaint or bind the matter over to the grand jury. Further, I have held bench trials as well as jury trials, with both pro se defendants and defendants represented by counsel. I have heard and ruled on procedural matters, evidentiary matters, and all other issues that are associated with criminal procedure and the protection of the rights of defendant as well as the rights of victims. At the end of each trial where guilt has been established, I, as the Judge, have the duty to decide on the penalty to impose, be it fine or jail time under the appropriate state statutes. I have tried, and always try to render justice to all persons involved. As a Magistrate, from my appointment through June 30, 2010, my service yields the following criminal docket statistics: General Criminal Docket-matters disposed of: Bench Trials- 570 Jury Trials- 10 DUI Docket-matters disposed of: Bench Trials- 47 Jury Trials- 4 Traffic Docket-matters disposed of: Bench Trials- 4,660 Jury Trials- 9 With respect to the cases assigned to me and disposed of on the Civil Docket (since my appointment date through June 30, 2010), the statistics show: Civil Docket-Cases/Matters Resolved- 1,192 via default, settlement, finding for plaintiff, finding for defendant, or dismissal. Those cases would include both bench trials and jury trials. In addition to the general civil docket cases assigned to me, I am assigned to hear eviction matters. I have disposed of more than 930 eviction matters in the time frame from my appointment through June 30, 2010. Currently, I am assigned to two full days each week of presiding at Magistrate's Court. The other three days of the week are dedicated to performing my duties in my current law practice. Because of my duties as a Magistrate Judge, I do not practice in General Sessions because of the obvious conflict of interest. From July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009, there were a total of 955,535 cases disposed of by Magistrates like myself in the State of South Carolina. Of that number 133,171 cases were on the criminal docket; 617,505 cases were on the Traffic Docket; 12,486 cases were on the DUI Docket; and 192,373 cases were on the Civil Docket. For the same time period in the State's General Sessions, cases disposed of numbered 123,315. Out of that number 51% of the cases were ended Nol Pros, 40% were guilty pleas, 1% were trials where guilt was found, and less than 1% were trials where guilt was not found. The total conviction rate was 41% and the total non-conviction rate was 51%. For the same year, the State's Common Pleas Courts had a total of 15,031 jury cases pending; 44,061 non-jury cases pending; and 11,803 Master-in-Equity cases pending. This is a total of 70,895 cases. The South Carolina Court Administration provided the above information via Internet.
The above information is being provided to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission because the information positively reflects my experience and positively reflects on my candidacy for Circuit Court At-Large Judicial Seat #9.
The Commission commented that Judge McLeod articulated a good concept of what fairness means in the courts. They noted his dedicated involvement in his community and his service for the past three years as a magistrate. The Commission found Judge McLeod qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Cases on April 30, 2010;
Judge Murphy appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Judge Murphy appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. My duties as Chief Magistrate include not only the administrative functions of the day to day operation of the Court, but also hearing criminal and civil trials. I am confident that my work experience in private practice, the Solicitor's office and the Magistrate's Court has prepared me well to perform the duties of the Circuit Court impartially, fairly and competently.
Judge Murphy reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her service on the bench as follows: Judge Murphy provided that prior to her service on the bench she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Murphy's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
The Commission believes that Judge Murphy's temperament would be excellent. Immediate Past President- 2006-May 2010 Vice- President 2005
Treasurer 2003-04; The Commission found Judge Murphy qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Templeton meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Ms. Templeton was born in 1970. She is 40 years old and a resident of Mt. Pleasant, SC. Ms. Templeton provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1999. She was admitted to the NC Bar in 1998. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Templeton. Ms. Templeton demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Ms. Templeton reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Templeton testified she has not:
Ms. Templeton testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Ms. Templeton to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Templeton described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Claims Managers Association of South Carolina (CMASC) Joint Meeting 7/22/10;
& Substance Abuse/Mental Abuse Health Issues 12/31/06
Ms. Templeton reported that she has taught the following law related courses:
Ms. Templeton reported that she has written the following published books and articles: The Commission's investigation of Ms. Templeton did not reveal evidence of any found grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Templeton did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Templeton has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Templeton was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
Ms. Templeton reported that she has a BV Distinguished 4.4 out of 5 Peer Review rating by Martindale-Hubbell. Ms. Templeton further reported: "until September 2009, an attorney was not eligible to be rated 'AV' until he or she had practiced for 10 years. I have not requested a new rating review since that anniversary."
Ms. Templeton appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Templeton appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Templeton was admitted to the SC Bar in 1999 after taking the bar exam twice. She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school: In my third year of law school, the Columbia office of Ogletree Deakins broke away to become Ellzey & Brooks. I had previously accepted a job with the Columbia office of Ogletree Deakins a/k/a Ellzey & Brooks and so I worked there from 1998 to 2000. After Ogletree re-established another office in Columbia, I was invited to 'return' and did so in 2000. I have worked for Ogletree ever since, primarily as a civil defense litigator and a traditional labor lawyer. In 2001, I began to split my time between the Charleston and Columbia offices of Ogletree to help manage the enormous amount of state court litigation being handled in Charleston. The Charleston office operated as a general insurance defense firm. In 2002, I transferred to the Charleston office of Ogletree permanently. Since 2002, I have handled medical malpractice, nursing home and hospital cases, premises liability and property damage cases, collective actions, and state and federal employment litigation." Ms. Templeton made the following statements regarding her experience: I gained experience very early with the criminal justice system as an intern in the State Grand Jury at the SC Attorney General's office, under the Chief Counsel Cameron Currie. I was exposed to a great number of aspects of the criminal system. I visited correctional facilities for witness interviews and to serve warrants for seizure of property. I accompanied the SC Law Enforcement Division officers on reverse drug buys (and transcribed even more transactions than I witnessed). I was present during the grand jury's first prosecution of white collar crime. I monitored the grand jurors as they deliberated and handed down indictments for drug trafficking and I observed now [sic] Judge Currie prepare [sic] for and prosecute [sic] those criminal cases. Criminal and civil trials are different in some respects, but I am familiar with the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence. The judge's job is to enforce the Rules by ensuring that the proper evidence is admitted and the proper procedure is followed. I am confident that I will be proficient in enforcing those rules and presiding competently over a criminal trial, should I be seated on the bench. I am a civil defense attorney. The constant in my practice involves the multitude of federal and state employment laws encompassing Title VII, Fair Labor Standards Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, SC Trade Secrets Act, handbook, covenant, and contract law. However, I have handled a great deal of medical malpractice, premises liability, and property damage cases. Additionally, I have dealt with various issues such as ethical disputes regarding lawyer disqualification, temporary restraining orders related to corporations, and property disputes regarding zoning ordinances. Generally, employment cases are brought and tried in federal court. While the Rules of Civil Procedure in federal court have different nuances than the SC Rules of Civil Procedure, the systems are largely based on one another. The greatest difference between the two systems is the finite deadlines in federal court. There are severe, case-altering consequences for missed deadlines in federal court. Having practiced under the federal system for the majority of my career has resulted in my having a tighter state practice. Procedurally, most of my cases begin with a state or federal deferral administrative agency. Subsequently, the matter moves to state circuit or federal district court. If appropriate under the law, the matter is moved to federal court. Almost without exception, I move for summary judgment on briefs. If the case is not disposed of at this stage, a 1 or 2 week trial is likely indicated. If the matter stays in state circuit court, it is usually regarding a medical malpractice, premises liability, or property damage case; none of which are usually ripe for summary judgment. As a result, those cases either settle or command a 2 to 5 day trial. I have only had 2 cases appealed. One to the Fourth Circuit and one through the Fourth Circuit and on to the United States Supreme Court, where it is currently pending.
Ms. Templeton reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Ms. Templeton reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Templeton reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. Templeton reported, "I served as sole counsel in most of these matters and chief counsel if other attorneys were involved."
The following is Ms. Templeton's account of her five most significant litigated matters: Ms. Templeton reported that she has handled the following civil appeals: (a) Sims v. Albemarle, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, April 1, 2003; (b) Hamilton v. Dayco, United States Supreme Court, pending.
Ms. Templeton reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
The Commission believes that Ms. Templeton's temperament would be excellent. The Lowcountry Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Ms. Templeton to be "Well-Qualified" for the following eight evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, and judicial temperament. The Committee found Ms. Templeton to be "Qualified" in experience. The Committee expressed concerns that Ms. Templeton lacks criminal experience. Ms. Templeton is married to Morgan Stuart Templeton. She has three children.
Ms. Templeton reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Board Member 2003 to present; Substantive Law Committee Co-Chair 2008 to present Major Continuing Legal Education Committee Member, 2010.
Ms. Templeton provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
Board Member Coastal Council, 2009-10; Member, 2001-present
Board Member, 2003-present;
Officer and Board member, 2004-08;
Chair of numerous committees including Low Country Food Bank and Smart Matters, 1999-2009; Member, 2002 to present
Charitable Fund Treasurer, Board Member, 2008-10; 100 year old merit based, invitation only organization of attorneys worldwide Member, 2008-present Substantive Law Committee Co-Chair, 2008
Major Continuing Legal Education Committee Member, 2010;
Board Member and President, Parents' Association, 2009-10; Sunday School Coordinator, 2007-08
Sunday School Teacher and Children's Chapel Coordinator, 2010; Ms. Templeton additionally reported: I have always worked tirelessly for causes about which I am passionate. I have spent the last almost 14 years engaged in some type of legal practice in South Carolina and I am invested in this profession. I believe when parties enter a courtroom, they have sacrificed enormous amounts of time, money, and emotions to prepare their case to be heard. I believe they should get a fair fight that is not in any way dependent on the judge's personal beliefs or attitude. It is with conviction that I believe I can fairly and impartially referee proceedings while assuaging the fears of the parties.
I have lived and worked all over South Carolina; on the line in manufacturing facilities and behind a desk in a corporate office. I have worked for a plaintiff's firm, a government prosecutorial agency, and a corporate defense firm. I have cleaned office building and lived in fishing trailers and I have hosted Governors, an Ambassador, and a United States Supreme Court Justice. I have learned one thing above all else; we are all equal and each individual should be afforded respect and access to the process.
The Commission commented that Ms. Templeton has an outstanding reputation as an attorney and they were impressed by her presentation at the Public Hearing. They noted her significant involvement with the Bar and in her community. The Commission found Ms. Templeton qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
At-Large, Seat 9 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Wolf meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge. Mr. Wolf was born in 1971. He is 39 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Mr. Wolf provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1999. (2) Ethical Fitness: The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Wolf. Mr. Wolf demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Wolf reported that he has made $21.91 in campaign expenditures for paper and postage.
Mr. Wolf testified he has not:
Mr. Wolf testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Wolf to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Wolf described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Mr. Wolf reported regarding teaching law-related courses or lectures at bar association conferences, education programs: I have "spoken four or five times to law students at the Charleston School of Law about setting up a private practice; business and commercial law topics; and as a primer for solicitor/public defender summer clerks."
Mr. Wolf reported that he has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Wolf did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Wolf did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Wolf has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Wolf was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Wolf reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV since 2005.
Mr. Wolf appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Wolf appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Wolf was admitted to the SC Bar in 1999.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Mr. Wolf made the following statements regarding his experience: As a staff attorney at the Charleston County Public Defender's Office and an associate at Savage & Savage, P.A. working closely with Andy Savage, I have worked on hundreds of criminal cases at the Magistrate/Municipal Court, General Sessions Court and Federal Court levels. The types of cases I have handled include simple possession of marijuana, minor in possession of alcohol, property crime enhancements, drug trafficking, kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, burglary and murder. For those cases, I typically developed trial notebooks, supervised the investigation of the charged offenses, attempted to develop meritorious defenses, prepared motions and participated in trials in those matters which weren't resolved prior to trial. Significant issues I have addressed over the past five years include: 1) use of a necessity defense in a Murder/Leaving the Scene of an Accident Where Death Results [State v. Jerrod Herrin]; 2) the availability of an involuntary manslaughter charge for the killing of bystanders when a self-defense theory has been presented because a jury could find the defendant recklessly disregarded the bystanders' safety [State v. Albert Nole, Jr.]; 3) enforcement of a plea agreement once the defendant has detrimentally relied on the agreement [State v. Andrew Hunt]; 4) the lawfulness of an arrest pursuant to a municipal arrest warrant which is executed in a different county without obtaining a counter signature from a Magistrate in the county which the defendant is to be arrested [State v. Demetrius Smalls]; 5) whether a fourteen year old should be waived to the General Sessions Court in a Murder case where the defendant was not the triggerman (handled in Family Court, but implicated General Sessions issues) [State v. Quinton Summers]; 6) factors relevant to determining the reliability of an identification [State v. Jacques Jefferson and State v. Demetrius Smalls]; 7) voluntariness of a defendant's statement after numerous hours of custodial interrogation and limited rest and sustenance [State v. Demetrius Smalls]; 8) Admissibility of diatom (tiny fossil remains of micro-organisms found in water) evidence to attempt to determine whether a decedent drown [sic] in a pond or died elsewhere and was placed in the pond post-mortem [State v. Renee Britt]; and 9) transferred self-defense [State v. Albert Nole, Sr.]. Many of these cases were high profile cases which garnered substantial media attention and required additional poise in presenting our theory on the case. While a law clerk to the Honorable Daniel F. Pieper, I was exposed to a wide variety of procedural and substantive issues in the Court of Common Pleas. During my tenure at Savage & Savage, P.A. and since establishing Wolf & Wolf, LLC, I have handled civil matters generally related to business and commercial transactions. I have represented large corporations, such as Rock-Tenn Company. AGFA Photo USA, Corp.; and Mueller Water Products, Inc., as well as smaller commercial enterprises. In addition to attempting to collect past due and wrongfully withheld obligations or to work out obligations due which could not immediately be paid on behalf of my clients, I have initiated mechanics lien foreclosures, consumer protection suits, protection of intellectual property rights, actions to dissolve Limited Liability Companies or Corporations, breach of contract claims, bailment liability, fair debt collection practices act violations, unfair trade practices acts, wrongful dishonor of a letter of credit and many others. I have handled such claims from the investigation and preparation of the Summons and Complaint, through the discovery process, pre-trial motions of hearings, preparation for trial and in some instances, trial of the matter. Additionally, I have defended clients who have been accused of premises liability, breach of contract on an account, fraud and misrepresentation, patent infringement, conversion, failure to pay business brokerage fees, and mechanics lien foreclosures. My representation of parties involved with these cases has been fairly evenly divided between plaintiffs and defendants. Significant issues I have addressed in civil cases over the past five years include: 1) fiduciary liability for conversion in a principal/agent relationship [Erica and Yolande Brooks v. Consumer Remedies, Inc. and Colleen Cole-Velasquez, 2006-CP-08-1585]; 2) does the repeated failure to pay a subcontractor's invoices constitute fraud in order for punitive damages to be awarded [Walter M. Green, Jr., d/b/a Green Concrete Finishers v. D.R. Horton, Inc., Gregory E. Amirault, and James M. Prevatt, 2006-CP-08-771]; 3) does a debt collector violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by misrepresenting to the parents of an adult debtor that the parents executed a guarantee of the debt when no such guarantee exists [Ed and Dawn Rice v. Greentree Associates, L.P., Stonemark Management, LLC, NCC Business Services, Inc. NCC Business Services of America, Inc. and NCC Holdings, Inc., 2009-CP-18-1426]; 4) what damage is a consumer permitted to recoup when a lender violates the statutory provisions related to a right to cure notice and the permissible period in which the consumer may cure [Marvetta S. Holmes and Daemeon Holmes v. Barnett Finance Company, Inc., 2009-CP-10-3463]; 5) is a warehouseman responsible for lost articles which the subject of a dispute between a foreign manufacturer and a local importer that lasted for more than a year before the importer was granted title [Accisris Company, Inc. v. The Burris Company of Charleston, LLC and M. Bruce Burris, 2009-CP-10-1360]; 6) common enemy rule with regard to water flowing from one property to another and interfering with the second property owner's enjoyment of their property [H. Sandra Toney v. Gayle Meacher Boyd, Eunice Meacher, and John Boyd, 2007-CP-86-002107]; 7) tort liability for misrepresentations which induced an asset purchase agreement for the sale of a business [Ruben Kornfield and Tuscan Bistro, Inc. v. Scotto Company of Summerville, LLC, 2009-CP-18-3348 and China Gourmet, Inc. v. Robin Dale Cumbie and Trayco, LLC, 2009-CP-10-4998]; 8) Mental Capacity to enter into a contractual relationship [Wachovia Dealer Services, Inc. v. Amelia T. Coker as personal representative of the Estate of Theodore J. Coker and Freedom Roads, LLC, Holiday Kamper Company of Columbia, LLC d/b/a Camping World RV Sales, 2009-CP-10-1430]; 9) enforcement of an oral business brokerage agreement [Jonathan Kronsberg Consulting, LLC v. Raiford G. Trask, III, and Cape Fear Rod Company d/b/a Fin-Nor, 2005-CP-10-5089]; and 10) wrongful dishonor of a Letter of Credit when the bank was precluded from asserting a documentary discrepancy as a result of its failure to comply with the uniform customs and practices they elected to adopt [Rock-Tenn Company v. South Carolina Bank and Trust, N.A., 2007-CP-10-5017].
Mr. Wolf reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Wolf reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Wolf reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows: Mr. Wolf provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Wolf's account of his five most significant litigated matters: Mr. Wolf reported that he has not personally handled any civil appeals.
The following is Mr. Wolf's account of the criminal appeals he has personally handled:
The Commission believes that Mr. Wolf's temperament would be excellent. The Lowcountry Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Mr. Wolf "Well-qualified" in the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, and judicial temperament. They found him "Qualified" in regards to experience. The committee noted that it has "concerns over the candidate's lack of experience." Mr. Wolf is married to Heather Carey Wolf. He has two children.
Mr. Wolf reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Mr. Wolf provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Mr. Wolf further reported:
"Since my admission to the SC Bar in 1999, I have endeavored to give back to the community both through legal assistance and through more traditional community service. I have participated in organizations such as Kiwanis, Habitat for Humanity, and The American Cancer Society to make our community a better place. Since I went into private practice in 2003, I have continued to set aside time to give back to the community through Young Lawyer Division community service projects such as donating school supplies, Wills for Heroes and participation in Law Week events. Additionally, I have contributed significant time in free and/or reduced fee representation to people who were not in a position to retain my services but desperately needed legal services. I believe my decision to seek the vacant At-Large Seat No. 9 is an extension of my desire to give back to the community by providing conflict resolution services on behalf of the State of South Carolina. Based upon my exposure to the judicial function as a law clerk, I have maintained an interest and sought to expand my experience in all aspects of a Circuit Court practice to maximize my effectiveness were I granted this opportunity. I would put the same effort into being a successful judge as I have into being a successful law clerk, staff attorney in a public agency, and private practitioner."
The commission noted Mr. Wolf's dedicated service to his community. The Commission commented that Mr. Wolf's legal ability and character would be assets on the Circuit Court. The Commission found Mr. Wolf qualified but not nominated to serve on the Circuit Court.
Bernard "Ben" F. Mack
\(1) Constitutional Qualifications:
Recent Attacks on Confidentiality 10/18/03;
Mr. Mack reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Mack further stated in regards to his lack of rating: "Reason unknown. I have not participated in rating process."
Mr. Mack appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Mack appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Mack was admitted to the SC Bar in 1980. The Commission found Mr. Mack qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.
Ninth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Martin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Martin was born in 1963. He is 47 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Mr. Martin provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Mr. Martin reported that he has made $71.28 in campaign expenditures for postage.
Mr. Martin testified he has not:
Mr. Martin testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Mr. Martin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Martin described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Mr. Martin reported that he has taught the following law related courses: "I was a presenter at a Seminar sponsored by the Heirs Property Law Center and discussed the procedure for initiating quiet title and partition actions." Mr. Martin reported that he has not published any books or articles. (4) Character: The Commission's investigation of Mr. Martin did not reveal evidence of any criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Martin did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Martin has handled his financial affairs responsibly. At the public hearing, Mr. Martin addressed a Letter of Caution issued by the Commission on Lawyer Conduct on December 14, 2007. The letter stated that he had violated Rule 407 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 1.15 concerning safekeeping of property, but that the violation was minor and caused little harm. Thus, no sanction was warranted. The situation arose when Mr. Martin disbursed money from his IOLTA account thinking that the amount had been wired into the account. When the check could not be cashed for lack of funds, a notice was sent to the Bar. Mr. Martin received the Letter of Caution based on the notice to the Bar and not because of a complaint. When Mr. Martin learned of the discrepancy, he immediately verified that the funds had been wired and made the check good. He testified that he now checks that the money is in his account before making a disbursement.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Martin was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Mr. Martin reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "unknown" to him.
Mr. Martin appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Mr. Martin appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Mr. Martin was admitted to the SC Bar in 1989 after taking the exam twice. He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Since graduating from law school, I served for nearly four (4) years as a Magistrate for Charleston County (part-time) and presided over Small Claims Court, land lord tenant disputes, and claim and deliveries. I held that position from 1989 - 93 and resigned to dedicate myself to the full time practice of law. I have practiced law at 61 Morris Street with my father, Daniel E. Martin, Sr., since 1989. I have been engaged in the general practice of law with a concentration in domestic relations and real estate. I have also had substantial experience in wrongful death cases, medical malpractice, excessive use of force, personal injury, wills and estates, general tort law, criminal defense and land disputes. I also served a town council for the Town of Lincolnville from 1991 - 98 and served as Grand Legal Advisor for the Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodge of the state of South Carolina. I am currently handling all title work for the Charleston County Roadwise Project and am responsible for real estate closings involving the purchase right-of-ways and land acquisitions. I also represent South Carolina State University in several lawsuits now pending in the Orangeburg County Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Martin made the following statements regarding his experience: For the past twenty (20) years, I have had an extensive family law practice which has included me handling hundreds of divorces, legal separations, child custody and support actions. While many cases are resolved through negotiation, mediation and by agreement of the litigants, a large percentage is contested and requires resolution at trial. My years of experience have helped me to gain a good understanding of the law of equitable distribution of property and the award of spouse support. The knowledge I have gained over these years has enabled me to be a good advocate for my client. DIVORCE AND EQUITABLE DIVISION My practice has involved representing clients in actions where the grounds for divorce include physical abuse, habitual drunkenness, adultery, abandonment and separation for a period of not less than one (1) year. I have also handled a number of annulments. The issue of equitable division of property is often disputed, especially where the litigants have accumulated substantial assets. I have gained experience by advocating for my clients, researching case and statutory law, participating in mediation and litigating the issues at trial. Equitable division requires consideration of many factors guided most importantly by fairness. In the matter of Rawlins v. Rawlins (Case No.: 05-DR-10-1220), the parties litigated a divorce involving issues of drug use, child custody, equitable distribution involving business assets. The represented the Defendant father. The parties presented motion prior to the trial including a motion to enforce a settlement which my client won. However, the parties' failure to reach an agreement resulted in a trial over several days which did not end in a result that either party wanted to accept. The ordeal was rather emotional for all but allowed me an opportunity to zealously represent my client while displaying sensitivity to the fragile feelings that the parties held towards each other. CHILD CUSTODY Peterson v. Jenkins (Case No.: 2008-DR-10-3848) In this case, my client sought custody of his teenage son who was formerly in the custody of his mother. The parties were never married to one another. The mother's continued drug use and failure to adequately care for the minor was the basis of the Plaintiff's pursuit. The case was vigorously defended. The Plaintiff won custody of his son; however, the mother has filed a motion for reconsideration of part of the judge's ruling. Despite the aggressive defense of the mother, the Plaintiff was able to present his case in a professional manner without the need for destroying the character of the Defendant. ADOPTION I handled a number of adoptions over the years. I have also participated as the attorney and also the guardian ad litem in termination of parental rights actions. While the adoption actions are rarely controversial, the same may not often be true of termination of parental rights actions. In the matter of Charleston County Department of Social Services, et. al. vs. Christian Hoskins, et. al., (Case No. 04-DR-10-2887), the Defendant was a minor child who became a mother while she herself was in the custody of DSS. I served as the guardian for the oldest of her three children. The child was placed in the custody of a foster parent who would ultimately seek to adopt the child. However, when Ms. Hoskins became an adult and was no longer in the custody of DSS, she pursued an action for custody of her minor children. Her education, employment and limited contact with the children were among many other issues raised by the Department in seeking a termination of Ms. Hoskins' parental rights. As guardian, my investigation led to me a decision opposite to that of DSS. I felt as though Ms. Hoskins had demonstrated that she was able to care for her children. Nonetheless, the Court determined that too much time had passed since the children's placement with the foster parents and that termination of Ms. Hoskins' parental rights was in their best interest. The decision was appealed but was upheld by the Court of Appeals. ABUSE AND NEGLECT SCDSS v. JUPITER In this case, my client was accused of being physically abusive towards her teenage daughter. While the facts ultimately proved that the child was not abused, the intervention by DSS into the situation proved to be necessary and beneficial to all of the parties. While the initial action taken against my client was very emotional and therefore the response predictable, it was the treatment plan that reunited this family and has helped mother and child to build a stronger relationship. DSS v. Cherette Jupiter (Case No.: 09-DR-10-446). This case, like many others that I handled in the past, made me appreciate the hard work of the social workers and legal staff of the Department of Social Services and their indispensible contribution to the fabric of the community. JUVENILE JUSTICE In the Matter of Joe Baggett (2008-JU-08-582-583) My client was accused of burglary after entering a closed pharmacy along with several acquaintances. Mr. Baggett was involved with the wrong crowd and failed to exercise good judgment. It was ultimately a co-defendant who named Mr. Baggett as a suspect. While Mr. Baggett ultimately pled guilty, it was the personal contact that I had with him and his family that seemed to touch him the most. I understand that Joe now works construction with his step father. This case has helped me become sensitive to the cause of bad behavior and yet the need for accountability and rehabilitation."
Mr. Martin reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Martin reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
Mr. Martin reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Mr. Martin provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Martin's account of his five most significant litigated matters: Case No.: CR-90-434-CHH
In this case, Larry Blanding, a member of the General Assembly, was charged with violating the Hobbs Act. Mr. Blanding was accused of accepting a cash bribe from a lobbyist working under cover with the FBI in exchange for supporting a para-mutual betting bill. This criminal trial was tried in federal court in Columbia. Although Mr. Blanding was found guilty, my law partner and I appealed his conviction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The conviction was over turned. This case was significant because it allowed me to experience the federal criminal process at an early stage in my legal career. It also exposed me to the criminal appeals process and allowed me to witness oral argument before the US Court of Appeals. The case itself was significant because it involved the alleged corruption of a state official and is credited with making the South Carolina General Assembly more ethical and the lobbying process more transparent. Case No.: 2:92-1745-2 and 2:92-1744-2
This case involved the shooting of a citizen in his own home by a member of the Charleston Police Department. Illya Borwn, while walking home carrying his family's typewriter, was followed onto his front porch by two officers of the Charleston Police Department. Mr. Brown was immediately attacked by the officers while they attempted to place him in handcuffs. His brother, Connell Brown, came to the front door and was in the doorway shot. He survived his injuries but suffered permanent damages. Both brothers filed actions in the United States District Court claiming violation of their civil rights and certain state torts claims. I, along with two other attorneys, represented him. The case received substantial press. The case was tried over the course of a week before Judge Westin Court. Verdicts were returned in favor of the Defendants. However, the state court claims were preserved and were litigated in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. The case involving Illya Brown resulted in a settlement after several days of testimony where I served as lead counsel. This case was significant because it challenged the over aggressive behavior of the Charleston Police Department. After the heavy publicity, claims of police brutality were reduced. I believe that the department subsequently placed more emphasis on the training of its officers. 2:05-CV-0306-DCV
In this case, Asberry Wilder, a mentally ill adult, was shot to death by a member of the North Charleston Police Department after he was surrounded by officers on Rivers Avenue. It was alleged by the officers that Mr. Wilder had a screw driver and posed a threat to one of the officers. This case was tried over the course of several days and ended when the presiding judge reconsidered his prior decision to deny a directed verdict. During the trial, testimony revealed that the officer who claimed to suffer an injury at the hands of Mr. Wilder was actually struck by a fellow officer. Also, the Defendant's expert witness confirmed that the Defendant's fatal wounds were inflicted while the Defendant was already on the ground. Despite this significant development, the trial judge reversed his earlier ruling to deny the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict just prior to submitting the case to the jury for deliberation. Although the lost was a painful result for the family of Asberry Wilder, the North Charleston Police equipped all of their officers with taser guns after the filing of the lawsuit. The use of such a gun would have prevented the death of Asberry Wilder and has perhaps save the lives of other mentally challenged people since. I feel that the case was significant for this reason and benefitted me in my experience with the family and understanding the mentally ill and the struggles of law enforcement in dealing with them. Case No. 07-CP-08-0973 SC Court of Appeal No.: 2009115366 Vol 7, Issue 10 of Verdict Search National, October 2008
In this case, the Dana and Daniella Winters purchased a house shown to them by a real estate agent who acted as a dual agent for the sellers and the buyers. The sellers and their agent had prior knowledge that the home contained toxic mold yet failed to disclose this information to the buyers. After learning about the dangerous conditions in the home, the buyers sued the sellers, the agent and Prudential Carolina for failure to disclose and violating other provision of the state code. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff's for $125,000.00 in actual and punitive damages. The case is significant because it is the first verdict in the country against a real estate agent and real estate company for failure to disclose the presence of mold. The case has been published in several national publications including Verdict Search. The Defendants have appealed the decision. The appeal is pending before the South Carolina Court of Appeals. South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No.: 26747 Fred Hamilton and Allyne Mitchell, the won the most votes for the two open seats on the Bluffton town council in the November, 2008 election. The town of Bluffton had no board of elections and commissioned the Beaufort County election board to conduct the election. Jeff Fulgham and Norman Thomas, the other two candidates, failed to win enough votes in the election. They filed a protest before the Beaufort County Board of Elections and a new election was ordered. Fred Hamilton and Alleyne Mitchell retained the service of my firm and appealed the decision to the South Carolina State Election Commission. The commission reversed the decision. Fulgham and Thomas filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court. I presented the oral argument on behalf of Hamilton and Mitchell before the South Carolina Supreme Court on May 13, 2009. Because the Bluffton township had not clarified the procedure for appeals in contest of elections, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Beaufort County Circuit Court. Both Allyne Mitchell and Fred Hamilton, Jr., were sworn in and both are serving as duly qualified members of Bluffton town council. This case is significant because it allowed me to make an oral argument before the state's highest court. Also, but for the challenge, the town of Bluffton may have been deprived two very deserving member of town council."
The following is Mr. Martin's account of the two civil appeals he has personally handled: SC Court of Appeal No.: 2009115366
The appeal in this case is currently pending before the South Carolina Court of Appeals; Decision issued on December 7, 2009 South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No.: 26747. Mr. Martin reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Mr. Martin reported that he has held the following judicial office: "I served as a Magistrate for Charleston County from 1989-1993. I was appointed to this position after being recommended by the Charleston County Delegation. The Court handled landlord-tenant disputes, claim and deliveries and small claims up to $5,000.00. As magistrate, I also issued arrest warrants, search warrants and presided over bond court as well as preliminary hearings." Mr. Martin provided the following regarding his most significant orders or opinions:
"I would not consider any of the decisions that I recall being particularly significant. They were all summary court matters which resolved small disputes. I don't believe any of my decisions were appealed beyond the Court of Common Pleas or were reversed."
The Commission believes that Mr. Martin's temperament would be excellent. The Lowcountry Citizens Committee reported Mr. Martin is "Well-qualified" in each of the nine criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Mr. Martin is married to Reba Zealena Hough-Martin. He has two children.
Mr. Martin reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
I served on the Executive Board (1994-95);
Mr. Martin provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations: Mr. Martin further reported: During my life as a member of the bar, I have participated in many activities which have made me a well-rounded individual. In addition to the activities already mentioned, I have served as a member of the board of trustees of my church, served as a board member of the Cannon Street YMCA, and a board member for the Avery Center for African American History and Culture. I have served as a commissioner for Mayor Joseph Riley's Commission for Children and currently serve on the City of Charleston Community Development Advisory Committee. I currently serve as the legal adviser for the Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodge of the State of South Carolina. As a husband and father, I have taken an active role in the rearing of my two children. My son enters Howard University this August as a freshman and my daughter will begin the seventh grade at Charleston Catholic. I have attended and participated in their parent-teacher conferences, extracurricular activities and sporting events through the years. I have been fortunate enough to travel with them out-of-the country and to have them exposed to different cultures. My wife of 21 years has been supportive of my career and she has established herself as an advocate for the needy as deputy director of the Charleston County Human Services Commission, a community action service organization.
Additionally, my training as a lawyer and a successfully businessman is due in no small part to guidance and inspiration of my father, Daniel E. Martin, Sr. My father's experience as a lawyer, prosecutor, member of the General Assembly and Circuit Court Judge exposed me to the highest standards of ethics and judicial temperament. Most importantly, he has dedicated his life to service of the community and has demonstrated by example that sacrifice is required of all who have been afforded opportunities not available to others. It is for that reason that our office has remained consistent in offering quality legal service at fees we believe are below average for lawyers in the Charleston area.
The Commission commented that Mr. Martin is poised and well respected in his community. The Commission noted he has good experience with Family Court matters, appears to be patient, and exhibits outstanding temperament, which would be an asset in the Circuit Court. The Commission found Mr. Martin qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.
Ninth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Roache meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Roache was born in 1960. She is 50 years old and a resident of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Ms. Roache provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Roache. Ms. Roache demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Ms. Roache reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Roache testified she has not:
Ms. Roache testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Ms. Roache to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Roache described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Roache reported that she has taught the following law related courses:
Ms. Roache reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Roache did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Roache did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Roache has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Roache was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
Ms. Roache reported, "Previously I had a BV rating in Martindale-Hubbell when I was in private practice. I searched and could not find a rating in preparing this application."
Ms. Roache appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Roache appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Roache was admitted to the SC Bar in 1988.
She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:
Security matters mainly, some other matters in the general practice; Services: Staff Attorney and Family Law Unit Head, provided legal services to low; and Income South Carolinians, primarily in the areas of family and education law. Ms. Roache made the following statements regarding her experience: My practice has mainly been in the Family Court. I have handled cases on each of the grounds of divorce, both as the attorney for the Plaintiff and the Defendant, involving complex and simple issues of equitable division, including military retirements, real property and businesses. I have represented parents, grandparents and third parties in custody matters. My cases have involved multi-day trials. I have represented clients in adoptions and am familiar with the laws in this area. I have presented on the topic and also organized a CLE on Adoption Issues for SC Legal Services. I have represented clients and served as a Guardian ad Litem in abuse and neglect cases in Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester counties. I have also provided services for juveniles and their parents in juvenile matters.
Ms. Roache reported the frequency of her court appearances during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Roache reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the past five years as follows:
Ms. Roache reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Ms. Roache provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Roache's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
The following is Ms. Roache's account of the civil appeals she has personally handled: Ms. Roache reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals. Ms. Roache further reported the following regarding an unsuccessful candidacy:
"I was a candidate for the Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit in 2002. I emerged as one of the three candidates from screening, but ultimately was not elected."
The Commission believes that Ms. Roache's temperament would be excellent. The Lowcountry Citizen's Committee on Judicial Qualification found Ms. Roache to be "Well-qualified" for seven of the nine criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, and experience. She was found "Qualified" for professional and academic ability and judicial temperament. Ms. Roache is married to John Perry Buncum, Jr. She has two children.
Ms. Roache reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Ms. Roache provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
The Commission commented that Ms. Roache is known as an empathetic person and an excellent candidate for a judgeship in the Family Court. They noted that Ms. Roache says what she means and has a proven work record. The Commission found Ms. Roache qualified but not nominated to serve on the Family Court.
Ninth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Turner meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Turner was born in 1957. He is 53 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Turner provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991. The Commission's investigation of Judge Turner revealed a letter of caution that the South Carolina Commission on Judicial Conduct issued to Judge Turner on August 9, 2002 because Judge Turner failed to report to the Judicial Screening Committee that he was the subject of an investigation by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). The panel found that this failure to report his impending SLED investigation constituted misconduct under Rule 7(a)(1) of the Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement. However, the panel found that this was a minor misconduct and that there was little or no harm to the public or administration of justice. Judge Turner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Judge Turner reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Turner testified he has not:
Judge Turner testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Judge Turner to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Turner described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
Judge Turner reported that he has taught the following law related courses:
Judge Turner reported that he has published the following books and articles: The Commission examined Judge Turner regarding a sexual harassment claim made against him in 1989. The claim was previously investigated by SLED and determined to have no merit. The Commission also determined that the allegations had no merit. In fact, the Commission determined that the allegations were made in an effort to enhance the possibility of a civil settlement against Charleston County by the claimant. The Commission's investigation of Judge Turner did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Turner has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Turner was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
Judge Turner reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Judge Turner further stated that he "does not have a rating due to judicial service for the past several years."
Judge Turner appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Judge Turner appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks. Judge Turner was admitted to the SC Bar in 1991.
He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Judge Turner made the following statements regarding his experience: I was in private practice prior to becoming a summary court Judge and approximately forty (40%) percent of my work was in Family Law. This allowed me to represent clients whose cases dealt with all these issues with the exception of adoption and somewhat limited in the area of abuse and neglect. However, I am familiar with the statutory scheme for adoption and do keep current concerning family law issues since it is a rapidly developing field of law.
Judge Turner reported the frequency of his court appearances during the five years prior to serving on the bench as follows:
Judge Turner reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years prior to serving on the bench as follows:
Judge Turner reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the past five years as follows: Judge Turner provided that he served as sole counsel, chief counsel, and associate counsel in these matters. He further provided, "I handle both jury and non-jury trials as judge."
The following is Judge Turner's account of his five most significant litigated matters: Judge Turner has not personally handled any civil or criminal appeals. Judge Turner reported that he has held the following judicial offices: (a) Preliminary Hearing Court, 1992-95, appointed; (b) Small Claims Court, 1994 - present, appointed.
The following is Judge Turner's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
Judge Turner further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
He further reported that he was, "found qualified and nominated for Circuit Court in 2001."
The Commission believes that Judge Turner's temperament would be excellent. The Lowcountry Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualification found Judge Turner to be "Well-qualified" in the following seven evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, and experience. The Lowcountry Citizens Committee found Judge Turner to be "Qualified" for judicial temperament and mental stability. The Committee stated with respect to Judge Turner's judicial temperament, "There are concerns with the candidate's tactfulness." Judge Turner is married to Janice Kirshtein Turner. He has one child. Judge Turner reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations: SC Bar. Judge Turner reported that he is not a member of any civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations. Judge Turner further stated, "I do not belong to those organizations, because, for the past five years, I have been a judicial officer. I avoid any potential conflict, except for being on the board of my religious institution." Judge Turner additionally reported:
"I have been recommended to serve as a special circuit judge for our circuit."
The Commission noted that Judge Turner has excellent experience as a magistrate for 16 years. They commented that he is known for his strong work ethic, which would assist him on the Family Court bench. The Commission found Judge Turner qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court.
Ninth Circuit, Seat 1 Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED BUT NOT NOMINATED (1) Constitutional Qualifications: Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Varner meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Varner was born in 1968. She is 42 years old and a resident of Sullivan's Island, South Carolina. Ms. Varner provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1995. The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Varner. Ms. Varner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal. Ms. Varner reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Varner testified she has not:
Ms. Varner testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report. The Commission found Ms. Varner to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Varner described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: Ms. Varner reported that she has taught the following law-related course: "I have lectured at the CLE program 'Cool Tips from the Hottest Domestic Law Practitioners III', April 2001."
Ms. Varner reported that she has not published any books or articles. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Varner did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against Ms. Varner. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Varner did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Varner has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Varner was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
Ms. Varner reported that she does not have a Martindale-Hubbell rating. She further stated, "I do not know the reason for this."
Ms. Varner appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
Ms. Varner appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks. Ms. Varner was admitted to the SC Bar in 1995.
She gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school: Ms. Varner made the following statements regarding her experience: "Since I graduated from law school in 1995, I have been involved in family law, including divorce and equitable division of property, child custody, child support, and abuse and neglect. My current practice includes a number of custody cases as well as divorce and equitable distribution cases and DSS appointments, which I handle for a local law firm. My practice in the last ten years has been 100% dedicated to Family Law. I have experience in all areas of Family Law and feel that my experience in complex private cases as well as in DSS cases has prepared me for the bench."
Ms. Varner reported the frequency of her court appearances as follows:
Ms. Varner reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters as follows:
Ms. Varner reported the percentage of her practice in trial court as follows: Ms. Varner provided that she served both as sole counsel as well as associate counsel.
The following is Ms. Varner's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
A precedent setting appellate decision in child custody and a case which became the subject of a question on the SC Bar Examination;
Service of process and international law (Hague Convention);
The following is Ms. Varner's account of two civil appeals she has personally handled:
Ms. Varner reported she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
The Commission believes that Ms. Varner's temperament would be excellent. The Lowcountry Citizens Committee on Judicial Qualification found Ms. Varner to be "Well-qualified" for all nine criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental stability, experience, and judicial temperament. Ms. Varner is married to Dean DeFoix Varner, III. She has two children.
Ms. Varner reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
Ms. Varner provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
The Commission commented that Ms. Varner has excellent experience in Family Court. They noted Ms. Varner was very poised and well spoken at the Public Hearing. The Commission found Ms. Varner qualified but not nominated to serve on the Family Court.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission found the following candidates QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED:
Columbia, SC
Greenville, SC
West Columbia, SC
Charleston, SC Charleston, SC
Respectfully submitted, Received as information.
Rep. BRANHAM, from the Florence Delegation, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 3290 (Word version) -- Rep. Branham: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 806 OF 1952, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ANNUAL MEETINGS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF FLORENCE COUNTY, SO AS TO REQUIRE FLORENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TWO TO CALL A CITIZENS' MEETING ON THE PROPOSED DISTRICT BUDGET BEFORE JUNE THIRTIETH OF EACH YEAR AND ADDITIONAL MEETINGS AS MAY BE REQUIRED.
The following was introduced: H. 3310 (Word version) -- Reps. Gilliard and Mack: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO DECLARE MAY 2011 AS "WATER SAFETY AWARENESS MONTH" AND TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF THIS STATE TO PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE HOUR OF INSTRUCTION ON WATER SAFETY DURING THE MONTH OF MAY. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 3311 (Word version) -- Reps. Gilliard and Mack: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO URGE OUR FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, ALONG WITH CHURCHES AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, TO STEP UP THEIR EFFORTS TO ASSIST THE HOMELESS IN LIGHT OF THE NATION'S ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS, AND AN INCREASE IN THE HOMELESS POPULATION.
The following was introduced: H. 3312 (Word version) -- Reps. Gilliard, Whipper and Mack: A HOUSE RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS OF THE LATE MARJORIE AMOS-FRAZIER OF CHARLESTON. The Resolution was adopted.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 3313 (Word version) -- Rep. Govan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-1-425, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BEGINNING AND LENGTH OF THE SCHOOL TERM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL SCHEDULE PLAN THAT PROVIDES FOR THE OPERATION OF SCHOOLS ON A FOUR-DAY WEEKLY CALENDAR.
H. 3314 (Word version) -- Reps. Limehouse, Sottile and Mack: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-935 SO AS TO REQUIRE A PERSON TO ATTEMPT TO RELOCATE NUISANCE GEESE TO PROPERTY OWNED BY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OR OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY BEFORE DESTROYING SUCH GEESE PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL PERMIT.
H. 3315 (Word version) -- Reps. Limehouse, Sottile, Mack and McCoy: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-1-155 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT EVERY TEN YEARS, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL PROVIDE FOR A COMMEMORATIVE SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO BE HELD AT A SUITABLE LOCATION IN CHARLESTON COUNTY TO COMMEMORATE AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF ALL SOUTH CAROLINIANS AND CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES THE ROLE PLAYED BY CHARLESTON AND THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED IN CHARLESTON WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
H. 3320 (Word version) -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2110, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE MAXIMUM SALES, USE, OR CASUAL EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN ITEMS OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM TAX FROM THREE HUNDRED TO FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND BY ADDING SECTION 12-36-2115 SO AS TO PROVIDE A CREDIT EQUAL TO ONE-HALF THE SALES, USE, OR CASUAL EXCISE TAX OTHERWISE DUE ON THE SALE OR LEASE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE IN WHICH THE AMOUNT SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER IS TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS OR LESS. H. 3321 (Word version) -- Rep. J. R. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1006 OF 1958, RELATING TO THE BATH WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, THE CLEARWATER WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, AND THE LANGLEY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT IN AIKEN COUNTY AND THE ELECTION OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THESE DISTRICTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO PERSON MAY SERVE AS A COMMISSIONER OF THESE DISTRICTS AND ALSO SERVE AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE SAME DISTRICT, AND TO REQUIRE PRESENT COMMISSIONERS IN VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION TO MAKE A WRITTEN ELECTION AS TO WHICH
POSITION WILL BE RETAINED AND WHICH POSITION BY THAT ELECTION IS BEING RESIGNED.
H. 3323 (Word version) -- Reps. Gambrell, D. C. Moss, Thayer, Bowen, Cooper, Loftis, Agnew, Sandifer, Umphlett and White: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 46-13-75 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED TO BE CERTIFIED AS A COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR OF PESTICIDES IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE CERTIFIED IF THE PERSON USES NO OTHER PEST CONTROL SUBSTANCE EXCEPT GLYPHOSPHATE, AND THE PERSON ATTESTS TO THIS SINGULAR PEST CONTROL USE ON AN AFFIDAVIT FORM PROVIDED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE CROP PEST COMMISSION.
The following was introduced: H. 3317 (Word version) -- Rep. Toole: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE LEXINGTON COUNTY'S WHITE KNOLL HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING BAND ON CAPTURING THE 2010 SOUTH CAROLINA AAAA STATE MARCHING BAND CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced: H. 3318 (Word version) -- Reps. Toole and Atwater: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND THE LEXINGTON DIXIE YOUTH INDEPENDENT ALL-STAR BASEBALL TEAM FOR ITS IMPRESSIVE WIN OF THE 2010 CLASS AAA DIXIE YOUTH WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE, AND TO HONOR THE PLAYERS AND COACHES ON AN OUTSTANDING SEASON. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced: H. 3319 (Word version) -- Rep. J. R. Smith: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE MIDLAND VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL JUNIOR ANDREW ATKINSON ON HIS FIRST-PLACE FINISH IN THE HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION OF THE 2010 WORLD NATIONAL ARCHERY IN THE SCHOOLS PROGRAM (NASP) ARCHERY TOURNAMENT. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced: H. 3322 (Word version) -- Rep. J. R. Smith: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR EUGENE SCOTT SAWYER OF AIKEN COUNTY FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE, AND TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON NEARLY FIFTY YEARS OF SERVICE WITH THE AIKEN COUNTY COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA-AIKEN. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced: H. 3324 (Word version) -- Rep. Gambrell: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR THE MEMBERS OF THE BELTON LIONS CLUB, UPON THE OCCASION OF THEIR SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY, AND TO COMMEND THEM FOR THEIR YEARS OF SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP TO THE BELTON COMMUNITY. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced: H. 3325 (Word version) -- Rep. Brantley: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UPON THE PASSING OF ROBERT BRYANT, JR., OF JASPER COUNTY AND TO EXTEND THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS. The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced: H. 3326 (Word version) -- Rep. J. R. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND REMEMBER JOE W. DEVORE OF AIKEN COUNTY FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE, ESPECIALLY TO AIKEN TECHNICAL COLLEGE, AND TO EXTEND THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MR. DEVORE UPON HIS RECENT PASSING. The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows: Agnew Alexander Allen Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brannon Brantley G. A. Brown H. B. Brown R. L. Brown Chumley Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Cooper Corbin Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Erickson Forrester Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Hearn Henderson Herbkersman Hiott Hixon Hodges Horne Hosey Huggins Jefferson King Limehouse Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McLeod Merrill Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Munnerlyn Murphy J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Norman Ott Owens Parker Parks Patrick Pinson Pitts Pope Ryan Sabb Sandifer Simrill Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Sottile Spires Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Tribble Umphlett Vick Viers Weeks White Williams Young
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Thursday, January 13. Richard "Rick" Quinn Mia Butler Garrick Deborah A. Long William R. "Bill" Whitmire Eric Bikas Bakari Sellers Chris Hart Leon Howard Jackson "Seth" Whipper Todd Rutherford Denny Neilson Patsy Knight
The SPEAKER granted Rep. GILLIARD a leave of absence for the day due to a prior commitment.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. WILLIS a leave of absence for the day.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. NANNEY a leave of absence for the day due to inclement weather.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. STAVRINAKIS a leave of absence for the day due to a prior commitment.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. EDGE a leave of absence for the day due to family illness.
Announcement was made that Dr. Gregory Tarasidis was the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
Bill Number: H. 3004 (Word version)
Bill Number: H. 3144 (Word version)
Bill Number: H. 3095 (Word version)
The following Joint Resolution was taken up: H. 3278 (Word version) -- Rep. Harrison: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT UNTIL JUNE 30, 2011, THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS AS TO TYPES OF APPLICANTS OR ORGANIZATIONS WHO MAY APPLY FOR A SPECIAL FIFTEEN-DAY BEER AND WINE PERMIT AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 61-4-550 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, IN ORDER TO TEMPORARILY CORRECT AN IMPROVIDENTLY ENACTED PROVISION IN 2010 RESTRICTING THE ISSUANCE OF THESE PERMITS TO ONLY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONSIDERS AND ENACTS PERMANENT GENERAL LAW CHANGES TO EFFECTUATE THIS CORRECTION. Rep. HARRISON explained the Joint Resolution. The Joint Resolution was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
On motion of Rep. HARRISON, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 3278 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
The following Joint Resolution was taken up: H. 3303 (Word version) -- Reps. J. E. Smith, Harrison, Pinson, Vick, Agnew, Williams, Alexander, Allen, Allison, Anderson, Anthony, Atwater, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bikas, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brannon, Brantley, G. A. Brown, H. B. Brown, R. L. Brown, Butler Garrick, Chumley, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cole, Cooper, Corbin, Crawford, Crosby, Daning, Delleney, Dillard, Edge, Erickson, Forrester, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Gilliard, Govan, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Hart, Hayes, Hearn, Henderson, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hixon, Hodges, Horne, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, King, Knight, Limehouse, Loftis, Long, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, McCoy, McEachern, McLeod, Merrill, Mitchell, D. C. Moss, V. S. Moss, Munnerlyn, Murphy, Nanney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parker, Parks, Patrick, Pitts, Pope, Quinn, Rutherford, Ryan, Sabb, Sandifer, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. R. Smith, Sottile, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stringer, Tallon, Taylor, Thayer, Toole, Tribble, Umphlett, Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Willis and Young: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROMOTE MAJOR GENERAL STANHOPE S. SPEARS TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD EFFECTIVE JANUARY 11, 2011.
Rep. WHITE made the Point of Order that the Joint Resolution was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The following Bill was taken up: H. 3004 (Word version) -- Reps. Ballentine, Norman, Viers, Lucas, Simrill, Huggins, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, Loftis, Bedingfield, Hamilton, Stringer, Nanney, Lowe, Young, Willis, Bowen, D. C. Moss, Agnew, Pope, Daning, Thayer, Harrison, Allison, Taylor, Ryan, McCoy, Hixon, Bingham, Long, Whipper, R. L. Brown, Atwater, Henderson, Horne and Harrell: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2011"; AND TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-7-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE CERTAIN BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS TO RECEIVE A RECORDED ROLL CALL VOTE AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THEIR PASSAGE BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE. Rep. BALLENTINE explained the Bill. Rep. WHITE demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are: Agnew Alexander Allen Allison Anderson Anthony Atwater Bales Ballentine Bannister Barfield Battle Bedingfield Bikas Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brannon Brantley H. B. Brown R. L. Brown Chumley Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cole Cooper Corbin Crawford Crosby Daning Delleney Dillard Erickson Forrester Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hayes Hearn Henderson Herbkersman Hiott Hixon Hodges Horne Hosey Huggins Jefferson King Limehouse Loftis Long Lowe Lucas Mack McCoy McEachern McLeod Merrill Mitchell D. C. Moss V. S. Moss Munnerlyn Murphy J. M. Neal Norman Ott Owens Parker Pinson Pitts Pope Quinn Rutherford Ryan Sabb Sandifer Simrill Skelton G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Sottile Spires Stringer Tallon Taylor Thayer Toole Tribble Umphlett Viers Weeks White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Bill was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
I would have voted in favor of H. 3004. Rep. Christopher R. Hart
I was temporarily out of the Chamber on constituent business during the vote on H. 3004, on Thursday, January 13. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of the Bill. Rep. Andrew Patrick
I was not present on January 13, 2011. However, had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H. 3004. Rep. Leon Stavrinakis
On motion of Rep. BALLENTINE, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 3004 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. HARRISON, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Judiciary and was referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry:
On motion of Rep. DANING, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Education and Public Works: H. 3254 (Word version) -- Rep. Daning: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-23-815, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AT EXIT 199 ALONG INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 26 IN BERKELEY COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE MAY MOW BEYOND THIRTY FEET FROM THE PAVEMENT ROADSIDE VEGETATION ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 26 AT THIS LOCATION.
On motion of Rep. OWENS, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Education and Public Works and was referred to the Committee on Judiciary: H. 3186 (Word version) -- Reps. J. R. Smith, Bowen, Clyburn, Hixon, Spires, Taylor, Young, G. R. Smith, Simrill, Thayer, Harrison, Toole and G. M. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 59-71-40 AND 59-71-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO A SCHOOL BOND ELECTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ELECTION MUST BE HELD ON THE DATE OF A GENERAL ELECTION OR ON THE DATE OF A PRIMARY ELECTION.
On motion of Rep. COOPER, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Ways and Means: H. 3286 (Word version) -- Rep. Bingham: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 41-35-320, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WHEN FEDERALLY FUNDED, SO AS TO CHANGE THE METHOD FOR CALCULATING CERTAIN FUNDING INDICATORS BY BASING THE CALCULATION ON ONE OR MORE THREE-MONTH PERIODS ENDING THE PRECEDING THREE CALENDAR YEARS. Rep. HODGES moved that the House do now adjourn, which was agreed to.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following: H. 3281 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Allison, Anderson, Anthony, Atwater, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bikas, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brannon, Brantley, G. A. Brown, H. B. Brown, R. L. Brown, Butler Garrick, Chumley, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cole, Cooper, Corbin, Crawford, Crosby, Daning, Delleney, Dillard, Edge, Erickson, Forrester, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Gilliard, Govan, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrison, Hart, Hayes, Hearn, Henderson, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hixon, Hodges, Horne, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, King, Knight, Limehouse, Loftis, Long, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, McCoy, McEachern, McLeod, Merrill, Mitchell, D. C. Moss, V. S. Moss, Munnerlyn, Murphy, Nanney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parker, Parks, Patrick, Pinson, Pitts, Pope, Quinn, Rutherford, Ryan, Sabb, Sandifer, Sellers, Simrill, Skelton, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, Sottile, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stringer, Tallon, Taylor, Thayer, Toole, Tribble, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Willis and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY UPON THE DEATH OF SOUTH CAROLINA STATE REPRESENTATIVE CATHY HARVIN OF CLARENDON COUNTY ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2010, AND TO CONVEY THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS. H. 3279 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Lucas, Cooper, Hardwick, Harrison, Owens, Sandifer, White, Howard and Bingham: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING HER EXCELLENCY, NIKKI HALEY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2011, IN THE CHAMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
At 10:50 a.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. BARFIELD, adjourned in memory of his sister, JoAnn Barfield Johnson, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Friday, November 18, 2011 at 4:19 P.M. |