Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

We come again in prayer, O Lord, in acknowledgement of our need of Your support. Give us the faith to believe that there is no problem that we, with Your help, cannot solve. As You have guided us in the past, so direct us this day. At every desk, may there be the assuring whisper of Your counsel. Help us to weigh every thought that each word may echo Your will. Cause Your teachings to be so engrafted in our hearts and minds that we may be strengthened and that all around may see those teachings manifested in us.

We bring our prayer in gratitude and in trust to a good and gracious God. 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 Rep. VAUGHN.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER Pro Tempore ordered it confirmed.

The following was received.

TO:                 The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM:         John I. Rogers, III,

Chairman, Judicial

Screening Committee
DATE:         March 28, 1990

In compliance with the provisions of Act 119 of 1975, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
John I. Rogers, III
Chairman
/s/ Senator Thomas H. Pope, Vice-Chairman
/s/ Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Senator John A. Martin
/s/ Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Rep. Larry E. Gentry
/s/ Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/ Rep. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.

Pursuant to Act 119 of 1975, this Committee was convened to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking to fill certain Judicial positions.

The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Bench, the Committee conducts such investigation of the candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its Findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Our role is instead that of determining whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge and under the statute our determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly.

The Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, was the only candidate who applied to run for his respective seat and was unopposed. His term expires on July 31, 1990.

The following Family Court Judges, whose terms expire June 30, 1990, are running for reelection to their respective seats and are unopposed:

The Hon. Thomas B. Barrineau, Jr.     Seat 2     Sixth Judicial Circuit

The Hon. James A. Spruill, III     Seat 3     Fourth Judicial Circuit

This is a contested race to fill the seat of Circuit Court Judge Jonathan Z. McKown, who has announced his retirement from the Seventh Circuit (Cherokee and Spartanburg Counties), effective May 7, 1990. Four candidates are seeking to fill this term, which expires June 30, 1995. A brief summary of the background of each candidate is as follows:

Thomas C. Dillard: (Spartanburg, South Carolina) He was born in Whitmire, South Carolina and is 47 years old. He is married and has one child. He graduated from Newberry College in 1970 and earned his law degree from the University of South Carolina in 1973. He is presently Spartanburg County Assistant Public Defender.

Hon. James Cleveland Tee Ferguson, Sr.: (Spartanburg, South Carolina) He was born in Spartanburg, South Carolina and is 39 years old. He is married and has three children. He graduated from Wofford College in 1974 and earned his J. D. degree from the University of South Carolina in 1978. He is a member of the House of Representatives, serving since 1982, and is in private practice in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Hon. Thomas Earl Foster: (Woodruff, South Carolina) He was born in Woodruff, South Carolina and is 49 years old. He is married and has 3 children. He graduated from the University of South Carolina in 1965 and received his J. D. degree there in 1973. He has been a Family Court Judge from the Seventh Judicial Circuit since l983.

William E. Winter, Jr.: (Gaffney, South Carolina) He was born in Altoona, Pennsylvania and is 45 years old. He is married and has 2 children. He graduated from the University of South Carolina in 1966 and received his LLB degree from Washington and Lee University in 1969.

Having completed the investigation as required by the Act, the Committee by this Report respectfully submits its Findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.

The Report consists of the Transcripts of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee, held at the State House on February 27, 1990 and March 8, 1990 and the portions of the documents submitted by the respective candidates which were made part of the public record. Each candidate's file includes an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a Statement of Economic Interests, five letters of reference, including one from the candidate's banker, and the report of a background investigation by SLED. Those documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in 402B Blatt Building until the date and time of the election.

The candidates were present at the screenings and testified under oath.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS A MEETING OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE SCREENING COMMITTEE ON JUDGES. WE ARE HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCREENING APPLICANTS FOR FOUR JUDGESHIPS. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE RECORD TO ASK EACH OF THE CANDIDATES TO AT LEAST SIGNIFY THEIR PRESENCE. JUSTICE FINNEY, JUDGE BARRINEAU, JUDGE SPRUILL, APPLICANTS MR. DILLARD, MR. FERGUSON, JUDGE FOSTER AND MR. WINTER. FOR THE RECORD WE FIND THAT ALL OF THE APPLICANTS ARE PRESENT. THIS MORNING I THOUGHT, WITH THE CONSENT OF COMMITTEE, THAT WE WOULD TAKE THE UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES FIRST, AND, OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST OF THOSE IS JUSTICE FINNEY. JUSTICE FINNEY, WILL YOU COME AROUND TO THE TABLE AND HAVE A SEAT.

JUSTICE FINNEY: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: WILL YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN?

THE HONORABLE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

1.     Ernest A. Finney, Jr.

Home Address:         Business Address:

24 Runnymede Boulevard     P. O. Drawer 1309

Sumter, SC 29150     Sumter, SC 29151

2.     He was born in Isle of Wright County, Virginia on March 23, 1931.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He has been married to Frances Davenport Finney since August 20, 1955. He has three children: Ernest A. Finney, III, who is a 33 year old attorney, Lynn Carol Finney, 32, who is a college professor and author, and Jerry Leo Finney, 25, a law student.

6.     He graduated from Claflin College (1949-1952) with a B.A. degree and earned his J.D. degree from South Carolina State in 1954.

7.     He was a member of Claflin College Student Council, 1949-50; President of Delta Alpha Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha, 1951-52; Secretary, Southeastern Region, American Law Students Association, 1954.

8.     His continuing legal/judicial education has, each year, exceeded the minimum JCLE hours required for members of the judiciary and he has attended the following seminars and workshops:
1985-89     South Carolina Annual Judicial Conference.
1985     Four week Appellate Judges Seminar, NYU School of Law.
1986     Annual Judicial Conference, 4th Circuit, US Court of Appeals.
Yearly Annual meetings of the SC Bar, SC Defense Trial Attorneys Association, SC Trial Lawyers Association and National Bar Association.

9.     He presented a paper at the SC Bar 1989 Annual Conference and has lectured at the 1988 SC Public Defenders Association Annual Meeting, the l988 New Judges Seminar, the 1987 SC Bar Annual Meeting, the 1986 National Bar Association Judicial Council Annual Meeting, the 1985 SC Trial Lawyers Convention and several times at the USC School of Law.

12.     His Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
1954-60             Part-time Practitioner (General Practice) Conway, SC.
1960-76             General Practice of Law, Sumter, SC.
1976-85             South Carolina Circuit Court Judge.
1985-now     Associate Justice, SC Supreme Court.

20.     Judicial office: SC Circuit Court Judge, Third Circuit, Oct. 1, 1976 -- July 22, 1985, court of general jurisdiction; Associate Justice, SC Supreme Court, July 22, 1985 -- to date, court of final appellate jurisdiction.

21.     Five significant opinions written:

(a) Michael Stephen Moore vs. Tammy E. Moore (Simmons), et al. (S.C. Supreme Ct. Opin. No. 23051, Filed July 31, 1989) This was a child custody dispute in which the Family court decision transferring custody from the parent was reversed and the natural parent was allowed to regain custody upon a showing that the condition requiring relinquishment had been resolved. The order as to fees was affirmed. The other members of the Supreme Court concurred.

(b) Baron Data System, Inc., vs. Phillip H. Loter, et al. 297 S.C. 382, 377 S.E.2d 296 (1989) This appeal originated from a post-trial order awarding attorney's fees and costs to petitioner, Baron Data Systems. The respondents, Melvin Gross, Phillip H. Loter, and Gary N. Smith, appealed on the grounds that the circuit court's award of $26,000 in attorney fees was an abuse of discretion. Baron cross-appealed from the same order on the grounds that it should have received additional attorney fees of $7,390 for 73.9 hours of work. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on the amount of the monetary judgment as the critical factor in making its determination (The verdict obtained of $16, 151 was less than the attorney's fees.), and remanded. Judge Finney wrote the Opinion in which the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's order.

(c) Dale Robert Yates v. James Aiken, Warden, et al., (Dissenting Opinion) 290 S.C. 231, 349 S.E.2d 84 (1986) This is a complicated case of a man convicted of murder and armed robbery in 1981 and sentenced to death upon recommendation of a jury. The SC Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Yates' application for post conviction relief was denied, and he sought a writ of certiorari from the SC Supreme Court to review the decision of the circuit court. He also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the original jurisdiction of the Court alleging, for the first time, constitutional error in the jury instructions at trial on the grounds that a charge "that malice is presumed from the use of a deadly weapon" shifted the burden unconstitutionally in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court holding. The petitions were consolidated and both were denied by summary order. The US Supreme Court vacated the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanded for reconsideration in light of an earlier decision. On remand, the S.C. Supreme Court denied relief on state law grounds, stating that caselaw may not be applied retroactively to invalidate a conviction final at the time the law-changing decision is rendered. Justice Finney dissented in a separate opinion citing that the doctrine of retroactivity should not prevent the court from reviewing constitutional issues when raised in collateral proceedings. His argument was incorporated in the US Supreme Court's subsequent opinion reversing the state court.

(d) Marvin P. Caddell v. Lexington Co. School Dist. No. 1, et al., (Dissenting Opinion) 296 S.C. 397, 373 S.E.2d 598 (1988) In a Declaratory Judgment action the Circuit Court held unconstitutional certain lease/purchase agreements entered into by Lexington County School District No. 1 for construction and renovation of public school buildings. The Court reasoned that the agreements constitute general obligation debt in violation of Article X, Section 15 of the State Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the liability under the agreement contingent and not carrying obligation to impose property taxes for payment. The non-appropriation clause in the lease agreement rendered it an annual operational obligation rather than a general debt. Judge Finney's dissenting opinion held that the indebtedness is secured in part by the school districts property, which was acquired by its taxing powers, and, therefore, meets the test of being defined as a general obligation debt. He further held that if the district invoked the non-appropriation clause and declined to renew the annual lease, it could be guilty of misappropriating governmental property. Because he believes the leases violate the letter and the spirit of Article X, Section 15, he believes they are a subterfuge to enable the District to evade their constitutional debt limitations, which were provided generally to protect the public. No matter how worthy the endeavor, contravening the constitution cannot be justified, according to his dissenting opinion.

(e) State of South Carolina, ex rel. T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General, v. The South Carolina Coastal Council, et al., etc. (Consolidated cases ) 289 S.C. 445, 346 S.E.2d 716 (1986) This was an appeal from an order of the circuit court approving a decision by the S.C Coastal Council granting C.E. Graham Reeves a permit to impound 660 acres of marshland at Annandale Plantation in the Santee River Delta Area of Georgetown County. Holding in part that the use of the waterway by the general public is a legitimate and beneficial public use and that the Coastal Council does not have the authority to authorize the complete blockage of navigable streams and waterways, Judge Finney wrote the unanimous opinion reversing the findings and conclusions of the Coastal Council, which were affirmed by the circuit court.

22.     Public office: Chairman, SC Advisory Committee on Civil Rights, 1963, appointed; Member SC Election Commission, 1968-72, appointed; Member SC House of Representatives from Sumter County, 1972-76, elected.

23.     Unsuccessful candidate: SC House of Representatives, Sumter Co., Democratic Primary, June 1966; Sumter County Council, Democratic Primary, June 1970; SC Supreme Court, Associate Justice, Feb. 1980 and May, 1984.

24.     Other occupation, business or profession:
Sept. 1960-June 1965 -- Part time Instructor in Government, Morris College
Sept. 1954-June 1960 -- Public School Teacher, Conway, SC
During Law School -- Life Insurance Salesman, Soda Shop Manager, Summer laborer at Andrews Air Force Base
High School and College -- Shoe salesman and farm laborer

25.     Present Business Enterprise
Chairman of Board of Directors, Buena Vista Development Corporation, which owns the subdivision in which his residence is located, 1968-to date.

27.     He knows of no potential conflict of interest, but if one arose, he would recuse himself.

31.     Sued personally:
McLeod v. Finney Mail carrier slipped on front porch of home and brought action for personal injury which was settled by insurance carrier.
Earl Allen Parker, et al., v. Edna Witherspoon Myers, et al. Action seeking to recover real estate. Judge Finney was made party defendant by virtue of holding a mortgage on the premises. The suit was dismissed as to him.

Sued professionally:
Walter Murphy Czura v. The Supreme Court of South Carolina, etc., Civil Action No. 3:85-3030-15 (As Associate Justice)
Marion Joey McClary v. Nancy J. Thornhill, etc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:86-1480-14J (As Circuit Judge)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. State of South Carolina, etc., et al., Federal District Court Case No: 3-89-2392-16 (As Associate Justice) Pending

Except for the pending case, all matters have reached a final disposition as to his involvement.

33.     His health is excellent. His last exam was July, 1989.

35.     He wears reading glasses.

39.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations: American Bar Association; National Bar Association; South Carolina Bar; Sumter County Bar; SC Black Lawyers Association.

40.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Goodfellows Club; NAACP; Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity; Alpha Phi Iota Boule; Emmanuel United Methodist Church, Trustee Board, Restoration Committee; United Methodist Church General Council on Finance and Administration, Legal Responsibilities Committee; Claflin College Board of Trustees, Chairman; USC Law School Minority Advisory Committee; Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, International (Honorary Member - Charles Pinckney Chapter); SC Hugo Relief Fund Board of Directors.

Honors, awards, recognition: National Black College Alumni Hall of Fame, 1988; Alpha Phi Alpha Award of Achievement, 1986; National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education Distinguished Alumni of the Year Award, Claflin College -- South Carolina State College, 1986; Who's Who in American Law, 1988; Who's Who in American Politics, 1987; Who's Who Among Black Americans, 1985; Charleston Medical Society Citizen of the Year Award, 1987; Greater Sumter Chamber of Commerce Outstanding Achievement Award 1986; Shaw Air Force Base Black Heritage Award, 1986; National Bar Association's Chairman's Award, 1986; Morris College Presidential Citation, 1986; USC Black Law Students of America Citizenship Award, 1985; Sumter School District Number Two Distinguished Citizen Award, 1985; Pee Dee Area Council Inc., Boy Scouts of America, Distinguished Citizen Award, 1985; SC State College Alumni Outstanding Achievement Award, 1985.

42.     Five letters of reference:

(a) H. Leon McDonald, Sr. Vice President
SCNB, P. O. Box 1678, Sumter, SC 29151-1678

(b) John M. Graham, Regional President
First Federal, Box 1178, Sumter, SC 29150

(c) Ramon Schwartz, Esquire

10 Law Range, Sumter, SC 29150

(d) Ruben L. Gray, Esquire
35 South Sumter Street, Sumter, SC 29150

(e) Howard P. King, Esquire
17 East Calhoun Street, Sumter, SC 29150

(f) Sumter County Bar Association

COMMENTS BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: JUDGE FINNEY, LET ME BEGIN BY MAKING A COMMENT AND THEN I WILL ASK OUR COUNSEL, STEVE BATES, TO GO OVER YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. THIS IS THE FIRST SCREENING THAT WE HAVE CONDUCTED WITH THE NEW RULES ADOPTED THIS PAST YEAR. WE TIGHTENED REQUIREMENTS FOR INFORMATION. WE ASKED FOR FAR MORE INFORMATION THAN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN REQUIRED OF APPLICANTS FOR JUDGESHIPS. I WANT TO TELL YOU AND I WANT TO TELL THE PUBLIC THAT YOUR APPLICATION AND THE INFORMATION YOU SUBMITTED WILL, IN MY OPINION, BE THE STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE THAT WE ASK OF ALL APPLICANTS IN THE FUTURE.

JUSTICE FINNEY:THANK YOU, SIR.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: I KNOW YOU FROM SERVING WITH YOU IN THE LEGISLATURE AND BEING IN YOUR COURT AND YOU ARE A CREDIT TO EVERY OFFICE YOU HAVE EVER HELD, AND, AS I SAID, YOUR APPLICATION IS A STANDARD THAT I HOPE OTHERS CAN ASPIRE TO MEET.

Q.     JUSTICE FINNEY, I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY. WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE, DID YOU RECEIVE BACK FROM US A SUMMARY OF THAT QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     YES, SIR, I DID.
Q.     DID YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDED CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION?
A.     THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I FOUND WAS THE FACT THAT THE QUESTIONNAIRE MADE INQUIRIES CONCERNING LAWSUITS. I HAD SOME LISTED WHERE I HAD BEEN A DEFENDANT AS EITHER A CIRCUIT JUDGE OR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE, AND I THINK YOU HAD ONE WHERE I WAS A DEFENDANT WHEN I SERVED ON THE STATE ELECTIONS COMMISSION EONS AGO THAT I DIDN'T HAVE. OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY.
Q.     OUR BACKGROUND CHECKS WE FOUND YOUR DRIVING RECORD TO BE CLEAR. WHEN CHECKING WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE SUMTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE RECORDS WERE FOUND TO BE NEGATIVE ALSO, AS WELL AS WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I. IN CHECKING THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SUMTER COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, WE DID FIND A FEW ENTRIES WHICH YOU JUST ALLUDED TO, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THOSE BRIEFLY.
A.     ALL RIGHT.
Q.     AS YOU NOTED, THERE WERE FIVE ACTIONS THAT WERE FILED, I BELIEVE, BEGINNING IN 1971 THROUGH 1972 THAT WERE FILED AGAINST YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTION COMMISSION, DOES THAT SOUND ACCURATE?
A.     IT'S OBVIOUSLY ACCURATE. I DIDN'T REMEMBER THEM. I SAW IT ON THE SUMMARY YOU SENT ME AND WE USED TO GET SUED RATHER OFTEN IN CONTESTED ELECTIONS.
Q.     THERE WERE ALSO THREE OTHER SUITS IN FEDERAL COURT, AND ALL THREE OF THOSE YOU WERE SUED IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE I BELIEVE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THE SUPREME COURT GETS SOME LAWSUITS AGAINST IT WHEN PEOPLE FILE COMPLAINTS, AND AS AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER SOMETIMES THEY MAKE ME A DEFENDANT.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THOSE ARE STILL PENDING?
A.     I THINK ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EXCEPT THERE IS ONE PENDING NOW, AND I DON'T THINK I WAS AN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT. WE HAVE AN E.E.O.C. COMPLAINT. OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY.
Q.     THERE ARE ALSO FOUND IN THE STATE COURT RECORDS WHERE YOU WERE LISTED AS A DEFENDANT IN TWO LAWSUITS, ONE IN WHICH, I BELIEVE IT WAS 1975, YOU WERE A JUNIOR LIENHOLDER IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION SO YOU WERE LISTED AS A DEFENDANT?
A.     YES.
Q.     AND ALSO--I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE DATE HERE--YOU WERE A DEFENDANT IN A SLIP AND FALL ACTION?
A.     THE POSTMAN SLIPPED ON MY FRONT DOOR AND MY HOMEOWNERS DISPOSED OF IT, OR HE SAID HE DID, I DIDN'T SEE HIM.
Q.     YOU HAVE TURNED IN FOR THE COMMITTEE'S REVIEW YOUR FINANCIAL INFORMATION WHICH INCLUDES YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST WHICH SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS, AND ALSO YOUR CREDIT WAS REPORTED AS EXCELLENT. YOU NOTED TO US THAT YOUR HEALTH WAS EXCELLENT IN YOUR LAST PHYSICAL EXAM BEING LAST YEAR.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     YOU WERE SWORN IN AS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IN 1985?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     PREVIOUS TO THAT YOU SERVED ON THE CIRCUIT COURT BENCH FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT FROM 1976 UNTIL THEN?
A.     NINE YEARS.
Q.     BEFORE THEN YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?
A.     FOUR YEARS.
Q.     SO YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS 1985 WHEN YOU WERE AN APPLICANT FOR THE SEAT WHICH YOU NOW HOLD?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     JUSTICE FINNEY, HAS ANYTHING CHANGED SINCE YOUR LAST SCREENING THAT YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE OR OTHER COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS TIME?
A.     OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT I HAVE GOTTEN A LOT GRAYER, LIKE SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, AND I HAD TO INCREASE THE POWER OF MY READING GLASSES, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYTHING.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUSTICE FINNEY? (NO RESPONSE.) JUDGE FINNEY, WE THANK YOU AND WE WILL MEET SHORTLY TO MAKE A DECISION ON QUALIFICATION, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU, IF YOU WISH, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE, YOU MAY DO SO, I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT YOU WILL BE QUALIFIED.

JUSTICE FINNEY: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT HAS BEEN MY PLEASURE.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: JUDGE BARRINEAU.

THE HONORABLE THOMAS B. BARRINEAU, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

1.     Thomas B. Barrineau, Jr.
Home Address:         Business Address:

Route 2, Box 25-T     P. O. Box 366

Winnsboro, SC 29180     Winnsboro, SC 29180

2.     He was born in Florence County, South Carolina on August 7, 1939.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He has been married to Valeria Elizabeth Blair since July 29, 1963. They have 3 children: Elizabeth Blair Barrineau Hemlepp, a 23 year old who works at DYS; Thomas Basil, III, a 21 year old student at USC and Ray Blair, 17 years old, a student at Richard Winn Academy.

5.     He served in the SC National Guard from 1960-66.

6.     He graduated from USC with a B.A. degree in Journalism (1959-1963) and earned his JD degree there in 1966.

7.     He was a member of Student Council.

8.     He has complied with all requirements pertaining to continued legal education for judges.

10.     He wrote a Law Review article.

12.     His Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
1966-67             With Horger & Horger in Orangeburg
1967-69             General Practice with John Martin in Winnsboro
1969-80             General Practice in Winnsboro
1980-now     Judge, Family Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit

20.     Judicial office: Fairfield County Probate Judge, 1969-80, elected; Family Court Judge, elected 1980 and serving continuously since.

21.     Five of the most significant opinions or orders written:

(These furnished as examples, but Judge Barrineau feels they are no more significant than any of the other hundreds heard in the last four years. All cases are important and significant)

(a) Martha Anderson Hunt v. Jefferson Davis Hunt, III, a/k/a Jeff D. Hunt, Jr., and Jeff Hunt Machinery Company. A Lexington County case which is still pending under appeal to the Supreme Court. This case involved large financial division where it was hard to distinguish between marital and non-marital property.

(b) C. Carl Johnson v. Terry Cobb Johnson. Greenwood County case which is still pending under appeal to the Supreme Court. A landmark case pertaining to awarding of full alimony where the marriage was of short duration.

(c) Chester County Department of Social Services v. Joe L. Coleman, et al. Chester County case which is still pending under appeal to the Supreme Court. An Order giving jurisdiction to Tribal Court in a case involving full-blooded Sioux Indians who were abused by their parents while living in South Carolina.

(d) Cathy Martin Bagnal, f/k/a Cathy Lee Martin v. John DuRant Martin. Horry County case which is still pending under appeal to the Supreme Court. It involved very serious allegations of child sexual molestation.

(e) Oscar and Mildred Harrison v. S.C. Department of Social Services Adoption Birth Parents Services. Chester County case involving an adoption of a very young child by an elderly couple who had had custody of the child for the past five years.

22.     Public Office: Probate Judge, Fairfield County, 1969-80.

27.     He knows of no potential conflict of interest.

33.     His health is good. His last exam was December, 1986.

35.     He wears contact lenses.

39.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations: American Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association.

40.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: USC Alumni Association, USC Gamecock Club, First Methodist Church.

42.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Stephen Brakefield, Sr. Vice President
Bank of Ridgeway, P.O. Box 888,
Winnsboro, SC 29180

(b) Honorable Paul E. Short, Jr.

P. O. Box 547, Chester, SC 29706

(c) Brooks P. Goldsmith, Esquire

P.O. Box 947, Lancaster, SC 29720

(d) Honorable Timothy Wilkes
P.O. Box 1271, Winnsboro, SC 29180

(e) Leroy I. Montgomery, Sheriff
P.O. Box 387, Winnsboro, SC 29180

Q.     JUDGE, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE REFILED FOR SEAT NUMBER 2 IN THE 6TH CIRCUIT ON FAMILY COURT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND DID YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDED ELABORATION OR CLEARING UP ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY THAT WAS RETURNED TO YOU?
A.     NO, SIR. I THINK EVERYTHING WAS ACCURATELY STATED.
Q.     IN CHECKING THE STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS WE FOUND YOUR DRIVING RECORD TO BE CLEAR AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE WINNSBORO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT WHERE YOU RESIDE. WE ALSO CHECKED THE SLED AND WITH THE F.B.I. AND, AGAIN, THE RECORDS IN YOUR NAME ARE NEGATIVE. WE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY FOR JUDGMENT ROLLS AND PENDING LAWSUITS AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THIS STATE AND FOUND NONE IN YOUR NAME. YOU ALSO SENT IN YOUR FINANCIAL INFORMATION WHICH INCLUDED YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST. THERE WERE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS APPARENT FROM THAT STATEMENT. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR. YOU STATED IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOUR HEALTH WAS GOOD, CITING YOUR LAST PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AS FOUR YEARS AGO IN 1986. JUDGE BARRINEAU, YOU WERE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN 1966, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND SERVED AS A PROBATE JUDGE FROM 1969 TO 198O IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND ELECTED TO THE FAMILY COURT SEAT IN 198O THAT YOU NOW HOLD?
A.     YES.
Q.     THIS IS, WHAT, THE FOURTH SCREENING? YOU WERE SCREENED IN '80, '82 AND '86, DOES THAT SOUND ACCURATE?
A.     YES, SIR, I THINK THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.     NOW YOU WILL HAVE TO GO EVERY SIX YEARS SINCE THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHANGED THE TERM. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL THE COMMITTEE OR ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED SINCE YOUR LAST SCREENING?
A.     NO, SIR, NOT THAT I KNOW OF. I THINK WE STATED ALL OF THE INFORMATION YOU REQUESTED AS ACCURATELY AS WE COULD, AND THERE IS NO ADDITION AT THIS TIME.
Q.     YOU SHOULD BE COMMENDED TO BE ON THE BENCH TEN YEARS AND NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST YOU, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE BARRINEAU?

THANK YOU, JUDGE.
A.     THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: JUDGE SPRUILL.

THE HONORABLE JAMES A. SPRUILL, III, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

1.     James A. Spruill, III
Home Address:         Business Address:
230 Third Street         P.O. Box 1492
Cheraw, SC 29520     210 Market Street
Cheraw, SC 29520

2.     He was born in Wadesboro, North Carolina on May 31, 1944.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Sarah Patrick Cain on July 17, 1971. They have 2 children: Sarah Patrick, age 14; Eleanor Calder, age 11.

5.     Military Service: U.S. Naval Reserve - Active Duty 1965-1967, Active Reserve 1967-1970; Lieutenant; SN 698156/1105. Chose to be in standby status at end of his six year reserve obligation, but is unsure of present status.

6.     He attended The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, earning a B.A. Degree (1961-1965) and a JD Degree, Cum Laude, from the School of Law (1967-1970).

7.     He was on the Law Review from 1968-1970.

8.     His continuing legal/judicial education during the past five years has consisted of attendance at CLE seminars for at least 12 credit hours a year on a variety of topics.

10.     Published books or articles written:
Survey of Articles I-VII of the Proposed Draft for a Revised South Carolina Constitution 22 SCLR 50 (1970).
Automobile Insurance - Omnibus Exclusion 20 SCLR 855 (1968).

12.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
Clerk to Honorable Robert W. Hemphill, U.S. District Judge 1970-1971; Associate to Frank L. Taylor in the General Practice of Law in Richland County 1971-December, 1973; Partner in the firm of Griggs, Spruill and Harris in the General Practice of Law in Cheraw, January 1974-June 1989; Family Court Judge July 1, 1989 to present.

20.     Family Court Judgeship since July 1, 1989, having been elected by the legislature May 2, 1989.

21.     Five representative orders are described. He has had no orders reviewed.

(a) Jenkins vs. Jenkins -- A Chesterfield County divorce case involving foreign judgment (earlier Judgments and Orders in the California Courts) regarding equitable division of marital assets.

(b) S.C. Department of Social Services vs. Sara Knight -- A Marlboro County case involving termination of parental rights, alleging failure to support minor son and failure to remedy conditions causing his removal from the home. Judge Spruill found that the petitioner should retain custody, but dismissed without prejudice the petition to terminate parental rights.

(c) Chesterfield County Dept. of Social Services vs. Arthur Davis and Robert Fulford, In Re. Mary Davis -- a case involving custody of a 76 year old woman, bedridden by reason of a stroke, in the care of her husband.

(d) Purvis vs. Purvis -- a Darlington County case involving a petition to reduce child support payments.

(e) Chesterfield County Dept. of Social Services vs. Millie Joplin and Danny Joplin and John and Gladys Hudson, In Re: Bobby Hudson -- a case involving the custody of a minor child who had been taken in emergency protective services.

24.     He served in the Navy from 1965-1967 and worked during summers while a student in 1961-65 and 1967-70.

27.     He is aware of no potential conflicts of interest other than would arise with regard to some case he had worked on as an attorney at Griggs, Spruill and Harris and would recuse himself on any matter that was in that office before he left on July 1, 1989.

31.     Sued: As Director of McLeod Regional Medical Center, he was sued by a podiatrist about hospital privileges. He believes the dispute was resolved by adjustment of the rule.

33.     His health is good. His last physical was in 1983.

40.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Cheraw Rotary Club; Cheraw Country Club; St. David's Episcopal Church; St. David's Society; UNC and USC Alumni Associations.

42.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Herbert W. Watts, President
First Federal Saving and Loan of Cheraw
P.O. Drawer 512, Cheraw, SC 29520

(b) T. Belk Ingram, Esquire
204 Front Street, Cheraw, SC 29520

(c) C.H. McBride, Mayor, Town of Cheraw
P.O. Box 111, Cheraw, SC 29520

(d) James I. Redfearn, Esquire
300 East Main St., Chesterfield, SC 29709

(e) H.F. Bell, Esquire
P.O. Box 189, Chesterfield, SC 29709

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: JUDGE SPRUILL IS ONE OF MY FAMILY COURT JUDGES.

Q.     JUDGE, I BELIEVE WE JUST SAW YOU LAST YEAR WHEN YOU FIRST GOT ELECTED TO THIS SEAT.
A.     IT HASN'T BEEN LONG.
Q.     YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO MUCH UPDATING ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED FROM THE SUMMARY THAT WAS SENT BACK TO YOU FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     THE CIVIL SUITS THAT YOU LIST, EXCEPTING ONE, WERE LAWSUITS BY INMATES AGAINST MY DAD WHO HAD THE SAME NAME.
Q.     THE SAME THING OCCURRED LAST YEAR.
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN OUR RECORDS THAT ALL EXCEPT FOR THE SUIT THAT WAS FILED AGAINST YOU IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A DIRECTOR OF MCLEOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT DISPUTE HAS BEEN RESOLVED? IT WAS DISMISSED?
A.     IT WAS. IT WAS A SUIT BY A PODIATRIST ABOUT PRIVILEGES PRACTICING IN THAT HOSPITAL.
Q.     IN CHECKING THE RECORDS WE FOUND YOUR DRIVING RECORD TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS IN THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE CHERAW AND CHESTERFIELD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF SLED AND F.B.I. EXCEPT FOR THE LAWSUIT WE JUST ALLUDED TO, THERE WERE NO JUDGMENTS OR LAWSUITS FOUND IN YOUR NAME IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY OR IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE STATE. THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT YOU DISCLOSED TO THE COMMITTEE, YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST DISCLOSED NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS, AND YOUR CREDIT WAS REPORTED AS EXCELLENT. YOUR LAST PHYSICAL EXAM WAS 1983. YOU NOTED THAT YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD. EXPERIENCEWISE, I BELIEVE YOU WERE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW IN 1970?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     AND YOU CLERKED FOR JUDGE HEMPHILL AND THEN WENT INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE IN CHERAW?
A.     IN COLUMBIA FIRST AND THEN CHERAW.
Q.     AGAIN YOU WERE ELECTED LAST YEAR AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE ELECTED MAY 2, 1989 TO YOUR CURRENT SEAT, AND YOU SUBMITTED TO US SOME ORDERS THAT WERE REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR WORKLOAD THUS FAR WITH YOUR APPLICATION ALSO, DID YOU NOT?
A.     YES.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY. HAS ANYTHING CHANGED SINCE YOUR SCREENING LAST YEAR OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU ARE NOW ON THE BENCH THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF?
A.     NO.
Q.     ARE YOU ENJOYING YOUR NEW JOB?
A.     I HAVE ENJOYED IT VERY MUCH.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WHO HAVE QUESTIONS OF JUDGE SPRUILL?

JUDGE SPRUILL, I NOTE THAT YOU MUST HAVE GONE TO WORK IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE RIGHT COMPLEX ORDERS THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN US TO REVIEW AND I COMMEND YOU UPON THEM AND UPON YOUR APPLICATION ALSO. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN SCREENED, WE WILL NOW GO INTO THE CONTESTED RACE. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT HAD OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, I FEEL SURE THEY WILL BE IN ORDER. WE HAVE ALL LOOKED AT THEM. IF YOU DESIRE, YOU MAY BE EXCUSED AT THIS TIME AND WE WILL LET YOU KNOW LATER IN THE DAY THE FINAL DECISION. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU STAY, BUT YOUR TIME MAY BE SO VALUABLE THAT YOU WISH TO GO ON TO SOME OTHER PLACE. WE WILL NOW SCREEN THE CANDIDATES FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, A SEAT PRESENTLY HELD BY JUDGE JONATHAN MCKOWN. MR. DILLARD, YOU ARE FIRST. WE WILL GO BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER, UNLESS SOMEONE HAS GOOD REASON TO DO OTHERWISE. IF YOU WILL RAISE YOUR HAND.

THOMAS C. DILLARD, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

1.     Thomas C. Dillard

Home Address:             Business Address:

667 Stafford Avenue         258 N. Church Street

Spartanburg, SC 29302     Spartanburg, SC 29301

2.     He was born in Whitmire, South Carolina on October 23, 1942.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     On July 16, 1984 in Newberry County, as the moving party he received a final divorce from his first wife on the grounds of one year separation.
He was married to Brenda Robinson on October 19, 1986. He has one child by his first marriage: Anna Ruth, age 25, R. N. Baptist Hospice.

5.     Military Service: None.

6.     He attended Newberry College from 1961-63 and from 1968-70, earning a B.A. degree in 1970 (He left school in 1963 to work, returning in 1968). He earned a JD degree from USC School of law in 1973 (1971-73).

7.     He worked full time while attending college.

8.     He has continued his legal education by attending the Trial Lawyers Association convention seminars since 1986. Prior to that, he attended regular CLE seminars at USC Law School.

12.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
1973-1981     Associate with Robert C. Lake, Jr. in a general civil and criminal practice.
1981-1986     A sole practitioner in Union, SC, in a general civil and criminal practice.
1986-now         Spartanburg County Assistant Public Defender, criminal practice.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - none
State - usually monthly
Other - none

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil: 0% Criminal: 100% Domestic: 0%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury: 20%

Non-Jury: 80% Sole Counsel.

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) State v. Sole Dowlington. Tried for murder. After a two day trial, the jury returned verdict of Guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter and Defendant was sentenced to 3 years. Significant because he was able to convince a jury that the Defendant had no malice.

(b) State v. Margarito Guiterrez. Tried for murder. He was able to have most of the State's evidence excluded during the trial and, after the State rested their case, they agreed to let the Defendant plead to involuntary manslaughter which reduced the Defendant's sentence from life to 3 years.

(c) Nickey B. Toby v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. A case he carried from the administrative level to U.S. District Court on appeal. This case was significant in the time involved to secure Claimant's retroactive benefits -- from time of filing to last appeal was 7 years.

(d) State v. Jerry Wood. Tried for murder. This case was a significant one in giving him experience in trying felony cases.

(e) State v. James Ferguson. Tried for Armed Robbery. This case was also significant in giving him valuable experience in trying felony cases.

18.     Civil appeals: Appellate work is done by the Office of Appellate Defense. He has not participated in appellate work since his association with Robert C. Lake, Jr.

20.     Judicial Office: From 1981-86 he was Judge, Town of Whitmire Municipal Court, appointed by Town Council. This jurisdiction was limited to crimes which carried a maximum penalty of 30 days or $200 fine.

24.     He worked for the City of Newberry from 1965-68, as a water plant operator for them while attending college from 1968-70, and as a Page in the SC Senate while attending Law School from 1971-73.

27.     He is unaware of any potential conflict of interest, but in the event he became aware of one, he would divest himself of any such business or financial arrangement.

30.     SC tax liens were filed in 1983, and were paid the same year.

33.     Health is generally good. His last physical exam was in March, 1988.

36.     He was diagnosed to have mild angina in 1976 (familial) and it is controlled by medication. He is on high blood pressure medication. His doctor is E. J. Dickert of Newberry.

39.     Bar and professional organizations: South Carolina Bar Association and the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association.

40.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Masons, Amity Lodge #87 in Newberry; York Rite Bodies in Newberry; Shriner, Hejaz Temple in Greenville, and member Union Elks Lodge.

41.     He is presently going through the process to become eligible for appointment as an Administrative Law Judge, including rating on experience, written examination, references and FBI clearance

42.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Mr. W. C. Bennett, Chief Executive Officer

Arthur State Bank, Union, SC 29379

(b) Toney Lister, Esquire
P.O. Box 2229, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(c) David E. Turnipseed, Esquire
P.O. Box 1904, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(d) Gerald G. Wilson, Esquire
P.O. Box 6189, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(e) Senator Horace C. Smith
410 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, SC 29202

MR. DILLARD: I WOULD ASK THE COMMITTEE TO BEAR WITH ME, I HAVE LARYNGITIS. I AM TRYING TO GET OVER A BOUT WITH BRONCHITIS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: WE ARE ALL SUFFERING TO SOME EXTENT. WE WILL BEAR WITH YOU.

Q.     MR. DILLARD, THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED YOUR APPLICATION AND FROM YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE MADE A SUMMARY, SENT THAT BACK TO YOU, WAS THERE ANYTHING ON THE SUMMARY THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEARED UP OR YOU CARE TO ELABORATE ON? YOU DID SEND US SOMETHING I BELIEVE. I WILL SAVE YOU YOUR VOICE A LITTLE BIT. YOU SENT US SOMETHING CLEARING UP A FEW MATTERS THAT WERE AMBIGUOUS ON YOUR APPLICATION AND THAT IS NOW COMPLETE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     IN CHECKING THE RECORDS, LOCAL AND STATE, WE FOUND YOUR DRIVING RECORD TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND SPARTANBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. SLED AND F.B.I. CHECKS ALSO CAME UP NEGATIVE. IN CHECKING FOR JUDGMENTS AND LAWSUITS, WE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND FEDERAL COURTS AND FOUND IN 1978 YOU WERE SUED IN A SUIT CAPTIONED MANN VERSUS KEMPER IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A TRUSTEE FOR A HOSPITAL IN NEWBERRY, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND THE DISPOSITION OF THAT CASE WAS DISMISSED BY JUDGE MATTHEW PERRY IN 1982?
A.     YES.
Q.     ALSO YOU LISTED THAT IN 1983 YOU HAD TAX LIENS FILED AGAINST YOU IN THE AMOUNT OF $710 WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PAID?
A.     YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     WOULD YOU CARE TO ELABORATE ON THAT FURTHER?
A.     THAT WAS WHEN I WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND IT WAS A SIMPLE MATTER OF THE TAX COMMISSION AND I DIDN'T AGREE AS TO HOW MUCH TAXES WERE, WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY AGREED UPON AND PAID. THAT BASICALLY IS WHAT IT WAS. IT'S A CASH FLOW TYPE OF THING.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE TIME FRAME BETWEEN WHEN THE LIEN WAS FILED AND IT WAS SATISFIED?
A.     IT WAS NO MORE THAN SEVERAL MONTHS.
Q.     IN THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT YOU DISCLOSED TO US, YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST INDICATES NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT CAME BACK CLEAR. AS FAR AS YOUR HEALTH IS CONCERNED, YOU HAVE NOTED THAT IT WAS GENERALLY GOOD, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE ON MEDICATION FOR MILD ANGINA, YOUR LAST PHYSICAL EXAMINATION COMING IN 1988, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOUR EXPERIENCE, YOU WERE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN SOUTH CAROLINA IN 1973, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     CORRECT.
Q.     AND SINCE THAT TIME YOU HAD A GENERAL PRACTICE OF LAW FROM 1973 TO 1986, ALSO DURING WHICH TIME YOU WERE A MUNICIPAL JUDGE IN WHITMIRE FROM '81 TO '86, AND SINCE '86 YOU HAVE BEEN ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER IN SPARTANBURG COUNTIES?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     YOU ALSO NOTED THAT YOU HAD NOT HAD ANY APPELLANT PRACTICE FOR ABOUT THE LAST TEN YEARS?
A.     CORRECT.
Q.     I ASSUME THE LAST FOUR YEARS ANYWAY WAS BECAUSE OF BEING IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT PREVIOUS TO THAT?
A.     PREVIOUS TO THAT THE ONLY APPELLANT WORK I WAS INVOLVED WITH WAS WHEN I WAS ASSOCIATED WITH SENATOR LAKE. DURING THE TIME I WAS IN SOLO PRACTICE I DID NOT DO APPELLANT WORK BECAUSE I HAD NONE.
Q.     THIS IS OBVIOUSLY YOUR FIRST SCREENING SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE FILED FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS OR ANY STATEMENTS IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION, AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY. WOULD YOU CARE TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME?
A.     NO, SIR. I THINK THE DATA SHEET AND ALL GIVE MOST OF THE INFORMATION THAT I COULD GIVE THE COMMITTEE, OTHER THAN ANY SPECIFICS THAT THE COMMITTEE MIGHT WANT TO KNOW.
Q.     WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORT HERE TODAY CONSIDERING YOUR LARYNGITIS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     WHAT HAS YOUR EXPERIENCE BEEN WITH CIVIL PRACTICE IN COMMON PLEAS COURT?
A.     WHEN I WAS IN SOLO PRACTICE, THAT WAS PROBABLY 5O/5O CIVIL, CRIMINAL PRACTICE.
Q.     DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN CIVIL JURY TRIALS IN COMMON PLEAS COURT?
A.     YES, MOSTLY PLAINTIFF'S WORK.

REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN: THANK YOU.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS:     ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE?

MR. DILLARD, BEAR WITH ME JUST A MOMENT.

Q.     MR. DILLARD, APPARENTLY YOU FAILED TO SIGN YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT. DO YOU HAVE A COPY THAT IS SIGNED OR WOULD YOU SIGN IT NOW? I SUSPECT IT WAS A TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     IN THAT REGARD, I WON'T GO INTO ANY DETAILS IN THE OPEN HEARING, BUT I WOULD ASK, THE SCHEDULE REQUESTED AS TO REAL ESTATE AND MORTGAGES, DO YOU HAVE A SCHEDULE? I DID NOT FIND ONE WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
A.     I DON'T HAVE IT WITH THIS PACKAGE. I PROBABLY HAVE IT IN ANOTHER FILE WITH THE OTHER INFORMATION WHICH IS PROBABLY IN THAT FILE.
Q.     BEFORE LEAVING WOULD YOU MIND SIGNING THE ORIGINAL?
A.     YES, SIR.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

MR. FERGUSON, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE TO TESTIFY FOR YOU AND WHO HAVE ASKED TO BE HEARD, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF WE WENT ON AND TOOK THE OTHER TWO CANDIDATES WHO HAVE NO WITNESSES AND ASK TO BE HEARD SO WE COULD GO ON AND EXCUSE THEM?

MR. FERGUSON: I HAVE NO OBJECTION, MR. SPEAKER. I HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE FOR ME WHO ARE FROM OUT OF TOWN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: I SUSPECT IT WILL TAKE ONLY A FEW MINUTES TO LET THEM TESTIFY AND WE CAN HAVE ALL THE TIME YOU WANT. JUDGE FOSTER.

THE HONORABLE THOMAS EARL FOSTER, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

1.     Thomas Earl Foster

Home Address:         Business Address:

119 Pinewood Drive     Spartanburg Co.Courthouse

Woodruff, SC 29388     180 Magnolia Street

Spartanburg, SC 29301

2.     He was born in Woodruff, South Carolina on August 19, 1940.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Mary Jane Holmes on July 20, 1963. They have 3 children: William Richard, age 23; Lauren Nicole, age 20; and Jason Thomas, age 13.

5.     Military Service: April 16, 1959 to April 5, 1961, U.S. Army Specialist, 4th Class; October 15, 1961 to August 9, 1962, U.S. Army Specialist, 4th Class; US 53318881; Honorably Discharged, March 31, 1965.

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina (one semester) in 1958 (left to enter U.S. Army); Wofford College (summer school only) in 1961; University of South Carolina (1/2 semester) in 1961 (He was a member of the U.S. Army Reserves which was activated on October 15, 1961); University of South Carolina (one semester) in 1962 (returned to Woodruff, SC and worked full time while attending Spartanburg Junior College); Spartanburg Junior College (now Spartanburg Methodist College) in 1963; the University of South Carolina from 1963-1965 (received a BS in Business Administration); and University of South Carolina Law School from 1970-1973 (received JD).

8.     He has met and exceeded all requirements of the Supreme Court for Judicial Continuing Legal Education.

9.     He taught College Law for one year at Spartanburg Methodist College.

12.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
Graduated in May, 1973; opened practice in Spartanburg, SC in November, 1973 and was associated with Roy McBee Smith until August, 1977; associated with Rembert D. Parler in 1977 but maintained his own practice; formed partnership with Rembert D. Parler January 1, 1979; dissolved partnership July 1, 1980; continued to be associated with Rembert D. Parler from July, 1980 until July 1, 1983. Family Court Judge from July 1, 1983 to present.

17.     Five of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Speizman Knitting Machine Corp. -vs.- A.A. Fretwell, et al. 264 S.C. 168, 213 SE 2nd 586, (1975); this was a very involved case under UCC sales which lasted three days in court.

(b) Terri Hallman -vs.- Luther Hallman. filed June 10, 1981, domestic case involving equitable division and alimony; wife had worked to get husband through dental school; no children; received $1500 monthly alimony, 4 year post graduate education and liberal property division result.

(c) Betty C. Smith -vs.- Wallace Smith. 312 SE 2nd 560, S.C. App. 1984, very involved divorce and equitable division case, in which profit sharing funds, proceeds of injury award, alimony and marital home were involved.

(d) Joe Earl Taylor -vs.- Vance Eddie Jackson. Spartanburg County, automobile accident, involving high speed, drinking, terrific impact, numerous witnesses; received verdict for the defendant.

(e) State -vs.- Ora Cook. murder charge, jury trial with defense of insanity used against the wishes of client. Verdict - guilty of voluntary manslaughter (May, 1983).

20.     Judicial Office: He was City Recorder, Town of Woodruff, November 25, 1974 through September 1, 1977, appointed position by Town Council, jurisdiction was same as Magistrate's Court; and Family Court Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit, July 1, 1983 to present.

21.     Five (5) of the most significant opinions written:

(a) Burns vs. Burns, 358 S.E. (2nd) 168.

(b) West vs. West, 363 S.E. (2nd) 402 (Ct. App. 1987).

(c) Cox vs. Cox, filed September 22, 1986, Opinion No. 0800.

(d) Kirsch vs. Kirsch, Opinion No 1378 (Ct. of Appeals) filed July 31, 1989.

(e) Bungener vs. Bungener, Opinion No. 0871 filed February 2, 1987 (Ct. of Appeals).

22.     Public Office: Spartanburg County, Assistant County Attorney, November 28, 1973 through August 26, 1977, the office was appointed by Spartanburg County Council; and City Attorney, Town of Woodruff, July 21, 1977 to June, 1983.

23.     Unsuccessful candidate: He offered as a candidate for Probate Court Judge - This was to be an interim appointment by the Governor; The Governor recommended Raymond C. Eubanks, Jr. who was one of three candidates submitted, and the Senate confirmed the appointment. In 1981 he was a candidate for Family Court Judgeship, Seventh Judicial Circuit - lost to Clyde K. Laney, Jr., current Family Court Judge (vote 90-62).

24.     He previously worked with Burlington Industries, Greensboro, N. C. from June, 1965 till September, 1970 as an accountant, programmer and analyst.

25.     Officer or Director: He owns 25% of stock for Shoe Mart, a South Carolina Corporation and a new business.

27.     Potential conflict of interest: A lawyer is involved in the Shoe Mart in which Judge Foster owns stock. He is a business lawyer who does little trial work; however, should he appear before Judge Foster, he would disclose that fact and disqualify himself if appropriate.

31.     Sued: Is named defendant in the case of Colonial Trust Company as Committee for the Estate of Hayes Salter, 83-Cp-42-1295. The suit was brought to get court approval of land being sold by him to a person whose affairs were controlled by the bank.

33.     Health is excellent. His last physical exam was in December of 1987.

35.     He wears corrective lenses.

39.     Bar and professional organizations: South Carolina Bar, Spartanburg County Bar Association and Family Court Council.

40.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Mason and 32 Degree Shriner; First Baptist Church, Woodruff, SC; member, past Director and past president, Woodruff Greater Chamber of Commerce; The 3 Pines, Inc.; Greenville Racquet and Fitness Club.

41.     Since he has been a Family Court Judge (1983) the appellate courts have reversed his decisions only 3 times. The practicing attorneys have on two occasions rated his performance very high among the 46 judges.

Because he has not been in civil courts since his election, nor tried many criminal cases, he would need to reeducate himself with changes in those areas.

42.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Perry Ouzts, Bank Manager
NCNB 340 Edgewood Circle
Woodruff, SC 29388

(b) Robert L. Wynn, III, Esquire

P.O. Box 1897, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(c) Ben C. Harrison, Esquire

P. O. Box 1852, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(d) Roy McBee Smith, Esquire

P. O. Box 5306, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(e) Fletcher D. Thompson, Esquire
P. O. Box 1853, Spartanburg, SC 29304

Q.     JUDGE FOSTER, I BELIEVE YOU ARE CURRENTLY FAMILY COURT JUDGE IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU ARE APPLYING FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGESHIP THAT IS OPENING UP IN THAT SAME CIRCUIT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     DID YOU FIND ANYTHING ON THE SUMMARY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED OR ELABORATED ON?
A.     YES, SIR. ITEM 25 IS INCORRECT FACTUALLY. IT'S MY ERROR, I ASSUME. I WAS SCREENED LAST YEAR AND I THINK THE SECRETARY JUST COPIED THAT OVER, BUT ITEM 25, THE BUSINESS IS OPEN AT THIS TIME AND HAS BEEN FOR AT LEAST A YEAR, AND THE LAST SENTENCE IN THAT ITEM SHOULD BE STRICKEN. IT IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.
Q.     THANK YOU FOR THAT CORRECTION. IN CHECKING THE STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS WE FOUND YOUR DRIVING RECORD TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND CITY OF SPARTANBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I. AS FAR AS JUDGMENTS OR LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN YOUR NAME IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY OR IN SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, THERE WAS A CASE IN 1983 WHERE YOU WERE A NAMED DEFENDANT I BELIEVE IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A COMMITTEE FOR AN ESTATE, DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.     YES. IT WAS IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE BANK SUED ME AS THE COMMITTEE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SEEKING TO PURCHASE SOME PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY MYSELF AND THE OTHER DEFENDANT, AND IT WAS MERELY TO CLEAR UP THE TITLE AND GET A GOOD TITLE TO THE PERSON THAT WAS INCOMPETENT.
Q.     THAT WENT THROUGH WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF HITCH?
A.     YES, SIR. IT WAS A FRIENDLY SUIT.
Q.     THERE WERE NO OTHER SUITS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED OR FOUND FILED AGAINST YOU. FINANCIALLY YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST WAS RECEIVED AND NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS WERE APPARENT FROM THAT, AND YOUR CREDIT WAS REPORTED AS GOOD. YOUR HEALTH YOU REPORTED AS EXCELLENT, CITING YOUR LAST PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AS COMING IN 1987. ON A RECAP, YOUR LEGAL EXPERIENCE I BELIEVE YOU WERE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN SOUTH CAROLINA IN 1973?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU WERE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE UNTIL 1983 WHEN YOU WERE ELECTED TO THE SEAT YOU NOW HOLD?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND ALSO DURING THE TIME OF PRIVATE PRACTICE YOU LISTED AS HOLDING THE OFFICE OF CITY RECORDER FROM 1974 TO 1977 IN THE TOWN OF WOODRUFF, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DURING THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE FAMILY COURT BENCH HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD ANY COMMON PLEAS OR GENERAL SESSIONS TERMS?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     NON-JURY HEARINGS?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     WHILE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE HOW MUCH OF YOUR PRACTICE WAS DEVOTED TO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL TRIAL LITIGATION?
A.     CIVIL TRIALS PROBABLY 80 PERCENT OR MORE. WE WERE DEFENSE LAWYERS, SOME PLAINTIFF'S WORK, SOME DOMESTIC WORK, BUT MOSTLY CIVIL WORK, PROBABLY LESS THAN 20 PERCENT IN CRIMINAL.
Q.     AGAIN, YOU WERE ELECTED TO THE FAMILY COURT IN 1983. WE SCREENED YOU LAST YEAR. WAS THERE A SCREENING IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO ALSO?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHAT?
A.     '85.
Q.     WE HAVE RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY HERE TODAY ON YOUR BEHALF OR AGAINST YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL THE COMMITTEE THAT HAS OCCURRED SINCE YOUR LAST SCREENING OR IN REGARD TO THE SEAT THAT YOU NOW SEEK?
A.     THERE IS NOTHING THAT HAS OCCURRED SINCE THE LAST SCREENING THAT I APPEARED BEFORE YOU THAT IS IMPORTANT OR MEANINGFUL OR HAS ANY SIGNIFICANCE. AS TO THE CURRENT SEAT THAT I SEEK, I HAVE PUT IN THE APPLICATION, I THINK, REASONS FOR MY SEEKING THE SEAT, AND ALSO I THINK MY EXPERIENCE AND MY RECORD ON THE BENCH SUPPORTS THE FACT THAT I AT LEAST AM EXTREMELY WELL QUALIFIED FOR THE SEAT. I KNOW IT'S A CONTESTED SEAT, AND BASICALLY THAT IS MY POSITION. I THINK I AM QUALIFIED FOR IT.

MR. BATES: THANK YOU, JUDGE.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     JUDGE FOSTER, I NOTICE THAT IN YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT YOU LIST EIGHT OR NINE HOMES OR RESIDENCES THAT YOU OWN. DO YOU MANAGE THOSE PROPERTIES OR ARE THEY RENTAL PROPERTIES OR PROPERTIES HELD FOR SALE?
A.     MOST OF THEM ARE RENTAL PROPERTIES, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE TWO--I JUST MOVED IN DECEMBER, SO I HAVE TWO RESIDENCES RIGHT NOW AND I AM TRYING TO GET RID OF ONE OF THOSE, AND ABOUT TWO OF THE RENTAL HOMES I MANAGE MYSELF AND SOME OF THE RENTAL HOMES ARE MANAGED BY MY PARTNER IN THE BUSINESS, SO I DO A LITTLE BIT AND ALSO DO SOME OF THE LABOR WHEN IT COMES TIME TO REPAIR.
Q.     LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE MOSTLY PAID FOR TOO?
A.     YES, SIR. THANK GOODNESS.
Q.     THANK YOU.
A.     I WOULD LIKE, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO MAKE ONE OTHER STATEMENT. I KNOW THESE ARE CONFIDENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRES THAT WE SUBMIT TO THE COMMITTEE. I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMITTEE OPENING UP MY QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE PUBLIC OR TO THE PRESS, AND WOULD ALSO ASK THE OTHERS IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THE SAME.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.

Q.     JUDGE FOSTER, WAS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON WHY YOU SUGGESTED THAT THE OTHERS OPEN UP THE CONFIDENTIAL FILE?
A.     MR. MARTIN, ONLY TO THE FACT I KNOW IT'S A CONTESTED RACE AND I KNOW THE PUBLIC IS ALREADY INVOLVED INTO IT AND I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHO THE CANDIDATES ARE AND WHAT THE QUALIFICATIONS ARE. OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY REASONS. I MIGHT SAY, MR. MARTIN, I'M A FRIEND OF MR. FERGUSON. HE AND I GREW UP IN THE SAME TOWN AND WORKED TOGETHER IN SPARTANBURG FOR--I GUESS MR. FERGUSON CAME IN A FEW YEARS AFTER I DID--AND I HAVE HELPED MR. FERGUSON IN THE PAST WHEN HE ASKED FOR HELP AND HAVE NO PERSONAL GRUDGES AT ALL AGAINST MR. FERGUSON, OR ANY OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES. ALL OF THESE ARE MY FRIENDS.
Q.     ANY PARTICULAR REASON YOU MENTIONED MR. FERGUSON?
A.     I FEEL LIKE HE IS THE STRONGEST OF THE OPPONENTS.
Q.     I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU, SIR.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MR. WINTER.

WILLIAM E. WINTER, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

1.     William E. Winter, Jr.

Home Address:         Business Address:

111 Westland Drive     P.O. Box 249

Gaffney, SC 29340     Gaffney, SC 29342

2.     He was born in Altoona, Pennsylvania on October 28, 1944.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Carla Cooper on June 23, 1967. They have 2 children: Elizabeth R., age 18; Ann L., age 15.

5.     Military Service: Active service US Army, Judge Advocate General's Corps, August, 1969-July, 1973, Captain 247 72 7168; Honorable Discharge. US Army Reserve 1973-present; Judge Advocate General's Corps; LTC.

6.     He attended Louisiana State University from 1962-63, transferred to University of South Carolina from 1963-66, receiving a B.A. Degree. He attended Washington & Lee University Law School from 1966-69, receiving an LLB Degree.

7.     He was active as an undergraduate at USC in ODK social fraternity, in law school in the Student Bar Association and for one year participated on the Washington & Lee Law Review.

8.     He has continued his legal education by reading Advance Sheets and by attending more than the required Continuing Legal Education seminars.

9.     As part of his US Army Reserve duties, he instructed Military Criminal Law to 4th year students at the Citadel in February 1986.

10.     He had a short article published in the Washington & Lee University Law Review in 1968.

12.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

1969-1973     As a Judge Advocate in active service with the US Army, he prosecuted and defended soldiers charged with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He also performed some legal assistance.

1973-1987     In private practice in Gaffney, SC, in domestic, civil and real estate work. Also served as part-time assistant solicitor for Cherokee County.

1987-now         Full-time private law practice in Gaffney. This is a general practice, consisting of domestic and civil litigation, criminal defense work, real estate and limited corporate work.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - none
State - 95%
Social Security - 5%

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil: 35% Criminal: 35% Domestic: 30%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury: 40% Non-Jury: 60% (Family Court,Workers Compensation Commission, Social Security Administration)
Sole Counsel.

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) State v. Rita Houser. In January, 1978, he assisted in the prosecution of this defendant. She was convicted of murder by killing an adopted son. In substance she poisoned the child to death and put his body in the Broad River near Gaffney. This matter was fully litigated and the defendant was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. This case is significant because of the age of the victim and other attending facts.

(b) State v. Jackie Willard. In 1983 he prosecuted this defendant who was charged with two counts of burglary and two counts of criminal sexual conduct, 1st degree. This defendant entered an apartment and sexually assaulted a thirteen year old girl and then assaulted the girl's mother. He was armed with a knife at the time. The jury found the defendant guilty and did not make a recommendation for mercy. He was sentenced to life in prison plus thirty years, to run consecutively. This case was significant due to the serious nature of the crime.

(c) State v. Ray Davis. In 1985 he prosecuted this defendant for the crime of assault and battery with intent to kill. The trial lasted approximately two and one-half days. The jury found the defendant guilty of shooting the victim two times late at night after a cocaine party. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison. There were approximately fourteen witnesses in this case for the State and defense. The significance was that he was required to portray the victim as a person deserving of protection.

(d) Brown Packing Company v. Travelers Insurance Company. He represented the plaintiff Brown Packing Company in this case which was tried in 1989. It involved a rather complex issue of insurance coverage under a general liability insurance policy. The defendant denied liability. He filed a law suit on behalf of the plaintiff and was awarded a judgment in the amount prayed for. Subsequently the case was settled on appeal. This case was significant in that he was told repeatedly by opposing attorneys and defendant that there was no way under the sun that he could win the matter.

(e) Sherry Meadows v. Claude Earl Meadows. In 1989 he represented the defendant in a contested child custody case in the Family Court in Gaffney. The plaintiff sought a change in custody due to changed circumstances. The case was tried before a Family Court judge and lasted almost one day. The plaintiff called approximately seven witnesses. After the plaintiff rested Mr. Winter informed the Court that he had no witnesses. Nevertheless the Court ruled in his client's favor. This was significant in that his client was successful without presenting any evidence.

18.     Civil appeals:

(a) Poole v. Poole. Heard by the Court of Appeals on two occasions. This matter involved an issue of equitable division of marital assets.

(b) Snyder v. Snyder. Heard by the Court of Appeals and a decision issued on September 29, 1989. This matter involved the issue of child custody.

22.     Public Office: Assistant Solicitor, Cherokee County, SC, 1973-87, an appointed position.

27.     Potential conflict of interest: If a business corporation in which he has an interest were a party in court. Also he is involved in a joint real estate venture with his law partners. These would be resolved by not hearing the matter or by selling or disposing of the business assets and his interest in the real estate venture.

33.     Health is excellent. His last physical exam was in the summer of 1987.

39.     Bar and professional organizations: South Carolina Bar Association, Virginia Bar Association, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, Cherokee County Bar Association.

40.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Cherokee County Mental Retardation Board; Episcopal Church of Incarnation of Gaffney, Service in Vestry 1986-88; Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year (Top 10).

41.     It is his belief that his extensive civil and criminal trial experience will be an asset to him.

42.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Barry S. Morgan, Vice President
C&S Bank of South Carolina
P.O. Box 580, Gaffney, SC 29342

(b) Joe Wallace, Sheriff
125 Baker Boulevard, Gaffney SC 29340

(c) Katie W. Baines, Clerk of Court
P.O. Box 1226, Gaffney, SC 29342

(d) Vernon L. Sanders, II, Mayor
City of Gaffney, P.O. Box 278
Gaffney, SC 29342

(e) Dr. J.W. Sanders, Sr., Minister
Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 44
332 West Meadow Street, Gaffney, SC 29342

(f) Cherokee County Bar Association

Q.     MR. CHAIRMAN, IT MAY BE HELPFUL JUST TO CLEAR UP WITH THE PUBLIC OR REMIND THE MEMBERS THAT THE SUMMARIES OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES AS WELL AS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN PUBLIC SESSION ARE MADE PUBLIC AND PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE. MR. WINTER, DID YOU FIND ANYTHING IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY THAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED OR CLARIFIED?
A.     NO. IT WAS FINE.
Q.     IN CHECKING THE LOCAL RECORDS WE FOUND YOUR DRIVING RECORD TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF YOUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN CHEROKEE COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF GAFFNEY. CHECKING WITH THE SLED AND THE F.B.I. YOUR RECORDS WERE ALSO FOUND TO BE CLEAR. IN CHECKING THE JUDGMENT ROLLS AND ANY LAWSUITS FILED IN CHEROKEE COUNTY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THIS STATE, WE FOUND A 198O ACTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THAT WAS FILED AGAINST YOU, I BELIEVE IN YOUR CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR AT THAT TIME, TO PREVENT A CLOSING OF A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT FOR A.B.C. VIOLATIONS, IS THAT ACCURATE?
A.     THAT IS ACCURATE.
Q.     THAT ACTION WAS DISMISSED BY JUDGE HOUCK?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THERE WERE NO OTHER PROCEEDINGS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU AS A DEFENDANT. FINANCIALLY THE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST YOU SUBMITTED DID NOT PORTRAY ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR HEALTH YOU CITED AS EXCELLENT, WITH YOUR LAST PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OCCURRING IN 1987. EXPERIENCEWISE, AND I MAY HAVE THIS WRONG, YOU WERE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN VIRGINIA IN 1969 AND IN SOUTH CAROLINA IN 1970?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     WHEN YOU WENT WITH THE ARMY IN THEIR JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL CORPS FROM '69 TO '73?
A.     CORRECT.
Q.     AND WHERE YOU PROSECUTED AND DEFENDED SOLDIERS THAT WERE BROUGHT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOU HAVE BEEN A PART-TIME SOLICITOR FOR 14 YEARS BEGINNING IN 1973 THROUGH 1987?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND, OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW IN GAFFNEY, IS THAT ACCURATE?
A.     YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     TRIALWISE YOU CITED THAT YOUR PRACTICE WAS 35 PERCENT CIVIL, 35 PERCENT CRIMINAL AND ABOUT 30 PERCENT FAMILY COURT?
A.     THAT IS ACCURATE.
Q.     AND USUALLY SOLE COUNSEL IN MOST OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS?
A.     ABOUT ALL OF THEM I'M THE ONLY LAWYER.
Q.     THIS IS YOUR FIRST SCREENING FOR ANY TYPE OF JUDICIAL OFFICE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR, IT IS.
Q.     THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY TODAY. WOULD YOU CARE TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION OF CANDIDACY?
A.     I THINK I HAVE HAD AMPLE EXPERIENCE IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS AND CIVIL COURTS TO OCCUPY THIS PARTICULAR JOB. THAT IS IT.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

Q.     WHAT IS THE ATTRACTION OF THE SOUTH?
A.     WELL, I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE I WAS ABOUT 6 YEARS OLD. I GREW UP IN AIKEN AND SO I AM A SOUTH CAROLINIAN EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST SIX YEARS.
Q.     THANK YOU, SIR.

Q.     I SEE THE CASES YOU LIST, THREE OF THEM ARE CRIMINAL CASES THAT YOU WORKED ON THAT YOU FEEL ARE SIGNIFICANT, TWO CIVIL, AND THE TWO APPEALS YOU DESCRIBED AS HANDLING WERE FAMILY COURT APPEALS, SO APPARENTLY YOU HAVE A GENERAL PRACTICE?
A.     YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THE ONLY OTHER MATTER I WOULD INQUIRE ABOUT, ON YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT YOU LIST A SUBSTANTIAL BLOCK OF BANK STOCK. IN THE EVENT THAT THAT BANK SHOULD BE A PARTY TO ANY LAWSUIT, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH RECUSING YOURSELF?
A.     NO, SIR, NONE WHATEVER. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, I HOPE TO SELL THAT IF IT WILL JUST GET UP TO WHERE IT SHOULD BE HERE IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
Q.     I HOPE IT GOES THERE TOO. THANK YOU, SIR.

JAMES CLEVELAND FERGUSON, SR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

1.     James Cleveland Tee Ferguson, Sr.

Home Address:             Business Address:

527 S. Converse St.         197 Harris Pl., P.O. Box 430

Spartanburg, SC 29301     Spartanburg, SC 29304

2.     He was born in Spartanburg, South Carolina on November 3, 1950.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Kay Elizabeth Woodward on July 4, 1980. He is the father of three children: Tara LaTease Meadors, 19 years old, a student at SC State College; James Cleveland Tee, Jr., age 8 and Stinson Woodward, age 5.

5.     Military Service: Was accepted into Navy's flight school program, but chose to attend law school instead.

6.     Attended USC Spartanburg August 1969-December 1969. Left to work to help fulfill obligation to support daughter. Attended Friendship Junior College, November 1970-May 1971, left to transfer to Wofford when accepted there. Attended summer school at night at USC Spartanburg in 1970, for fear that if he stopped school, he wouldn't go back. Received a B.A. degree in Political Science from Wofford College in 1974. (August 1971-May 1974). He received a JD degree from USC Law School in 1978 (1975-1978).

7.     Was participant in charter class of the Governor's Legislative Internship Program in 1977-78. Otherwise the necessity to work to pay his way precluded him from participating in other activities, as there was time only for work and school.

8.     He has continued his legal education by attending CLE seminars and by ordering legal information on different areas of the law and litigation.

12.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
1978-79     On a $14,000 Fellowship, he worked at Greenville Legal Services, primarily dealing with housing litigation, public benefit claims and Family Court work.

1979-now     Private General practice in Spartanburg, primarily dealing with personal injury cases, criminal defense, Family Court litigation, practice in Magistrate's and Recorder's Court and, of late, an increasing amount of Federal Court work, both civil and criminal.

1988-now     He began to build a background in the preparation and trial of cases involving sexual harassment in employment with the goal to become certified as an expert in the trial of these types of cases.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 2 or 3 times per year
State - 2 times per week
Other - (Magistrates) once a week

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil: 55% Criminal: 40% Domestic: 05%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury: 99% Non-Jury: 01%
Sole Counsel except for two occasions.

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Wallace Rice, III, and Ralph Eugene Rice v. Officer Ester Robinson, individually and as a police officer for the County of Union, et al. U.S. District Court Case No: 82-1796-14 and 82-1888-14. This 1982-83 case involved claims of police abuse against authorities from Union County on behalf of two male plaintiffs. It was significant as one of the first cases in South Carolina wherein police were held liable for injuries inflicted during an arrest and later incarceration.

(b) Kipling Staggs, et al vs. Frank Darby, et al. A 1984 case where a brick wall located on school property fell on student and severely injured same. Guardian for minor plaintiff recovered. The case was significant because it occurred during the time that sovereign immunity was traditionally used as a blanket defense.

(c) Louise Ellis vs. Alvin Harris, individually and in his capacity as employee and representative of Spring City Knitting Company, Inc. U. S. District Court Case No: 7: 88-1372-17K. This 1988 case involved claims of sexual harassment in the workplace by a supervisor in which the plaintiff settled handsomely. It is significant in that it was his first case of this type and was in an area of the law where he has sought to become designated as an expert.

(d) Marie Gilliam vs. Cleveland Smith, individually and as a police officer for the Town of Woodruff, S.C. This 1988 case involved claims of police abuse, deprivation of constitutional rights and outrageous conduct as against a police officer by former lover. Plaintiff prevailed on claims of outrageous conduct. It was significant as the first case he argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

(e) State vs. Frankine L. Haney. This 1983 case involved a charge of murder and the State sought the death penalty against the Defendent. The jury returned a verdict of life imprisonment. It was significant as his first capital murder case.

18.     Civil appeals: Practicing alone has not provided him the time needed for research in appellate practice and he has specifically excluded appellate work from his practice.

22.     Public Office: Elected to SC House of Representatives from Spartanburg County in 1982; reelected in 1984,1986, and 1988.

23.     Unsuccessful candidate for the SC House of Representatives in 1980, losing the election by 80 votes.

24.     As an independent student, he worked to support himself during his college and law school years.
In 1969, while attending USC, Spartanburg, he worked part-time as a plumber's helper.

1970 Full time at Union Carbide Company in Simpsonville (also while attending summer school that year).

1970-71 While at Friendship Junior College, receiving some financial aid for playing basketball, he also worked in the gym and drove the athletic bus for further financial assistance.

1971-74 At Wofford he received some financial aid by playing basketball and football, but worked to supplement this income. Jobs included working at the C.C. Woodson Recreational Center; as a campus security guard at night; at Flowers Bakery in Spartanburg and full time at the Trailways Bus Station for 3 years as a shipping clerk and express porter (a job he continued for a short time beyond graduation).

1974-75 Represented Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in Spartanburg selling life, accident and health insurance for about 10 months.

1975-78 In first year of law school he worked at the Law School library circulation desk and clerked for Professor Jon Thames. During his second year he continued work at the library, served as a page in Lt. Governor Brantley Harvey's office, and worked the midnight to eight shift as a campus security guard supervisor and participated in the Legislature Internship Program. In the final year he clerked for a professor, Michael Joye.

He presently holds a management contract as an insurance agency in Florence, under an agreement which began in 1988. This particular agency has ceased to operate.

25.     He is presently seeking to become the sole stockholder in an insurance company. Currently there are no duties as this is a start-up situation.

27.     Potential conflict of interest: He is unaware of any financial arrangement or business relationship which could constitute a conflict of interest. By some turn of events, if such should arise, he would immediately withdraw any personal involvement in the matter at hand.

28.     He was charged with Assault and Battery in 1988 in Richland County. The warrant was later dismissed. In 1989 he was charged with Breach of the Peace in Spartanburg County and signed a like warrant against his accuser. Both warrants were later dismissed. The warrants grew out of a situation in Woodruff, SC wherein he had asked a former client to pay $800 which he had owed Mr. Ferguson for about 8 years.

30.     He defaulted on a school loan for USC Law School. (See below, #31b)

31.     (a) In 1988 Mr. Ferguson was sued by Lawyers Co-operative Publication to collect a debt. The matter was concluded by payment of the amount due.

(b) In 1984, Mr. Ferguson was sued by the University of South Carolina Student Loan Fund for the sum of $2,756.10 for past due loan payments and interest. The matter was dismissed without prejudice by consent order a few weeks after the filing of the complaint.

(c) In 1976 Mr. Ferguson and two other parties were sued by TranSouth Financial Corporation for failure to pay a promissory note and the personal property securing the note was repossessed upon judgment by default.

(d) In 1975 Mr. Ferguson was sued by a party who guaranteed a promissory note of Mr. Ferguson's to the Colonial-American National Bank of Roanoke. When Mr. Ferguson defaulted, the party had to pay $324 principal and one year's interest. He sued Mr. Ferguson to recover. The matter was settled and the action was dismissed.

(e) Judgment of Wofford College against Mr. Ferguson was recorded in August 4, 1976 in the amount of $3,679.52 and interest, satisfied in 1985.

(f) Foreclosure action in 1978 by First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Greenville against Mr. Ferguson, resulting in default judgment and sale of real property for deficiency.

33.     Health is excellent except for a back problem. His last physical exam was in January of 1989.

34.     In January, 1989, he had a ruptured disc removed from his back and was in the hospital again in December of 1989 for a reoccurrance of his back problem. Presently his back seems fine.

39.     Bar and professional organizations: South Carolina Bar Association, Spartanburg Bar Association.

40.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Omega Psi Phi Fraternity; Uptown Optimist Club, Spartan Star Lodge No. 108; Bee Street Sympathy Club; Trustee Board Cornerstone Baptist Church; founder of the Project Free Enterprise Program for Disadvantaged Children in Spartanburg County.

41.     It is his belief that anyone who has had dealings with him would say he is fair-minded, regardless of their personal feelings. In his opinion, fair-mindedness is the number one prerequisite for a judge.

42.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Andrew M. Crane, Executive Vice President

C&S National Bank, P.O. Box 1052
Spartanburg, SC 29304

(b) Joab M. Lesesne, Jr., President

Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC 29303-3840

(c) I. S. Leevy Johnson, Esquire
P. O. Box 1431, Columbia, SC 29202

(d) Joseph M. Grant, Executive Director

South Carolina Education Association

421 Zimalcrest Dr., Columbia, SC 29210

(e) Charles J. Hodge, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 8249, Spartanburg, SC
29305-8249

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: OUR NEW RULES SAY WE WILL GO THROUGH THE APPLICATION AND THEN WE WILL HEAR ANY WITNESSES WHO ARE HERE IN OPPOSITION, AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK.

MR. FERGUSON: THANK YOU.

Q.     MR. FERGUSON, DID YOU FIND ANYTHING ON YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED OR ELABORATED UPON?
A.     THERE IS ONE CHANGE. IT INDICATED THAT I HAD PLAYED BASKETBALL AND FOOTBALL AT WOFFORD. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS AT THAT POINT I WAS A STUDENT THERE, THE TUITION WAS APPROXIMATELY $4,000 A YEAR, THEY OFFERED $2,500 PER SPORT, WHICH WASN'T ENOUGH. SO ALTHOUGH I MADE BOTH TEAMS THROUGH TRYOUTS, I DID PLAY ON THE BASKETBALL TEAM BRIEFLY, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT OF AN OVERSTATEMENT TO SAY I PLAYED.
Q.     IN CHECKING THE LOCAL AND STATE RECORDS WE FOUND YOUR DRIVING RECORD TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS IN THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND SPARTANBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. ALSO IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND WITH THE F.B.I., RECORDS IN YOUR NAME WERE NEGATIVE. IN CHECKING THE JUDGMENTS AND LAWSUITS AND RECORDS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND WITH THE FEDERAL COURT THERE WERE A FEW ENTRIES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER.
A.     OKAY.
Q.     PLEASE CLARIFY ANYTHING IF WE MAKE ANY INCORRECT STATEMENTS. IN 1989 YOU LISTED THAT YOU WERE CHARGED WITH BREACH OF PEACE IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND YOU SIGNED A LIKE WARRANT OUT AGAINST YOUR ACCUSER AND THEY WERE BOTH LATER DISMISSED, IS THAT ACCURATE?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THAT WAS ON JANUARY--THE DISMISSAL CAME ON JANUARY 5TH OF THIS YEAR?
A.     TO BE FRANK WITH YOU, I AM NOT EXACT AS TO THE DATES. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT THAT TIME.
Q.     IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE IF YOU WOULD GIVE US A STATEMENT AS TO WHAT OCCURRED. I KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME WITNESSES THAT ARE HERE TODAY THAT MAY WANT TO TESTIFY IN REGARD TO THAT, BUT BY OUR RULES WE WILL GO THROUGH YOUR ENTIRE SUMMARY BEFORE ANY WITNESSES TESTIFY, BUT SINCE IT'S IN YOUR APPLICATION, WE WILL COVER THAT NOW. IF YOU COULD GIVE US A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED, AND THEN YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING.
A.     AS TO THAT INCIDENT, I WAS TAKING--SEATED TO MY RIGHT HERE IS MY DAUGHTER, BORN BEFORE I WAS MARRIED. HER NAME IS TARA MEADOWS. SHE IS A SECOND YEAR STUDENT AT S.C. STATE COLLEGE IN ORANGEBURG. SHE LIVES IN NEW YORK OR DID LIVE IN NEW YORK WITH HER MOTHER. HER MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER LIVES IN WOODRUFF, SOUTH CAROLINA, WHICH IS WHERE I HAIL FROM. SHE HAD BEEN VISITING AND I LEFT SPARTANBURG TO GO TO WOODRUFF TO PICK HER UP TO TAKE HER BACK TO ORANGEBURG, AND THEREAFTER I WAS SCHEDULED TO ATTEND A 1O O'CLOCK MEETING HERE IN COLUMBIA, POLITICAL MEETING, WHICH I DID ATTEND. I WENT TO WOODRUFF THAT MORNING, PICKED HER UP. WE STARTED THROUGH THE TOWN OF WOODRUFF. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT WE HAD FORGOTTEN SOMETHING. WE WENT BACK AND GOT WHATEVER IT WAS, SOME ARTICLE OF CLOTHING, THAT WE HAD FORGOTTEN BELONGING TO HER. WE LEFT A SECOND TIME AND STOPPED RIGHT BELOW WOODRUFF FOR ME TO GET SOME FUEL, AND WHEN I PULLED UP, I GAVE MY DAUGHTER THE MONEY TO GO IN AND PAY THE ATTENDANT FOR THE FUEL. AS I GOT OUT OF MY CAR, I TURNED TO MY EXTREME LEFT GOING TO THE BACK OF IT AND I NOTICED A GENTLEMAN LEANING ON A TRUCK, PICKUP TRUCK, AT ONE OF THE OTHER FUEL ISLANDS, AND I KEPT WALKING, BUT I LOOKED AND IT WAS A MAN BY THE NAME OF PAUL EARL JETER. AS I SAID, I AM FROM WOODRUFF AND I KNOW HIM PERSONALLY. HE MADE SOME STATEMENT AND WAS LAUGHING. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DON'T RECALL WHAT HE SAID, BUT MY WORDS WERE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT "YOU OUGHT TO SETTLE THIS LONGSTANDING DEBT." I REPRESENTED THE MAN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO PROBABLY, ON A GRAND LARCENY CHARGE. HE WAS CAUGHT AFTER HAVING STOLEN AT LEAST ONE, POSSIBLY MORE, SOME COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FROM A COMPANY BY THE NAME OF MONSANTO. I REPRESENTED HIM. THE AGREED UPON FEE WAS $800. I GOT HIM PROBATION. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE HAD NOT PAID ME IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO TRIAL, ETHICALLY I AM BOUND, AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE I AM SURE, TO REPRESENT HIM AND TO DO IT ZEALOUSLY. I THOUGHT WE WORKED OUT A REAL GOOD PLEA ARRANGEMENT FOR HIM AND HE WAS GIVEN PROBATION, AND TO MY RECOLLECTION NO FINE. THE COMPANY'S REPRESENTATIVE WAS THERE, AND, AS I RECALL, SPOKE AGAINST THIS RECOMMENDATION, SO I FELT RATHER PROUD OF IT. HE NEVER PAID ME ANY MONEY, SO THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT AFTER HE MADE HIS INITIAL COMMENT, AND I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS. I WAS MORE LOOKING AT THE SMILING PART. AND I SAID, "WHAT YOU OUGHT TO DO IS SETTLE YOUR ACCOUNT WITH ME," AND HE MADE SOME STATEMENT AS I WAS GOING TO THE BACK OF THE CAR, "WE CAN SETTLE IT NOW." ABOUT THIS TIME I WAS TAKING THE NOZZLE DOWN FROM THE TANK TO PUT IT IN THE REAR OF MY CAR. IT'S FUELED FROM THE VERY BACK. AND I SAID, "PAUL EARL"--I KNOW HIM--I SAID, "PAUL EARL, I HAVE HELPED STOP GUYS FROM ATTACKING YOU. I WOULDN'T GET ANY CREDIT FOR FIGHTING YOU," AND I CONTINUED TO PUMP THE FUEL. MY DAUGHTER ABOUT THIS TIME WAS COMING BACK FROM THE STORE PAYING FOR THE FUEL AND SHE HEARD THE GENTLEMAN SAY SOMETHING, "MY LAWYERS TOLD ME I DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY YOU," AND AT THAT POINT I SAID TO HIM, "WELL, IT'S JUST SAD THAT YOU COME TO ME LEANING ON THE RACE SO TO SPEAK, BROTHER, BROTHER, BROTHER. YOU STOOD IN MY OFFICE AND YOU SHED TEARS AS A GROWN MAN AND BEGGED ME TO REPRESENT YOU AND I ACQUIESCED AND YOU GAVE ME YOUR WORD TO PAY ME, AND NOW YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO AND YOU LAUGH IN MY FACE ABOUT IT." I SAID, "YOU ARE JUST A DAMN NO ACCOUNT," SOMETHING WORDS TO THAT EFFECT, AND HE WAS SCREAMING AT ME, AND THEN ANOTHER PERSON CAME FROM THE STORE, GOT IN THE TRUCK, THEY PULLED OFF. I OVERRAN THE GAS. I GOT SOME ON MY HANDS. MY DAUGHTER AND I WENT BACK TO HER GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE IN WOODRUFF. I WASHED MY HANDS AND WE THEN GOT INTO THE CAR AND WENT ON TO ORANGEBURG AND I MADE MY 1O O'CLOCK MEETING HERE IN COLUMBIA.
Q.     HOW MUCH WAS THE DEBT FOR THE LEGAL FEES?
A.     $800.
Q.     DID HE PAY YOU ANY OF THAT AMOUNT?
A.     NOT A DIME.
Q.     HAS HE EVER PAID YOU THAT AMOUNT?
A.     NOT ONE DIME.
Q.     HOW LONG AFTER THAT SITUATION DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT A WARRANT HAD BEEN SWORN OUT?
A.     IT WAS--I AM NOT EXACT ON THIS--BUT SEEMINGLY TEN DAYS TO TWO WEEKS LATER. I AM NOT SURE ON THE DATES, I WILL ADMIT. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A WEEK LATER. I REMEMBER BEING VERY SURPRISED. I GOT A CALL FROM A SHERIFF'S DEPUTY ONE DAY. I WAS IN MY OFFICE. I THINK IT WAS NEAR 4 OR 5 O'CLOCK, AND HE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT--HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF OVER THE PHONE--AND HE SAID, "TEE, WE HAVE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST," AND I STARTED LAUGHING. I SAID, "SURE." HE SAID, "I AM SERIOUS."I SAID, "A WARRANT FOR WHAT?" AND HE SAID, "BREACH OF THE PEACE."I SAID, "I HAVEN'T BREACHED ANY PEACE. "HE SAID, "I HAVE GOT IT." I SAID, "WHO SIGNED IT?" HE SAID, "W. D. HARRISON FROM DOWN AT WOODRUFF." AT THAT POINT I SAID, "LOOK, THERE IS SOME SORT OF A MISTAKE I AM SURE." I SAID, "WOULD YOU HOLD THE WARRANT AND LET ME GET BACK WITH YOU?" WHICH THEY OFTEN DO IF THEY KNOW YOU AND THEY WILL TELL YOU TO COME IN. HE SAID, "SURE, JUST LET ME KNOW." SO I HUNG THE PHONE UP, CALLED MR. HARRISON AND I JUST RELATED TO MR. HARRISON THAT I HAD TALKED WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTY AND SAID, "THEY TELL ME YOU SIGNED A WARRANT." I SAID, "I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO ANYBODY." IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT HE TOLD ME THAT PAUL EARL JETER HAD SIGNED A WARRANT AGAINST ME FOR BREACH OF THE PEACE, AND HE AND I HAD SOMEWHAT OF A BACK AND FORTH. I SAID, "ALL I DID WAS MENTION A DEBT TO HIM. EVERYBODY, EVERY BILL COLLECTOR IN THE COUNTY WOULD BE IN JAIL IF THIS WAS VIOLATING THE LAW. I NEVER MADE ANY FORWARD MOTION. I WAS NEVER AGGRESSIVE WITH HIM." I SAID, "IN FACT, HE WAS THE ONE WHO OFFERED TO ATTACK ME." I INDICATED TO THE JUDGE THAT I HAD HAD BACK SURGERY AND REALLY CAN'T PLAY PICKUP BALL OR LIFT ANYTHING HEAVY. I SAID, "I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THE MAN." SO THE JUDGE THEN TOLD ME THAT HE HAD THESE STATEMENTS FROM THE TWO GUYS THAT WERE WITH HIM. I SAID, AND I DON'T MEAN TO DISPARAGE ANYBODY BECAUSE I KNOW ALL THREE OF THEM, I SAID, "THESE GUYS ARE DRUNKS," AND HIS WORDS TO ME WERE "WELL, I KNOW IT," AND I SAID, "YOU WOULD SIGN A WARRANT ON ME JUST BASED ON THAT? I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO THEM," AND I THEN INDICATED TO THE MAGISTRATE THAT I FELT LIKE I HAD MORE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT, AND MY DAUGHTER WAS THERE, SO I ENDED UP SIGNING A WARRANT AGAINST JETER. THE JUDGE DIDN'T WANT TO LET ME SIGN IT.
Q.     WAS THIS THE SAME JUDGE THAT HAD ISSUED THE WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT. HE SAID THAT HE HAD TO LEAVE HIS OFFICE AND I SAID THAT I COULD BE THERE IN 10 MINUTES. HE SAID HE HAD TO GO AND I SAID, "I WANT TO GO AHEAD FORWARD WITH THIS THING," AND THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT THE DISSUADING PART. I LATER WENT DOWN, SIGNED THE WARRANT, AND A DAY OR SO LATER MY AUNT, WHO LIVES IN WOODRUFF, MY NATURAL MOTHER--I AM ADOPTED BY MY MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS--MY NATURAL MOTHER IS DECEASED. THEIR ONLY BROTHER IS DECEASED, SO THE ONLY SURVIVING PERSON IS MY AUNT ON MY MOTHER'S SIDE AND SHE SORT OF BECAME THE MATRIARCH OF MY SISTERS AND BROTHERS, AND BY THIS TIME IT WOULD HAVE APPEARED IN THE PAPER AND SHE WAS BROWBEATING ME WANTING TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, AND I TOLD HER AS BEST. I SAID, "YOU CAN TALK WITH TARA." SHE SAID, "WELL, I WANT TO GET THIS THING BEHIND YOU," AND SHE CALLED ME A DAY OR SO LATER WITH JETER'S PHONE NUMBER AND SAID THAT SHE HAD TALKED WITH HIM AND SHE SAID, "TEE, YOU NEED TO GO DOWN AND DROP THIS WARRANT AGAINST HIM AND HE NEEDS TO DROP THIS WARRANT AGAINST YOU AND YOU ALL NEED TO BEHAVE LIKE GROWNUPS." I SAID, "FINE," AND THIS WOULD HAVE PROBABLY BEEN A FRIDAY BECAUSE THAT FOLLOWING MONDAY WOULD HAVE BEEN LABOR DAY, AND FOR THAT REASON WE DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO DROP THE WARRANTS ON THAT MONDAY. SO MY AUNT TOLD ME TO BE AT WOODRUFF ON MAIN STREET TO MEET PAUL EARL JETER AT 9 A.M., AND I WAS THERE THAT MORNING AND HE NEVER SHOWED. I NEVER SAW HIM. SO, ABOUT 9:30 I CALLED THE RECORDER'S OFFICE AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH HIM AND ASKED HIM IF JETER WAS THERE, AND HE NEVER DID ANSWER THAT QUESTION. HE BECAME UPSET WITH ME AND ASKED ME WHY WASN'T I IN JAIL. I SAID, "WELL, I REALLY CALLED BECAUSE I AM GOING TO DROP THE WARRANT AGAINST JETER AND I AM TOLD THAT JETER WANTS TO DROP THE WARRANT AGAINST ME," AND THE RECORDER SAID, "HE IS NOT GOING TO DROP ANY WARRANT AGAINST YOU." I SAID, "WELL, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS REALLY NOT UP TO YOU. I THINK THAT IS A RIGHT WE HAVE," AND HE AND I TALKED SOME MORE. HE KEPT ASKING ME WHY WASN'T I IN JAIL OR WHY HADN'T I BEEN SERVED WITH A WARRANT, AND I SAID, "I DON'T KNOW." HE THREATENED TO SIGN ANOTHER WARRANT AGAINST ME FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND I SAID, "WELL, I DON'T FEEL THAT WILL BE PROPER BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER HAD A WARRANT AGAINST ME IN MY POSSESSION AND I AM NOT CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SERVING IT ON MYSELF," AND HE GOT QUIET AND NEVER REALLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION WHETHER JETER WAS THERE OR NOT. I SORT OF GATHERED THAT HE WASN'T. THE CONVERSATION ENDED AND I LEFT AND WENT BACK TO SPARTANBURG.
Q.     BOTH WARRANTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     BY THE REQUEST OF YOU AND MR. JETER?
A.     I AGAIN TALKED WITH JETER. WE WENT DOWN TO THE RECORDER'S CITY HALL THERE IN WOODRUFF, HAD TO WAIT A FEW MINUTES, WERE LED INTO AN OFFICE AND THE RECORDER CAME IN. HE SAT DOWN AND STARTED TELLING ME, WAVING HIS FINGER IN MY FACE, HE SAID, "YOU ARE GOING TO ISSUE ME A PUBLIC APOLOGY FOR WHAT YOU SAID," AND I SAT THERE A FEW SECONDS AND LOOKED AT HIM, AND I SAID, "WELL, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T FEEL THAT I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT YOU THAT WASN'T TRUE." HE SORT OF CHANGED COLORS. I COULD SEE IT, AND HE STARTED DOING IT AGAIN AND I STOOD UP AND I SAID, "I AM GOING TO LEAVE." HE SAID, "YOU ARE IN MY COURT NOW." I SAID, "YOUR HONOR, I CAME IN HERE NOT CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME FOR WHICH I CAN BE RETAINED AND I FEEL LIKE I AM A FREE MAN AND I WANT TO LEAVE THE SAME WAY." AT THAT POINT HE SAID, "GO AHEAD AND SIT DOWN AND WE WILL WORK IT THROUGH." HE TOLD JETER, HE SAID, "NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF TEE HADN'T GOTTEN ON HIS HIGH HORSE AND WENT RUNNING SOMEPLACE." SO I SAT THERE AND LISTENED AND HE LATER SIGNED THE WARRANTS OFF. HE ASKED JETER ABOUT FOUR TIMES IF THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED TO DO AND JETER SAID, "YES." AS JETER AND I WERE LEAVING THE BUILDING, JETER SAID TO ME, "I DIDN'T KNOW ALL THAT WAS GOING ON," AND I SAID, "YES, THERE HAS BEEN A WHATEVER FOR SOMETIME," AND I TOLD HIM ABOUT A SITUATION SOME YEARS AGO WHEN I HAD HAD IN FRONT OF JUDGE PAUL MOORE, DECEASED, RECORDER RULED FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ORDERED TO ISSUE A WARRANT I BELIEVE AGAINST SOME PERSON. I DON'T EVEN RECALL WHO IT WAS, SEX OR RACE, BUT THAT IS PRETTY MUCH ALL I KNOW ABOUT IT.
Q.     LIKE I SAID, LATER ON WE CAN HAVE THE WITNESSES TESTIFY AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO REPLY TO ANYTHING THEY SAY AT THAT TIME. THERE WAS ALSO A WARRANT SWORN OUT FOR YOUR ARREST I BELIEVE YOU LISTED IN 1988 IN RICHLAND COUNTY?
A.     YES.
Q.     THAT WARRANT WAS ALSO LATER DISMISSED. COULD YOU GIVE US AN EXPLANATION OF THAT INCIDENT?
A.     WELL, THAT WAS ROOTED MORE IN POLITICS I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY. WE ALL HAVE OUR OPINIONS I SUPPOSE AND I FELT THAT SOME THINGS, UNWITTINGLY OR OTHERWISE, WERE OCCURRING WITHIN A CERTAIN POLITICAL BACKDROP WHICH WAS CAUSING ME DETRIMENT AND WERE FINDING THEIR WAYS INTO MY HOUSE DISTRICT AND I, FOR WHATEVER REASON, CAME TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS BEING BROUGHT ABOUT AS A RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PEOPLE. AND, I WAS TALKING WITH DALTON TRESVANT ABOUT IT AND HE AND I--THE CONVERSATION BECAME HEATED AND I WAS HOLDING A DOCUMENT IN ONE HAND THAT I WAS REFERRING TO AND IN LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE HIT HIM RIGHT HERE, AND MY HAND PROBABLY REFLECTED OFF HIS BODY AND STRUCK HIM IN THE SIDE OF THE FACE, AT WHICH POINT HE LEFT THE ROOM AND I LEFT--I WAS ATTENDING A C.L.E. SEMINAR THAT DAY AT THE LAW SCHOOL. I LATER WENT BACK TO SPARTANBURG AND STARTED RECEIVING PHONE CALLS FROM REPORTERS INDICATING THAT A WARRANT HAD BEEN ISSUED. I TALKED WITH DALTON LATER ON AND I THINK HE CAME TO REALIZE THAT I DID NOT INTENTIONALLY HIT HIM IN THE FACE. I WAS JUST AS A GESTURE TRYING TO SHOW HIM BY HITTING WITH THE BACK OF MY HAND ON HIS BODY ABOUT RIGHT HERE, AND I HAVE TALKED WITH HIM SINCE. WE WERE FRIENDS BEFORE THAT HAPPENED AND WE ARE FRIENDS NOW, AND HE HAS INDICATED A TOTAL WILLINGNESS TO COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
Q.     WHERE DID THIS OCCUR?
A.     IT WOULD HAVE PROBABLY BEEN ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THIS VERY BUILDING.
Q.     AND WHAT WAS MR. TRESVANT'S POSITION AT THAT TIME?
A.     WOULD YOU EXPAND ON YOUR QUESTION?
Q.     ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION OR POLITICAL POSITION?
A.     HE WAS HIRED THROUGH SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE AS AN INTERN COORDINATOR, AND PURSUANT TO THOSE DUTIES HE WOULD HAVE TO INTERACT A GREAT DEAL WITH THE BLACK CAUCUS.
Q.     WERE THERE ANY ABUSIVE WORDS EXCHANGED BETWEEN YOU TWO?
A.     NOT THAT I RECALL. THE HEATED CONVERSATION HAD TO DO, AS BEST AS I RECALL, WITH WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN CAUCUS WRITTEN MATERIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC SO TO SPEAK. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM I WAS TRYING TO INDICATE TO HIM, THAT I FELT TO MAKE THE PUBLIC PRIVY TO ALL OUR CONVERSATIONS AS CAUCUS MEMBERS COULD---
Q.     YOU ARE SPEAKING OF LIKE MEMOS BETWEEN YOU OR MINUTES FROM MEETINGS?
A.     EXACTLY, MINUTES OF MEETINGS. THERE HAD BEEN A MEETING AT SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE AND AS PART OF THAT MEETING THERE WAS A PRESENTATION MADE ON AIDS AND I WAS THERE, AND STILL SERVE, ON A HEALTH AND HUMAN OVERSIGHT AND I HAD MADE A COMMENT TO A YOUNG LADY FROM D.S.S.-- SHE ADMITTED THAT THE MATERIAL SHE HAD BROUGHT TO THE HEARING WAS GEARED FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN, SECOND GRADERS, AND I SAID TO HER THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE WERE ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS, I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT UNFORTUNATE THAT--AND AGAIN THE BACK DROP WOULD BE THAT AIDS IN MY ESTIMATION AT THAT TIME, PROBABLY STILL, WAS HAVING A MUCH MORE DEVASTATING IMPACT ON BLACK PEOPLE THAN THE PRESS WAS BRINGING OUT, AND I WAS INDICATING TO HER I FELT IT WAS PART OF DHEC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SOUND THE ALARM THAT WE ARE FACING THIS AIDS EPIDEMIC, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS REALLY WREAKING HAVOC WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY, AND BY HAVING SAID THAT IT WAS INTERPRETED IN A MEMO THAT I HAD BEEN RUDE WITH THE YOUNG LADY, AND I WAS TRYING TO INDICATE TO HIM THAT I HAD NOT BEEN RUDE WITH HER. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HER. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD SEEN HER, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN HER SINCE, AND THIS RUDE, WHATEVER, LIKE SO MUCH OTHER CAUCUS MATERIAL, COULD HAVE FOUND ITS WAY OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF THE CAUCUS MEMBERS.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE CHARGE IN THE WARRANT THAT WAS SERVED?
A.     I BELIEVE IT WAS ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
Q.     HOW FAR ALONG IN THE PROCESS HAD THE ACTION GONE BEFORE IT WAS DISMISSED? DID IT REACH A PRELIMINARY HEARING?
A.     OH, NO. IT WAS SIMPLE ASSAULT AND BATTERY ANYWAY SO AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER IT WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO A PRELIMINARY HEARING. IT SIMPLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A TRIAL IN FRONT OF A MAGISTRATE OR RECORDER. IT SEEMS LIKE WITH ALL THE HOOPLA AND FUROR, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT WAS LONGER THAN IT PROBABLY WAS. I WOULD TEND TO THINK, I WOULD SAY TEN DAYS TO TWO WEEKS. I COULD VERY WELL BE WRONG. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC DATES.I JUST DON'T KNOW.
Q.     DID MR. TRESVANT REQUIRE ANY MEDICAL ATTENTION?
A.     NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. IT'S NEVER BEEN MENTIONED TO ME.
Q.     UNLESS THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT, I WILL MOVE ON TO LAWSUITS WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED AS A CIVIL PARTY. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND THE MEMBERS IF I DON'T HAVE THIS IN THE SAME ORDER THAT IS IN THE PACKET.
A.     THAT IS NO PROBLEM.
Q.     IN 1976 YOU WERE SUED WITH TWO OTHER PARTIES BY TRANSOUTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION FOR FAILURE TO PAY ON A PROMISSORY NOTE. I BELIEVE THAT WAS RESOLVED BY REPOSSESSION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AFTER A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT WAS ENTERED, IS THAT ACCURATE?
A.     I HAVE COME TO KNOW ABOUT THIS, ABOUT THAT SITUATION, YES.
Q.     YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF IT AT THE TIME?
A.     I BECAME AWARE OF THAT PROBABLY I WOULD SAY WITHIN THE LAST 10 MONTHS SINCE I HAVE BEEN RUNNING, ACTIVELY RUNNING FOR THIS JUDGESHIP, AND I WILL FURTHER EXPLAIN.
Q.     PLEASE DO.
A.     AS I SAID EARLIER, I AM ADOPTED BY MY DECEASED MOTHER'S PARENTS WHO ARE NOW DECEASED. I HAD SEVEN SISTERS AND BROTHERS. I HAVE SIX SISTERS AND BROTHERS WHO GREW UP IN THE HOUSE WITH MY NATURAL PARENTS. THE SITUATION THAT YOU JUST RAISED INDICATES THAT IN ABOUT MAY OF 1975 THAT I SIGNED A PROMISSORY NOTE ALONG WITH MY NATURAL PARENTS. I HAVE WRITTEN TO THE ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED TRANSOUTH, AND I WILL CERTAINLY OFFER THIS INFORMATION UP. THE INITIAL ATTORNEY, AS I SAW IT, WAS A GENTLEMAN WHO NOW PRACTICES IN FOUNTAIN INN. I CALLED HIM OVER THE PHONE AND ASKED HIM IF HE COULD PROVIDE ME AN ORIGINAL WHEREBY I SIGNED ON THIS NOTE. HE INDICATED HE HAD LEFT THE YOUNCE FIRM, WHICH IS IN GREENVILLE, AND WHICH HE WAS ASSOCIATED AT THE TIME THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT. HE QUESTIONED WHY I WANTED IT. I SAID TO HIM THAT I DID NOT AND STILL DO NOT RECALL SIGNING IT, ALTHOUGH AS A PRACTICAL MATTER I CANNOT SWEAR I DIDN'T, I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. I CONTACTED THE YOUNCE FIRM ASKING THEM IF THEY WOULD PROVIDE ME AN ORIGINAL SHOWING THAT I SIGNED IT. THEY RESPONDED BY LETTER--AND I HAVE THIS ALL TO BE HANDED UP LATER-- THEY RESPONDED INITIALLY THAT THEY ONLY KEEP THEIR RECORDS FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH IS THE PRACTICE IN MOST BUSINESSES. I WROTE BACK TO THEM IN AN EFFORT TO BE A LITTLE MORE STERN INDICATING THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT I HAD BEEN SUED WRONGLY, AND THEM BEING LAWYERS WOULD OBVIOUSLY REALIZE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THAT, AND ASKED THEM AGAIN IF THEY WOULD RESEARCH AND COME UP WITH THIS INFORMATION. THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO. I CANNOT SAY THAT I WOULD NOT OR DID NOT SIGN THIS NOTE FOR MY NATURAL PARENTS. MY NATURAL PARENTS--AND THIS IS BY NO MEANS AN EFFORT TO CONDONE OR SPEAK AWAY ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED--THEY WERE NOT EDUCATED PEOPLE. I AM THE FIRST PERSON IN MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY THAT HAS EVER GRADUATED COLLEGE. A LOT, SORT OF, WAS RIDING ON ME. THEY WERE NOT EDUCATED PEOPLE BY ANY MEANS AND WERE CONTINUOUSLY, I THINK IS A FAIR STATEMENT, WERE CONSTANTLY IN DIRE FINANCIAL STRAITS AND KNEW NOTHING AS TO HOW TO HANDLE MONEY, LIVING FROM CHECK TO CHECK SO TO SPEAK. SO I CANNOT SAY THAT I DID NOT SIGN IT. I DON'T REMEMBER IT. I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL. I ENTERED LAW SCHOOL ABOUT AUGUST OF 1975 HERE IN COLUMBIA AND I GRADUATED IN ABOUT MAY OR JUNE OF 1978.
Q.     SO YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN DOWN HERE IN COLUMBIA DURING THAT TIME PERIOD?
A.     RIGHT. I LIVED AT SEA PINES APARTMENTS FOR APPROXIMATELY A YEAR PRIOR TO COMING TO LAW SCHOOL. MY PARENTS, NATURAL PARENTS, ASSUMING I SIGNED IT, DIDN'T MAKE ME AWARE OF IT, AND THEY WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ME AWARE OF IT. IT'S A HARD THING TO GRASP IF YOU ARE NOT FROM THAT SORT OF MILIEU, IF I MAY, BUT THAT IS JUST SORT OF THE WAY THINGS HAPPENED AS BEST I RECALL.
Q.     IN 1975 THERE WAS AN ACTION FILED AGAINST YOU BY MIKE JOHNSON IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY COURT AND MR. JOHNSON WAS A GUARANTOR ON A PROMISSORY NOTE ON YOUR BEHALF TO COLONIAL AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK IN THE SUM OF $3OO.OO, I BELIEVE, AND THE NOTE HAD BEEN DEFAULTED UPON AND SINCE HE HAD TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS, HE WAS SUING YOU FOR REIMBURSEMENT, IS THAT ACCURATE?
A.     AS I BEST RECALL HE RECRUITED ME TO--RIGHT AFTER COLLEGE HE RECRUITED ME TO WORK WITH SOME INSURANCE COMPANY RIGHT THERE IN GREENVILLE, AND I WENT THROUGH THE INTRODUCTORY PROCESS AND TOOK THE TEST AND IT WAS INDICATED TO ME AT THAT POINT THAT NEW AGENTS COMING ON WOULD TAKE ON A CERTAIN TYPE OF POLICY, SOME SORT OF INSURANCE POLICY, AND I SUPPOSE HE WOULD HAVE THE USUAL INSURANCE SETUP, HE WOULD HAVE REACHED SOME BENEFIT I IMAGINE FROM IT. I LATER DECIDED THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO GO WITH THAT COMPANY AND INDICATED TO HIM THAT I DIDN'T WANT TO GO WITH THE COMPANY, AND I GUESS IT WAS SOMETIME AFTER I LEFT THEIR EMPLOY--I WAS THERE A MONTH AT THE MOST--I WAS THEN SUED FOR THREE HUNDRED AND WHATEVER DOLLARS ON THE POLICY, AND I WENT AHEAD AND PAID HIM AND IT WAS DISMISSED, AND AS FAR AS I KNOW THE POLICY BECAME NULL AND VOID.
Q.     THERE IS AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL INCLUDED WITH THAT MATERIAL WHICH WAS DATED MARCH 17, 1976. IN 1978 THERE WAS A FORECLOSURE ACTION ON A HOUSE AND LOT, I BELIEVE THAT IS IN WOODRUFF?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     BY FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN, AND CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, BUT IT WAS A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE DEFICIENCY?
A.     AS BEST I KNOW, YES.
Q.     DO YOU CARE TO EXPLAIN THAT?
A.     YES. THAT REPRESENTS THE HOME HOUSE WHERE MY NATURAL PARENTS AND AT THAT POINT TWO OF MY BROTHERS AND TWO OF MY SISTERS WERE LIVING. AGAIN, ABOUT MAY OF 1975 ALLEGEDLY I SIGNED AN ASSUMPTION OF THE NOTE, AND I HAVE GOT A LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY, JOSEPH HINES, A MEMBER OF THE SPARTANBURG BAR WHO REPRESENTED FIRST FEDERAL. WELL, AGAIN THIS CAME TO MY KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE, SEE, I BOUGHT HOUSES IN SPARTANBURG AND JUDGMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM, SO IN THE PROCESS OF RUNNING FOR THIS POSITION THIS WAS ANOTHER JUDGMENT THAT CAME OUT. I CALLED JOE HINES AND INDICATED TO HIM THAT I AGAIN DID NOT REMEMBER SIGNING AN ASSUMPTION ON THIS HOUSE. HE PRODUCED FOR ME A COPY OF A DEED WHEREBY MY NATURAL FATHER DEEDED THEIR HOME TO ME, AND AT THAT POINT RENUNCIATION OF DOWER WAS STILL IN EFFECT AND WHERE MY NATURAL MOTHER RENOUNCED DOWER. I RESPONDED TO ATTORNEY HINES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT DEED, I WOULDN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPERTY SIMPLY DEEDED TO ME. I WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE ASSUMED THE MORTGAGE IN SOME WAY, AND I ASKED HIM TO PROVIDE ME WITH AN ORIGINAL, AND I HAVE LETTERS WHERE I WROTE HIM. HE HAS NEVER PROVIDED--SAID IT WASN'T IN HIS FILE--AN ORIGINAL OR COPY THEREOF WHERE I ASSUMED THE MORTGAGE. I CANNOT SAY THAT I WOULD NOT OR DID NOT DO THAT. KNOWING ME, AGAIN WITH MY PARENTS, I MIGHT HAVE DONE THAT. I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. I DO REMEMBER ASKING MY NATURAL FATHER TO STAY IN THE HOUSE UNTIL I HAD HAD TIME TO GRADUATE LAW SCHOOL. YOU SEE, MY NATURAL MOTHER PASSED AWAY JANUARY 2ND, 1978 AND MY NATURAL FATHER SAW FIT TO ABANDON I THINK LIKE A 19 YEAR OLD SISTER OF MINE WITH CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK, AN 18 YEAR OLD BROTHER OF MINE AND ABOUT A 17 YEAR OLD SISTER, WALKED OFF AND LEFT THEM, AND SO I REMEMBER ASKING HIM, PLEADING WITH HIM, IN FACT, TO STAY THERE IN THE HOUSE UNTIL I HAD A CHANCE TO GRADUATE AND THAT I WOULD THEN TAKE OVER WHATEVER RESPONSIBILITY JUST SO THEY WOULD HAVE A PLACE TO STAY. AND HE DIDN'T DO IT; HE JUST LEFT. I DID NOT KNOW THAT THE HOUSE WAS EVER IN MY NAME UNTIL I STARTED RESEARCHING IN REFERENCE TO RUNNING FOR THIS JUDGESHIP. I CANNOT SAY TO YOU AS A FACT THAT I DIDN'T DO IT. I DON'T REMEMBER IT. AS GOD IS MY WITNESS, I DON'T REMEMBER IT, BUT I VERY WELL MAY HAVE.
Q.     DO YOU REMEMBER THE FORECLOSURE OCCURRING?
A.     NOW THAT GETS TO THE POINT OF SERVICE. THERE ARE AFFIDAVITS I BELIEVE IN THE FILE SAYING THAT I WAS SERVED. I KNOW IN ONE INSTANCE THE AFFIDAVIT WAS SERVED ON A YOUNGER SISTER OF MINE AND THEREBY THE COURT SAW THAT AS SUFFICIENT AS EFFECTIVE SERVICE ON ME. AGAIN, THE YEAR PRIOR TO MY GOING TO LAW SCHOOL I WAS LIVING IN SPARTANBURG, AND AT THAT TIME I WAS LIVING IN COLUMBIA. FOR PURPOSES OF PROCEDURE IT DID MEET THE TEST. THERE IS ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH AFFIDAVIT APPLIES TO WHICH ACTION,WHERE A RICHLAND COUNTY OFFICER SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE SAYING HE HAD SERVED ME. I WAS LIVING WITH ATTORNEY CHIP FINNEY OF THE SUMTER BAR AT THAT TIME.I CALLED HIM AND ASKED HIM IF HE EVER REMEMBERED ANYBODY COMING SERVING ANY LEGAL PAPERS AND HE INDICATED THAT HE DIDN'T. I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT, AGAIN, AND I AM NOT TRYING TO EVADE THIS COMMITTEE, I WAS WORKING AND GOING TO SCHOOL ALMOST SOMETIMES MOST OF THE NIGHT AND GONE ALL DAY. I DON'T REMEMBER. I REALLY DON'T REMEMBER BEING SERVED, BUT AN OFFICER OR POLICE OFFICER SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT, AND AS A GENERAL MATTER I FIND THEM TO BE TRUSTWORTHY AND I DON'T THINK A PERSON WOULD SIGN SOMETHING OF THAT SORT WITHOUT HAVING ACTUALLY SERVED A PERSON.
Q.     MOVING ALONG TO A SUIT THAT WAS FILED IN 1976. YOU WERE SUED BY WOFFORD COLLEGE AND THE JUDGMENT WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,679.52. DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THAT ACTION?
A.     YES, I DO HAVE.
Q.     THAT WAS SATISFIED IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT DEBT?
A.     WELL, I HAD ATTENDED--AS I SAID, WHEN I WENT TO WOFFORD, THE ATHLETIC OFFERS WERE NOT ENOUGH. I WAS A STUDENT AND I PRETTY MUCH HAD BEEN ON MY OWN SINCE I WAS 13, SO BY THEM OFFERING ME $2,500 PER SPORT, IT WOULD STILL HAVE LEFT ME WITH A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR ME TO COME UP WITH IN ORDER TO TAKE EXAMS, SO I COULDN'T, AND I STARTED WORKING AT THE BUS STATION AND WORKED THERE FOR THREE YEARS IN SPARTANBURG. THE N.D.S.L. LOANS ARE SCHEDULED SUCH THAT THEY BECOME DUE AND OWING A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MONTHS AFTER A PERSON GRADUATES AN UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE, AND IF YOU GO ON TO GRADUATE SCHOOL, YOU HAVE TO, AS IT WAS THEN, I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE REGS ARE NOW, BUT YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR A DEFERMENT I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED. I WAS OUT OF SCHOOL A YEAR. I GRADUATED UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL IN 1974, STARTED LAW SCHOOL IN 1975. AT SOME POINT, EITHER 1976 OR 1977, MY NATURAL MOTHER MADE ME AWARE THAT AN ATTORNEY BY THE NAME OF LEO DRYER HAD EITHER SENT SOME PAPERS TO THE HOUSE THERE IN WOODRUFF OR HAD CONTACTED THEM ABOUT MONEY OWED WOFFORD. I WENT TO MR. DRYER'S OFFICE, WHICH AT THAT TIME AND STILL IT MAY VERY WELL BE, WAS ON SUMTER STREET HERE IN SPARTANBURG. I WENT TO HIS OFFICE AND TOLD HIM THAT, "LOOK, I AM A FULL-TIME LAW STUDENT AND I SHOULD QUALIFY FOR A DEFERMENT." HE INSTRUCTED ME BY SAYING, "I AM JUST THE LAWYER AND ALL I CAN DO IS DO WHAT THE SCHOOL SAYS." HE INSTRUCTED ME AS TO HOW TO GO ABOUT GETTING THE DEFERMENT. I WENT TO THE PEOPLE AT THE LAW SCHOOL AND GOT INFORMATION INDICATING THAT I WAS A FULL-TIME STUDENT AND SO FORTH. AT THAT POINT I HAD AN OLD CHEVROLET CAR THAT I DROVE BACK TO SPARTANBURG AND GAVE TO A GENTLEMAN THERE AT WOFFORD COLLEGE BY THE NAME OF HAROLD SMITHERMAN, WHO IS NOW DECEASED. HE WAS THE TREASURER OR COMPTROLLER, I AM NOT SURE WHICH TITLE APPLIED, BUT I GAVE THIS TO HIM AGAIN AS EVIDENCE THAT I WAS DESERVING OF A DEFERMENT. AS BEST I RECALL HE WANTED MORE INFORMATION, BECAUSE I REMEMBER GOING BACK TO THE PEOPLE AT THE LAW SCHOOL A SECOND TIME FOR MORE INFORMATION TO PROVE THAT I WAS A FULL-TIME STUDENT, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME PERIOD OF TIME IN BETWEEN, BECAUSE AT THAT POINT THE CAR I INITIALLY HAD DRIVEN WAS NO LONGER RUNNING. I HAD TO BORROW A CAR TO DRIVE TO SPARTANBURG, WHICH I DID, AND GAVE MR. SMITHERMAN THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HE REQUESTED. I LEFT WITH ATTORNEY DRYER, THE GENTLEMAN REPRESENTING THE WOFFORD COLLEGE, MY ADDRESS HERE IN COLUMBIA, MY PHONE NUMBER, HOW TO CONTACT ME. I DIDN'T HEAR ANY MORE FROM HIM, AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL SOME YEARS LATER THAT APPARENTLY HE WENT FORWARD AND GOT A JUDGMENT AGAINST ME. I PAID THAT MONEY OFF, PAID WOFFORD OFF MYSELF.
Q.     THAT WAS IN 1985, DID YOU PAY THAT OFF IN INSTALLMENTS OR A LUMP SUM IF YOU RECALL?
A.     I HONESTLY DON'T REMEMBER. I TEND TO THINK THAT--I JUST DON'T REMEMBER. I CAN THINK OF REASONS WHY I MIGHT HAVE DONE IT EITHER WAY, I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q.     WERE YOU UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU HAD GOTTEN THE DEFERMENT?
A.     SINCE I DIDN'T HEAR FROM ATTORNEY DRYER ANY MORE, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT I HAD GOTTEN IT.
Q.     THAT IS WHY IT TOOK NINE YEARS TO SATISFY IT?
A.     YES, BECAUSE, SEE, I DID NOT EVEN--I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE JUDGMENT. I WOULD HAVE--I WAS MADE AWARE OF THE JUDGMENT THROUGH SOME WAY THAT YOU WOULDN'T ORDINARILY. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WASN'T LIKE I WAS SEARCHING A TITLE ON ME OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. I BOUGHT A HOUSE IN SPARTANBURG IN MARCH--I BOUGHT A HOUSE IN MARCH OF 1979 THAT MY YOUNGER SISTERS AND BROTHERS, WE ALL MOVED IN THE HOUSE TOGETHER. WELL, AT THAT POINT--AND THAT JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON RECORD THEN, BUT IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT OUT AND WAS NOT A PROBLEM, AND THERE WERE OTHER THINGS--I HAVE DONE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT A JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE PROVEN AS AN IMPEDIMENT AND IT STILL NEVER CAME OUT.
Q.     IN 1984 THERE IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA STUDENT LOAN FUND AGAINST YOU FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENTS ON YOUR STUDENT LOAN. I ASSUME THAT IS FOR LAW SCHOOL?
A.     RIGHT.
Q.     AND THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOUR WEEKS AFTER IT WAS FILED, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     IF THAT LONG, BUT THAT TO ME WAS A CASE OF FOOT DRAGGING ON MY PART. BY WAY OF HISTORY ON IT, I WAS PAYING PRETTY MUCH ANYTIME I WOULD GET A CALL ON IT, AND WHEN I ULTIMATELY PAID IT OFF, I DIDN'T GET ANY CREDIT NOR DID I DEMAND ANY FOR THE PAYMENTS WHICH I AM SURE WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO ABOUT $2OOO THAT I HAD MADE PRIOR. I SIMPLY PAID OFF THE ORIGINAL AMOUNTS, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INFORM THE COMMITTEE OR GIVE REASONS WHY THE FOOT DRAGGING OCCURRED. I HAD TO DECIDE BETWEEN TRYING TO APPLY MONEY TO MY YOUNGER BROTHER, WHOM I AS A PRACTICAL MATTER PAID HIS WAY THROUGH COLLEGE, THERE WAS NOBODY ELSE FOR HIM TO GO TO, AND I DID WANT HIM TO GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION. WE DROVE HIM UP TO HAMPTON UNIVERSITY IN VIRGINIA AND JUST PUT HIM OUT OF THE CAR AND LEFT HIM, AND I HAD TO PAY MONIES, AND I GAVE HIM SOME OF MY OLD CLOTHES, WHATEVER, AND HE WORE THOSE, AND I GAVE HIM MONEY, THAT WHICH I COULD, TRIED TO HELP PAY HIS BILLS, AND HE FINALLY GOT THROUGH SCHOOL AND WENT THROUGH THE NAVY AND IS NOW DOING REAL WELL IN VIRGINIA. I HAD A YOUNGER SISTER WHO SPENT TWO OR THREE YEARS IN COLLEGE AND I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRYING TO HELP PAY THAT AS WELL. SO WHAT I ENDED UP DOING WAS TRYING TO DECIDE WHICH WAS OF THE HIGHER PRIORITY AT THE TIME. I FELT LIKE I COULD GET SOME TIME ON MY LOANS AND APPLY THE MONEY TO THEM, AND EVERYTHING SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GOING WELL, AND ONE MORNING I WAS TALKING TO ANOTHER LAWYER ON THE PHONE THERE IN SPARTANBURG AND HE ADVISED ME THAT THE HEADLINES INDICATED I HAD BEEN SUED. I WAS NEVER SERVED WITH ANY PAPERS. I JUST HEARD THAT I HAD BEEN SUED AND GOT ON THE PHONE AND FOUND OUT ABOUT IT AND JUST PAID IT OFF, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN ONE LUMP SUM.
Q.     ONE LUMP SUM YOU PAID IT OFF?
A.     YES. I WOULD ESTIMATE THAT FROM 1979 TO ABOUT 1985 I PAID OFF $10,000 IN SCHOOL FINANCES, AND ONE THING WHICH CERTAINLY I THINK IS INTERESTING, PURSUANT TO MY TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS READY TO COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE I CHECKED WITH WOFFORD COLLEGE AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO DEBT OUTSTANDING. I CHECKED WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO DEBT OUTSTANDING, AND THEY INDICATED, WHICH I HAVE A LETTER HERE WHICH I WILL OFFER UP TO THE COMMITTEE FROM A MR. PERRIN, THAT THEY SAID I OWED THEM ANOTHER $2OOO FROM LAW SCHOOL, AND THAT THIS WAS A DEBT OF 12 YEARS DURATION. WELL, I GUESS WITHIN THE LAST YEAR, NO, PROBABLY A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, I GOT A BILL FROM CAROLINA SAYING THAT I WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REGISTER FOR CLASSES UNLESS I PAID A DEBT, AND I INDICATED, I WROTE THEM BACK AND I SAID, "I HAVEN'T BEEN A STUDENT THERE SINCE 1978," AND GAVE THEM THE DATE AND SENT THEM COPIES OF THE STAMPED "PAID" EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS, AND DIDN'T HEAR ANY MORE FROM THEM, BUT WHEN I STARTED RESEARCHING TO PREPARE MYSELF TO COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, THEY TOLD ME THAT I OWED ANOTHER $2OOO, AND I PAID THAT $2OOO IN ONE LUMP SUM ALTHOUGH I FELT THERE WAS A MORAL OBLIGATION THERE. LEGALLY I THINK EVEN THEY RECOGNIZED THEY COULDN'T HAVE FORCED ME BECAUSE THE STATUTE IS SIX YEARS, BUT IF I BORROWED THE MONEY, I OBVIOUSLY WANTED TO PAY THEM BACK, AND I DID. I PAID THEM ANOTHER $2O40, AND I WILL OFFER THIS LETTER UP AS WELL WHEREBY THEY RECOGNIZED SOME TYPE OF COMPUTER ERROR.
Q.     THERE WAS ALSO A SUIT FILED IN 1988 BY A LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUBLICATION AGAINST YOU IN THE SUM OF $1414.55, AND I BELIEVE YOU SENT SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO OUR COMMITTEE ABOUT THAT NOTING THAT YOU HAD MADE A PAYMENT BEFORE THAT WAS FILED YOU WERE NOT GIVEN CREDIT FOR AND THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THAT COMPLAINT THE BALANCE WAS PAID, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     SOME BOOKS THERE WERE A TOTAL OF $1400. I HAVE A YOUNG LADY IN MY OFFICE WHO PAYS ALL THE BILLS. I CALLED THE LAWYER FROM CHARLESTON AND ASKED HIM, AND HE SAID I OWED $14OO, AND I SAID, "NO, THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. I AM LOOKING AT A CHECK WHERE I PAID YOU HALF, OR $7OO." HE HAD APPARENTLY SUED ME TAKING THE POSITION THAT I HAD NOT PAID ANYTHING, WHEN, IN FACT, WE HAD PAID $7OO, HALF THE COST. SO I SIMPLY WROTE HIM A CHECK FOR THE FINAL $7OO AND HE ABSORBED THE COST HIMSELF. I NEVER REALLY GOT ANY LONG DRAWN OUT WHATEVER WITH HIM ABOUT IT. I THINK HAD HE KNOWN THAT THE BOOKS WERE HALF PAID FOR, HE WOULDN'T HAVE SUED ME, OR AT LEAST THAT SEEMED TO BE THE NATURE OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING. I SIMPLY SENT HIM THE OTHER $700 AND THAT WAS THAT.
Q.     JUST ONE OTHER LAWSUIT AND THAT WAS FILED IN 1988 BY WILLIAM WALKER AGAINST YOU AND ALBERT SMITH, AND FROM LOOKING AT THE PLEADINGS I HAD A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND YOU PROBABLY DID TOO. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS FILED PRO SE BY A DISGRUNTLED CLIENT WHO IS INCARCERATED, AND IT FIRST CLAIMED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND I THINK THE JUDGE REQUIRED HIM TO CLEAN UP HIS PLEADINGS, AND IT ENDED UP LOOKING SOMETHING LIKE A CLAIM OF MALPRACTICE, IS THAT ACCURATE?
A.     FOR THE MOST PART.
Q.     THAT WENT TO TRIAL AND THE JUDGE DIRECTED A VERDICT IN YOUR FAVOR?
A.     I REPRESENTED THIS GENTLEMAN IN A PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM, AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT, AND WHILE THAT CASE WAS PENDING WE WERE WORKING TOWARD A SETTLEMENT HE WAS CHARGED WITH, I THINK, TWO COUNTS OF KIDNAPPING AND TWO OR THREE COUNTS OF RAPE, AND WANTED ME TO REPRESENT HIM FOR THAT AS WELL, BUT THAT HE HAD NO MONEY. I SAID, "WELL, I WILL BE WILLING TO REPRESENT YOU." I STATED, GAVE HIM A FEE, BUT HE WOULD HAVE TO ASSIGN A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF HIS PROCEEDS, THE RETURN FROM THE SETTLEMENT OF THE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM FOR FEES. HE LATER DECIDED THAT HE DID NOT WANT ME TO REPRESENT HIM AND I GAVE HIM HIS FILE. HE WENT TO ATTORNEY SMITH AND THE CASE WAS RESOLVED IN A MANNER WHICH HE DIDN'T THINK WAS PROPER AND HE LATER SUED BOTH OF US ALLEGING SOME SORT OF COLLUSION OR IGNORANCE ON OUR PARTS, AND IT WENT TO TRIAL, AND I THINK THE RECORD INDICATES IT WAS DISMISSED, OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RATHER--DIRECTED VERDICT RATHER.
Q.     THANK YOU, SIR. IN REVIEWING OTHER INFORMATION SUBMITTED WE RECEIVED YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST WHICH DID NOT INDICATE ANY CONFLICTING INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. WE ALSO RECEIVED YOUR CREDIT REPORT WHICH SEEMED TO BE CLEAR. AS FAR AS YOUR HEALTH IS CONCERNED, YOU NOTED THAT YOU HAD BACK PROBLEMS AND SURGERY LAST YEAR 1989, BUT OTHERWISE, THAT YOUR HEALTH WAS EXCELLENT, AND YOUR LAST EXAM OCCURRING ALSO LAST YEAR?
A.     UH-HUH.
Q.     EXPERIENCEWISE YOU WERE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN 1978, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND FROM '78, '79 YOU PRACTICED WITH GREENVILLE LEGAL SERVICES ON A FELLOWSHIP THAT YOU RECEIVED. SINCE THEN YOU HAVE BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND RECENTLY WITH AN EMPHASIS ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES?
A.     YES.
Q.     YOU NOTED THAT YOUR TRIAL PRACTICE WAS BROKEN DOWN APPROXIMATELY 55 PERCENT CIVIL, 40 PERCENT CRIMINAL AND 5 PERCENT FAMILY LAW. YOU DID NOTE THAT YOU HAD EXCLUDED APPELLATE WORK FROM YOUR PRACTICE SINCE YOU WERE A SOLE PRACTITIONER, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THAT EXCLUSION, RATHER THAN LIMITED RESOURCES?
A.     WELL, MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT APPELLATE PRACTICE REQUIRES MORE TIME, TIME AND RESEARCH. PRACTICING BY MYSELF IN A PART OF THE STATE WHICH I THINK CAN PROVE SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, I HAVE GOT TO, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BE AVAILABLE TO TRY CASES AND OFTENTIMES WOULD NOT HAVE WHAT I FELT WAS AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO DO APPEAL WORK, AND CERTAINLY I DID NOT WANT TO PUT MYSELF IN A POSITION TO BE SCREAMED ON BY A CLIENT FOR HAVING NOT DONE PROPER RESEARCH OR WHATEVER, AND GIVEN THOSE CONSIDERATIONS I SIMPLY FELT THE BETTER THING TO DO WAS TO EXCLUDE ANY APPEAL WORK FROM MY PRACTICE, AND I MAKE THAT KNOWN AND MADE IT KNOWN TO CLIENTS FROM THE OUTSET.
Q.     THIS IS YOUR FIRST SCREENING, IS IT NOT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     YOU HAVE NEVER FILED FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE BEFORE?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     YOU ARE CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HAVE BEEN SINCE 1982?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THE COMMITTEE HAS RECEIVED SOME SWORN STATEMENTS FROM FOUR PERSONS WHO REQUESTED TO TESTIFY. THEY ARE JANICE BYARS LAWRENCE, WILLIAM D. HARRISON, PAUL EARL JETER AND JAMES ARTHUR CHEEK. AT THIS TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE COMMITTEE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER A BREAK TO COME BACK AND HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES AND ALLOW MR. FERGUSON A CHANCE TO REPLY.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: WE WILL ADJOURN UNTIL 2:00 P.M. ANY PROBLEM WITH 2 O'CLOCK WITH THOSE WITNESSES?

MR. GENTRY, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

Q.     WHILE YOU WERE IN LAW SCHOOL WERE YOU WORKING AT THAT TIME WHILE ATTENDING LAW SCHOOL?
A.     YES. THE FIRST YEAR I WORKED AT THE CIRCULATION DESK FOR MRS. GOOLSBY, JUDGE GOOLSBY'S WIFE. I WORKED AT THE CIRCULATION DESK AND I WAS A PAGE IN FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR BRANTLEY HARVEY'S OFFICE, AND THE SECOND YEAR WORKED AT THE CIRCULATION DESK AND I WAS A PAGE IN THE SENATE, SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE, AND I WAS A SECURITY GUARD SUPERVISOR, THESE WERE FOR THE YOUNG PEOPLE WORKING ON WORK STUDY IN THE DORMS, FROM MIDNIGHT UNTIL 8 IN THE MORNINGS. SO I HAD TWO JOBS THE FIRST YEAR AND THREE JOBS LATER. NONE OF THEM PAID A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY.
Q.     I UNDERSTAND. IT PAID SOME OF THE BILLS. MR. FERGUSON, IN REGARD TO YOUR YOUNGER BROTHER AND SISTERS, YOU SAID YOU PAID THEIR WAY THROUGH COLLEGE, BOTH OF THEM?
A.     I PAID HIS WAY. MY YOUNGER SISTER DIDN'T FINISH. SHE WENT ABOUT TWO YEARS, AND I ALSO PAID FOR A RAGGEDY CAR FOR HIM, BUT, YES, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY. I WAS LIKE A FATHER.
Q.     WHEN DID YOUR FATHER DIE?
A.     HE IS NOT DEAD. MY NATURAL FATHER IS NOT. HE LEFT THE KIDS THERE IN 1978, NOT LONG AFTER MY MOTHER, MY NATURAL MOTHER, DIED, AND HE JUST LEFT THEM THERE IN A HOUSE WITH NO FOOD OR ANYTHING, AND THEY LATER MOVED, LEFT WOODRUFF AND MOVED TO SPARTANBURG AND THEY WERE ALL LIVING IN AN APARTMENT. THEY WERE JUST KIDS, REALLY YOUNG PEOPLE, AND THAT IS WHY I MOVED FROM GREENVILLE TO SPARTANBURG IN EARLY JANUARY OF '79 AND BOUGHT A SMALL HOUSE AND THEY ALL MOVED IN WITH ME AND WE STAYED THERE TOGETHER.
Q.     THANK YOU.

Q.     REPRESENTATIVE FERGUSON, THE LOAN TO TRANSOUTH APPEARS IT WAS SECURED BY HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS, WERE THOSE YOUR PARENTS' FURNISHINGS?
A.     YES.
Q.     WAS THE LOAN FOR YOUR PARENTS?
A.     IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN. YES, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN FOR THEM.
Q.     THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS TIME.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THERE BEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL 2 O'CLOCK.

(LUNCH BREAK - 11:50 - 2:00.)

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: I WILL CALL THE COMMITTEE BACK TO ORDER. WE HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD REQUESTED TO BE HEARD. STEVE, DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO HOW WE TAKE THESE?

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THOUGHT WE WOULD GO FORWARD WITH THE FIRST TWO WITNESSES THAT WILL BE TESTIFYING ABOUT THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED THIS PAST YEAR IN 1989, WHICH MR. FERGUSON HAS ALREADY ALLUDED TO IN SOME DETAIL, SINCE THE COMMITTEE IS FAMILIAR WITH THAT SITUATION. THOSE ARE PAUL EARL JETER AND WILLIAM D. HARRISON, JR.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MR. JETER AND MR. HARRISON YOU ARE BOTH HERE. MR. JETER, PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BETTER IF YOU WENT FIRST. IF YOU WOULD COME AROUND AND BE SWORN, PLEASE.

PAUL EARL JETER, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     MR. JETER, I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU AND THE REST OF THE OTHER WITNESSES, AND I AM SURE SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN HERE ALL MORNING YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE ABOUT, BUT IT IS A SCREENING HEARING ON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CANDIDATES, IN THIS CASE MR. FERGUSON, FOR JUDGESHIP, AND COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARD HIS QUALIFICATIONS OR LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE IN YOUR TESTIMONY, AND WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM OTHER MATERIAL THAT MIGHT NOT RELATE TO THAT. I HAVE BEFORE ME A COPY OF AN AFFIDAVIT FORM THAT BEARS YOUR NAME. DID YOU SUBMIT SUCH A FORM TO THE COMMITTEE?
A.     YES.
Q.     THERE WAS A SWORN STATEMENT THAT YOU SIGNED?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE ALL HAVE A COPY OF THAT IN FRONT OF THEM I BELIEVE. I WILL ASK YOU IF YOU WILL, IF YOU COULD BRIEFLY TELL US FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW WHAT THE SITUATION WAS THAT MORNING THERE IN WOODRUFF THAT ENDED UP WITH YOU HAVING A WARRANT SWORN OUT FOR MR. FERGUSON AND THEN THE SITUATION, HOW IT WAS TERMINATED, HOW YOU ALL CAME TO DROP THE WARRANTS, IF YOU CAN TELL THE COMMITTEE THAT IN YOUR OWN WORDS AND THEN WE WILL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS.
A.     WELL, IT WAS ABOUT 7:15 I PULLED INTO THE L'IL CRICKET FOOD STORE AND I HAD TWO GUYS RIDING WITH ME THAT I WAS CARRYING TO WORK, SO ONE OF THEM WENT INTO THE STORE SO I GIVE HIM $2 TO PAY FOR GAS, AND WHILE I WAS PUMPING GAS A BLACK CADILLAC PULLS UP, AND WHEN I LOOKED OVER THERE, IT WAS TEE FERGUSON AND A LADY. SO WHEN HE SPOTTED ME, HE GOT OUT OF THE CAR AND HE STARTED CURSING ME. HE ASKED ME DID I HAVE HIS MONEY. SO, I DIDN'T REPLY BACK TO HIM. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING. HE STARTED CALLING ME SOME PRETTY BAD NAMES, WHICH I STILL DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.
Q.     WAS HE USING PROFANITY?
A.     YES, AND THERE WAS A GUY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF ME PUMPING GAS, SO HE QUIT PUMPING GAS AND HE WAS LISTENING AT THE COMMOTION BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO THE GUY WAS, BUT MR. FERGUSON HE WAS CURSING AND HE THREATENED TO BEAT MY YOU KNOW WHAT. SO HE WAS HEADING MY WAY. HE WAS ABOUT 5 FEET FROM ME AND I STILL HAD THE NOZZLE INTO MY TANK, SO THE GUY COME OUT OF THE STORE AND I PUT THE NOZZLE BACK UP AND PUT THE TOP ON MY GAS TANK AND GOT IN THE TRUCK. HE ASKED ME, "WHAT IS ALL THAT ABOUT?" I SAID, "WELL, ME AND HIM BEEN HAVING SOME WORDS EVER SINCE 1981," AND THE OTHER GUY WAS SITTING IN THE TRUCK, HE WAS LISTENING TO EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON, BUT I NEVER DID SAY ANYTHING BACK TO HIM. HE TOLD ME, "I WILL COME OVER THERE AND DO IT NOW."
Q.     PARDON? WHAT WAS THAT?
A.     HE TOLD ME HE WOULD COME OVER TO MY TRUCK AND DO IT THEN.
Q.     DO WHAT?
A.     WHIP ME.
Q.     HE SAID HE WOULD WHIP YOU?
A.     YES. SO I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, I STILL STOOD THERE, AND AFTER I GOT THROUGH PUMPING MY GAS, I GOT IN MY TRUCK AND LEFT. THAT IS WHEN I GUESS HE WENT IN THE STORE AND PAID FOR HIS GAS, BUT I LEFT BEFORE HE DID BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT GOT OUT OF HIS CAR, NOBODY ELSE BUT HIM. THERE WAS A LADY IN THE CAR WITH HIM BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS HIS DAUGHTER OR HIS WIFE.
Q.     WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW HIM THAT MORNING WHEN HE GOT OUT OF HIS CAR AND SPOKE TO YOU?
A.     THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I SAW HIM.
Q.     WHO SPOKE FIRST, YOU OR HIM?
A.     HE DID.
Q.     WERE THERE ANY PLEASANTRIES, HELLO, OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?
A.     NO.
Q.     YOU SAID THE UNPLEASANTRIES STARTED ABOUT 1981. MR. FERGUSON SAID AT THAT TIME, AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN YOUR STATEMENT ALSO, THAT HE HAD REPRESENTED YOU IN A CRIMINAL ACTION AND CHARGED YOU FOR LEGAL FEES AND YOU HAD NOT PAID THOSE LEGAL FEES, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT, AND THE LEGAL FEES WAS $300. WHEN I WENT TO GET HIM TO REPRESENT ME, I TOLD HIM I COULDN'T PAY THE WHOLE $300 AT ONE TIME, I WOULD PAY $5O A WEEK. HE AGREED ON THAT, AND MY TRIAL COME OFF IN SEPTEMBER. WHEN I GOT TO THE COURTROOM, I MET MR. FERGUSON UPSTAIRS. HE ASKED ME DID I HAVE THE REST OF THE MONEY AND I TOLD HIM "NO." HE SAID, "WELL, I CANNOT REPRESENT YOU." SO I SAID, "OKAY." SO I WENT ON INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND I WAS ABOUT THE THIRD CALLED, SO WHEN THE JUDGE CALLED MY NAME AND WHEN I WAS GOING FORWARD, HE JOINED ME TO MY RIGHT AND WENT ON UP WITH ME, BUT I NOTICED HE WENT AHEAD AND REPRESENTED ME. SO AFTER THE JUDGE WAS THROUGH WITH ME I HAD TO GO GET WROTE UP AND HE TOLD ME TO COME OVER TO HIS OFFICE, HE WANTED TO SEE ME, AND SO I DID. HE TOLD ME, "I NEED THE REST OF MY MONEY BY TOMORROW." I SAID, "NO WAY I CAN GET YOU MONEY TOMORROW BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN HAVE A JOB." SO I WENT TO WOODRUFF AND HE CALLED DOWN TO A FRIEND'S HOUSE WHILE I WAS THERE ON THE TELEPHONE. HE CURSED ME OUT ON THE TELEPHONE AND THREATENED TO HIT ME ON THE TELEPHONE. SO I HANGS THE PHONE UP AND ABOUT--WELL, IT'S ABOUT 6 MONTHS LATER I WAS DOWN TO HIS FRIEND'S HOUSE AND HE CALLED AGAIN AND THE SAME THING ON THE PHONE AGAIN AND EVERY TIME I HANG UP ON HIM.
Q.     BOTH TIMES YOU ARE STATING WHEN HE CALLED YOU ON THE TELEPHONE OR TALKED TO YOU ON THE PHONE, IT WAS ABOUT THE MONEY THAT YOU OWED HIM FOR LEGAL FEES?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     AND BOTH TIMES YOU ARE SAYING HE THREATENED YOU IF YOU DIDN'T PAY?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     WERE THERE ANY OTHER INCIDENTS UP UNTIL AUGUST 25TH OF '89?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     WERE THERE ANY OTHER TIMES BESIDES THE TWO PHONE CALLS WHEN THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF THREAT OR CONFRONTATION?
A.     NO.
Q.     ON THAT MORNING THERE AT THE L'IL CRICKET GAS STATION, DID MR. FERGUSON EVER MAKE ANY THREATENING GESTURE TO YOU OR HIT YOU OR MAKE PHYSICAL CONTACT IN ANY WAY?
A.     NO. HE THREATENED TO WHIP, BUT HE DIDN'T BALL HIS FISTS UP OR NOTHING LIKE THAT. HE JUST STARTED TOWARD MY TRUCK BUT HE STOPPED BEFORE HE GOT ALL THE WAY TO MY TRUCK.
Q.     HOW CLOSE DID HE GET?
A.     ABOUT 5 FEET.
Q.     YOU WERE IN THE TRUCK AT THAT TIME?
A.     I WAS STANDING ON THE SIDE PUMPING GAS.
Q.     I BELIEVE THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT WERE WITH YOU WERE TWO FELLOWS NAMED STEVENSON?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     WILLIAM A. STEVENSON AND JOHN E. STEVENSON?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THEY ARE BOTH FROM WOODRUFF ALSO?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     WHAT POINT DID YOU GO TO THE CITY JUDGE THERE IN WOODRUFF AND SWEAR OUT A WARRANT? TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
A.     WELL, BEFORE I WENT TO THE JUDGE I WENT AND TALKED TO MY LAWYER ABOUT IT.
Q.     WHO IS YOUR LAWYER?
A.     FRANCIS REID OUT OF GREENVILLE. I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT AND HE SAID HE WAS A LAWYER AND MR. FERGUSON WAS A LAWYER AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED. HE SAID HE HEARD THAT HE HAD HIT SOME MORE PEOPLE LIKE THAT, SO HE SAID, "I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU MY ADVICE, YOU GO BACK TO WOODRUFF, YOU TALK WITH JUDGE HARRISON ABOUT IT AND SEE IF HE WILL GIVE YOU A WARRANT." SO THAT IS WHAT I DID. I COME BACK THE SAME DAY TO TALK WITH THE JUDGE AND HE DID GIVE ME A WARRANT AFTER I TOLD HIM WHAT HAPPENED.
Q.     HE ISSUED THE WARRANT AT THAT TIME?
A.     YES.
Q.     WHAT HAPPENED NEXT IN THAT SITUATION?
A.     WELL, AFTER MR. FERGUSON FOUND OUT I HAD TOOK ONE OUT ON HIM, HE DECIDED TO TAKE ONE OUT ON ME. OKAY. WELL, I WASN'T GOING TO DROP MINE. HE CALLED ME ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES. HE CALLED UP TO HIS AUNT'S HOUSE FIRST, SO SHE KNEW I WAS COMING DOWN THE STREET TO THIS FRIEND'S HOUSE OF MINE, SO SHE TOLD THIS FRIEND IF I COME TO CALL HER, SO I DID. SHE TOLD ME TEE HAD CALLED AND WANTED HER TO GET IN CONTACT WITH ME, THAT HE WANTED TO TALK TO ME. SO I IGNORED HER. I DIDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION BECAUSE I FIGURED WHAT IT WAS. SO HE CALLED ME. I WASN'T AT HOME. MY MOTHER TOLD ME "TEE FERGUSON CALLED YOU." HE CALLED ABOUT THREE TIMES. THE LAST TIME HE CALLED I WAS THERE AND I TALKED TO HIM. HE TOLD ME ON THE TELEPHONE, HE SAID WOULD I DROP THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM AND HE SAID HE WOULD DROP IT AGAINST ME. HE SAID PEOPLE KNOW HE WAS GOING TO BECOME A JUDGE AND HE WOULD LOSE A LOT OF MONEY. HE SAID HE WOULD LOSE ABOUT $80,000 A YEAR, AND HE SAID THAT WASN'T WORTH IT. HE SAID, "THE MONEY YOU OWE ME, I WILL FORGET ABOUT IT." SO I SAID, "OKAY." SO I DROPPED THE CHARGE AND TOLD HIM WHEN TO MEET ME.
Q.     WHAT WOULD YOU STATE IS THE REASON YOU DROPPED THE CHARGES?
A.     WELL, THE REASON I DROPPED THEM, I DON'T KNOW. I WASN'T GAINING ANYTHING.
Q.     DID YOU QUESTION THE FACT THAT YOU OWED HIM MONEY FOR LEGAL FEES? DID YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU OWED HIM MONEY OR YOU THOUGHT YOU DID NOT OWE HIM MONEY?
A.     I KNEW I OWED HIM MONEY. I OWED HIM $250, BECAUSE I PAID HIM $5O.
Q.     YOU PAID HIM HOW MUCH?
A.     I HAD PAID HIM $50. SO THAT LEFT ME OWING $250, AND I FIGURED IF I OWED HIM MONEY, I WOULD GO AHEAD AND DROP THE CHARGE, AND THAT IS WHAT I DID.
Q.     LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING, THE INCIDENT OCCURRED ON AUGUST 25TH AND THE MATERIALS YOU PROVIDED US WITH, THERE WAS A SWORN STATEMENT FROM EACH OF THE STEVENSON GENTLEMEN AND BOTH OF THEM ARE DATED THREE DAYS AFTER THAT, AFTER THE 25TH IN AUGUST, BUT YOUR STATEMENT IS NOT DATED UNTIL OCTOBER 7TH OF '89, WHICH I ASSUME IS AFTER WHEN THE WARRANT WAS SWORN OUT, DO YOU RECALL THAT? DO YOU RECALL MAKING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT?
A.     YES.
Q.     DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT WAS?
A.     I CAN'T REMEMBER.
Q.     DO YOU REMEMBER BEING RIGHT THERE WITHIN A WEEK AFTER THE INCIDENT OCCURRED OR SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, OR DO YOU RECALL?
A.     IT WASN'T SEVERAL WEEKS LATER.
Q.     AFTER YOU HAD TALKED TO MR. FERGUSON ON THE PHONE AND YOU ALL BOTH AGREED TO DROP CHARGES, YOU WENT BACK DOWN AND SAW JUDGE HARRISON AGAIN, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     NO.
Q.     THERE IS ANOTHER VOLUNTARY STATEMENT IN HERE DATED JANUARY 5, 1990, IT SAYS, "ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 TEE FERGUSON CALLED ME AT MY HOUSE AND ASKED ME TO DROP CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND HE WOULD DROP THEM AGAINST ME. HE SAID IT WOULD HURT HIM FROM BECOMING A JUDGE AND HE WOULD HATE TO LOSE THAT MUCH MONEY A YEAR," AND IT'S SIGNED BY--I ASSUME SIGNED BY YOU. DO YOU RECALL MAKING THAT WRITTEN STATEMENT?
A.     YES.
Q.     AND THAT CONCLUDED THE MATTER, THAT ENDED EVERYTHING?
A.     YES.
Q.     DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IN REGARD TO THAT OR ANY OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT RELATE TO MR. FERGUSON AND REASONS WHY YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE SHOULD BECOME A JUDGE OR BELIEVE HE SHOULD BECOME A JUDGE?
A.     WELL, I TELL YOU IF HE DO PEOPLE LIKE HE DID ME, I DON'T THINK HE DESERVES BEING A JUDGE, I REALLY DON'T.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. JETER, WHERE WERE YOU LIVING IN 1981?
A.     I WAS LIVING IN WOODRUFF I BELIEVE, WOODRUFF, ROUTE 3.
Q.     THAT IS OUTSIDE OF SPARTANBURG?
A.     YES, OUTSIDE OF WOODRUFF.
Q.     WOODRUFF IS OUTSIDE OF SPARTANBURG?
A.     YES.
Q.     HOW DID YOU HAPPEN TO COME IN CONTACT WITH MR. FERGUSON IN 1981?
A.     WELL, I BEEN A FRIEND OF HIS FOR A LONG TIME.
Q.     HOW LONG WOULD YOU SAY YOU HAVE KNOWN HIM?
A.     ABOUT I WOULD SAY ABOUT 20 YEARS.
Q.     WERE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE WAY HE HANDLED YOUR CASE IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT?
A.     WELL, YES, I WAS SATISFIED.
Q.     WHAT DID THE JUDGE SENTENCE YOU TO?
A.     FIVE YEARS PROBATION.
Q.     DID HE MAKE YOU PAY A FINE?
A.     NO. I JUST PAID COURT COSTS.
Q.     AND WHAT WERE YOU CHARGED WITH?
A.     GRAND LARCENY.
Q.     DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CRIMINAL RECORD OTHER THAN THAT GRAND LARCENY CHARGE IN 1981?
A.     NO.
Q.     YOU SAY YOU WENT TO A LAWYER SOMETIME IN 1989 BY THE NAME OF FRANCIS REID IN GREENVILLE?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     HOW DID YOU HAPPEN TO COME IN CONTACT WITH MR. REID?
A.     HE WAS DOING A CASE FOR ME, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, I GOT HURT ON THE JOB A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND HE HANDLED THE CASE FOR ME.
Q.     WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW MR. FERGUSON PRIOR TO AUGUST 25TH, 1989?
A.     LAST TIME I SAW HIM WAS AT A FRIEND'S HOUSE.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE DATE?
A.     I CAN'T REMEMBER THE DATE.
Q.     WHICH YEAR WAS IT?
A.     '89.
Q.     WAS IT THE SUMMER, THE SPRING?
A.     I THINK IT WAS DURING THE SUMMER.
Q.     DID YOU ALL GET ALONG THEN?
A.     HE DIDN'T SPEAK TO ME.
Q.     DID YOU SPEAK TO HIM?
A.     YES, I SPOKE.
Q.     WHAT DID YOU SAY TO HIM?
A.     I SAID, "HOW YOU DOING?" HE DIDN'T REPLY BACK, SO I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE.
Q.     YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH HIM THEN?
A.     NO.
Q.     WHO IS ELIZABETH M. COX?
A.     SHE IS MAGISTRATE COX'S WIFE IN WOODRUFF THAT RUNS THE FURNITURE STORE.
Q.     SHE IS THE MAGISTRATE IN WOODRUFF'S WIFE?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     THAT IS ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

Q.     MR. JETER, WHERE DO YOU LIVE NOW?
A.     464 BUNCOMBE STREET, WOODRUFF.
Q.     I AM WONDERING, OF COURSE, I THINK YOU ALREADY SAID THIS, WHY WOULD YOU TAKE THE TIME TO COME DOWN TO TESTIFY AGAINST MR. FERGUSON TODAY?
A.     WELL---
Q.     HAS ANYBODY ENCOURAGED YOU OR COMPENSATED YOU FOR COMING HERE TODAY?
A.     YES, HE DID.
Q.     WHO DID?
A.     MR. FERGUSON DID.
Q.     HE ENCOURAGED YOU TO COME TODAY?
A.     HE DIDN'T ENCOURAGE ME TO COME TODAY BUT HE CALLED ME ON THE PHONE AFTER I DROPPED THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM AND ASKED ME IF WE HAD TO COME TO COLUMBIA, WOULD I COME AND TESTIFY. I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T KNOW, I WOULD LET HIM KNOW.
Q.     WHAT IN YOUR MIND PERSUADED YOU TO FILE THAT COMPLAINT? NOT ONLY DID YOU COME TO COLUMBIA BUT YOU FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. FERGUSON, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? DID SOMEBODY ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT?
A.     NO, NOBODY ENCOURAGED ME TO DO THAT. SEE, THE MORNING HE HASSLED ME LIKE THAT, SEE, HE PUT ME THROUGH A LOT OF EMBARRASSMENT. THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE THERE WHEN HE DID THAT. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T EMBARRASS MYSELF BY TALKING BACK TO HIM.
Q.     DID ANYONE ASSIST YOU IN PREPARING YOUR STATEMENT OR YOUR COMPLAINT?
A.     NO.
Q.     NOBODY HELPED YOU?
A.     NO.
Q.     THANK YOU, SIR.

Q.     WHERE DID YOU GET THIS FORM FROM THAT YOU FILLED OUT?
A.     MAY I SEE THAT AGAIN? I GOT IT FROM A LAWYER.
Q.     WHICH LAWYER?
A.     LET ME THINK WHAT HER NAME IS. I CAN'T RIGHT CALL HER NAME, BUT SHE WAS A LADY.
Q.     WHAT TOWN DOES SHE PRACTICE LAW IN?
A.     SPARTANBURG.
Q.     HOW DID YOU KNOW TO GO TO HER OFFICE?
A.     WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
Q.     HOW DID YOU GET TO HER OFFICE?
A.     I DIDN'T.
Q.     DID SOMEBODY GO TO HER OFFICE AND PICK THE FORM UP?
A.     NO. SHE MET ME AND BROUGHT THESE FORMS.
Q.     DID YOU CALL HER TO MEET YOU?
A.     YES.
Q.     HOW DID YOU KNOW TO CALL HER?
A.     I DON'T KNOW HOW I KNOW TO CALL HER.
Q.     HOW DID YOU EVER COME IN CONTACT WITH HER THEN?
A.     WELL, AFTER ALL THIS OCCURRED--WELL, AND AFTER ALL MY STATEMENT THAT I HAD WROTE, SO SHE CALLED ME AND ASKED ME WOULD I GIVE A SIGNED STATEMENT AND SAID WOULD I COME AND TESTIFY AND I TOLD HER YES, I WOULD.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ADDRESS OF HER OFFICE IS?
A.     NO, I DON'T. I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME. I HAVE IT AT HOME.
Q.     DID SHE TELL YOU ON WHOSE BEHALF SHE WAS CALLING?
A.     NO, SHE DIDN'T.
Q.     THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

Q.     MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I ASK QUESTIONS, I AM NOT TOO SURE HE WAS SWORN IN. WERE YOU SWORN IN? DID YOU TAKE THE OATH?
A.     YES.
Q.     I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. MR. JETER, YOU STATED THAT ATTORNEY FRANCIS REID TOLD YOU TO GO TO THE MAGISTRATE TO TAKE OUT A WARRANT AGAINST MR. FERGUSON?
A.     YES.
Q.     THAT IS WHY YOU DID IT?
A.     YES. I WAS GOING TO GO ON MY OWN BUT I THOUGHT, WELL, I WOULD TALK TO HIM AND SEE WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST IDEA.
Q.     SO HE TOLD YOU TO GO AND YOU WENT?
A.     YES.
Q.     HAD HE TOLD YOU NOT TO GO, WOULD YOU STILL HAVE GONE?
A.     YES.
Q.     BECAUSE YOU REALLY WANTED A WARRANT AGAINST HIM?
A.     YES.
Q.     NOW, YOU SAID THAT MR. REID TOLD YOU THAT HE KNEW OF OTHER INCIDENTS WHERE MR. FERGUSON DID THIS SAME THING TO OTHER PEOPLE?
A.     YES.
Q.     HE TOLD YOU THAT?
A.     YES.
Q.     WHERE IS HIS OFFICE LOCATED, DO YOU KNOW?
A.     IT'S IN GREENVILLE.
Q.     WHAT TIME DID YOU GET TO COLUMBIA TODAY?
A.     I GOT HERE ABOUT--IT WAS ABOUT 9:30.
Q.     AND HOW DID YOU GET HERE?
A.     JUDGE HARRISON.
Q.     WHO?
A.     JUDGE HARRISON.
Q.     YOU RODE WITH HIM?
A.     YES.
Q.     I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE POPE: ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     THIS FORM THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU CAN'T RECALL WHO GAVE THAT TO YOU?
A.     I CAN'T THINK OF HER NAME.
Q.     DID SHE CALL YOU INITIALLY OR DID YOU CALL HER?
A.     SHE CALLED ME.
Q.     AND ASKED YOU IF YOU WANTED TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. FERGUSON? I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE UNDER OATH TODAY.
A.     YES. SEE, I HAD ALREADY GIVE MY STATEMENT AND SHE JUST WANTED TO GO OVER THE STATEMENT WITH ME.
Q.     BUT YOU WERE ENCOURAGED TO FILE A COMPLAINT, IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT?
A.     NO, I WASN'T ENCOURAGED TO FILE. I FILED ON MY OWN.
Q.     BUT SOMEBODY CALLED YOU FIRST AND OFFERED TO GIVE YOU A FORM, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     NO.
Q.     THAT IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
A.     I HAD ALREADY FILED MY COMPLAINT BEFORE SHE CALLED ME.

Q.     WHEN YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE COMPLAINT, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT THAT YOU SIGNED AT JUDGE HARRISON'S OFFICE OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT WE JUST HANDED YOU IN RELATION TO THIS PROCEEDING?
A.     THE STATEMENT I SIGNED IN HIS OFFICE.
Q.     SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL ARREST WARRANT, RIGHT?
A.     YES.
Q.     WE ARE ASKING YOU TODAY ABOUT THE PIECE OF PAPER WE JUST HANDED YOU THAT MS. COX HAD NOTARIZED WHEN YOU SIGNED WHEN THAT WAS SENT HERE. DID ANYBODY GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU ABOUT SUBMITTING SOMETHING TO OUR COMMITTEE?
A.     YES.
Q.     THAT WAS THE LADY LAWYER IN SPARTANBURG?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     AND YOU STILL CAN'T RECALL HER NAME?
A.     NO.
Q.     DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT FIRM SHE WAS WITH OR ANYTHING?
A.     NO.
Q.     DID SHE TELL YOU WHY SHE HAD CALLED YOU?
A.     YES, SHE TOLD ME.
Q.     WHY WAS THAT?
A.     SHE SAID SHE THINK HE DON'T NEED TO BECOME A JUDGE THE WAY HE BEEN TREATING PEOPLE, AND SHE ASKED WOULD I SIGN A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM AND I TOLD HER, YES, I WOULD.

Q.     DID SHE MAIL YOU THE FORM OR BRING IT TO YOU?
A.     SHE BROUGHT THE FORM TO ME.
Q.     DID SHE HELP YOU FILL IT OUT?
A.     NO, SHE DIDN'T HELP ME FILL IT OUT.
Q.     BUT SHE BROUGHT IT TO YOU?
A.     YES.
Q.     WHO MAILED IT TO THE COMMITTEE? SHE DID OR YOU DID?

MR. BATES: IT WAS HAND-DELIVERED.
Q.     HAND-DELIVERED BY WHO?

MR. BATES: IT WAS A COURIER. I DON'T KNOW THE NAME.

Q.     WHO TYPED THE STATEMENT FOR YOU? DID YOU TYPE THE STATEMENT?
A.     NO.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHO TYPED IT?
A.     NO, I DON'T.

Q.     WAS IT THIS LADY OR SOMEBODY IN HER LAW FIRM?
A.     SHE BROUGHT THE PAPERS TO ME AND AFTER I READ OVER THE PAPERS, I SIGNED IT AND HAD IT NOTARIZED AND CARRIED IT BACK TO HER.
Q.     SO ACTUALLY IT WAS TYPED UP FOR YOU, IN OTHER WORDS, AND THEN YOU READ IT AND SIGNED IT?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.

Q.     DID YOU TALK TO ANYBODY ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THAT BEFORE YOU SIGNED IT?
A.     NO, I DID NOT.
Q.     DID YOU READ OVER IT?
A.     YES, I DID.
Q.     WHERE DID THEY GET THE INFORMATION TO TYPE IT UP BEFORE YOU READ OVER IT?
A.     I DON'T KNOW.

SENATOR POPE: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. JETER, YOU LIVE IN SPARTANBURG?
A.     I LIVE OUT OF SPARTANBURG.
Q.     PLACE CALLED WOODRUFF?
A.     YES.
Q.     HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT JUDGE HARRISON WAS GOING TO BE COMING TO COLUMBIA TODAY?
A.     BECAUSE HE CALLED ME AND TOLD ME HE HAD TO COME TO COLUMBIA TO TESTIFY AND HE ASKED WOULD I GO AND I SAID, YES, I WOULD, AND I TOLD HIM I WOULD NOT HAVE NO WAY OF GOING. HE SAID, "WELL, YOU CAN RIDE WITH ME," AND THAT IS HOW I GOT HERE.
Q.     THANK YOU, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: ANYTHING ELSE?

THANK YOU, MR. JETER. JUDGE HARRISON IS HERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER. WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, PLEASE.

MR. HARRISON: W. D. HARRISON, JR.

SENATOR POPE: I WOULD ASK THAT YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AND BE SWORN.

WILLIAM D. HARRISON, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR POPE, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

SENATOR POPE: MR. HARRISON, GIVE US YOUR FULL ADDRESS WHERE YOU LIVE.
A.     MY HOME ADDRESS IS 260 WEST GEORGIA STREET, WOODRUFF, S.C.

SENATOR POPE: I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO ANSWER MR. BATES' QUESTIONS.
A.     ALL RIGHT.

Q.     MR. HARRISON, THE COMMITTEE ALSO RECEIVED A WITNESS AFFIDAVIT FORM WITH A STATEMENT WITH YOUR SIGNATURE, ARE YOU IN POSSESSION OF A COPY OF THAT?
A.     NO, SIR. I DON'T HAVE A COPY.
Q.     BUT YOU SENT ONE IN?
A.     YES.
Q.     AND HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS PROCEEDING TO SEND A FORM IN OR HAVE A FORM SENT IN FOR YOU?
A.     I HAD APPROACHED MR. BEN HARRISON AS TO THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO PURSUE TO PRESENT MY CASE OR MAKE MY FEELINGS KNOWN.
Q.     IF YOU WILL, BRIEFLY GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF YOUR STATEMENT. WE WILL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS AS YOU GO ALONG.
A.     YES, IT'S CORRECT.
Q.     WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE A BRIEF STATEMENT?
A.     ON THE CONTENTS?
Q.     YES, SIR.
A.     STATED THAT I AM A MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR THE TOWN OF WOODRUFF AND HAVE BEEN SINCE '79. IN THIS CAPACITY I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW AND OBSERVE JAMES TEE FERGUSON. ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 25, 1989 PAUL EARL JETER CONTACTED WITH ME WITH REGARD TO---
Q.     JUDGE, WE ARE GOING TO ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD. WE DON'T NEED YOU TO READ THE WHOLE THING. IF YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH US ASKING QUESTIONS, WE CAN DO THAT. I JUST THOUGHT YOU MIGHT WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
A.     IT BASICALLY IS IN REFERENCE TO THE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT FOR TEE FERGUSON, AND I HAVE A COPY OF THE WARRANTS, THE DATE THEY WERE ISSUED AND THE DATE THEY WERE NOLPROSSED, AND THE PROBABLE CAUSE WAS ON THE BREACH OF PEACE WARRANT, WHICH WARRANT THAT COVERED THE UTTERANCE OF MENACING AND THREATENING SPEECHES AND USING PROFANITY, AND I HAD THE WARRANTS HERE AND I HAVE THE STATEMENTS OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN IT. I DIDN'T WRITE IT ORIGINALLY ON THE WARRANT THERE BECAUSE I HAD TALKED TO MR. JETER AND THAT IS WHAT THE DESCRIPTION OF HIS LANGUAGE WAS--WELL, STATEMENT ABOUT DESCRIPTION OF HIS LANGUAGE WAS AT A LATER DATE CONFIRMED JUST WHAT IT WAS. AFTER I ISSUED THE WARRANT, MR. FERGUSON DID CONTACT ME AND I ISSUED A WARRANT FOR PAUL EARL JETER, WHICH I DID. THEN ON SEPTEMBER 13TH HE CONTACTED ME THAT BOTH PARTIES WERE IN AGREEMENT TO DROP THE WARRANTS, AND JETER HAD TOLD ME AT THAT TIME THAT MR. FERGUSON HAD CALLED HIM AT HIS HOME AND MADE AN AGREEMENT. WHEN THEY CAME DOWN TO MY OFFICE, I DID ASK THEM IF THEY WERE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT AND BOTH PARTIES SAID THEY WERE.
Q.     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF WOODRUFF?
A.     SINCE NOVEMBER OF '79.
Q.     WHAT IS THE USUAL PROCEDURE THAT IS FOLLOWED IN ISSUING A WARRANT?
A.     WELL, USUALLY YOU HAVE AN INCIDENT REPORT, WHICH WE HAD AN INCIDENT REPORT INVOLVED ABOUT THE SITUATION HAPPENING THERE, BUT IF WE HAVE A ONE-ON-ONE CONFRONTATION, IF THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, I ALWAYS TRY TO GET THOSE WITNESSES' STATEMENTS BEFORE I ISSUE A WARRANT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Q.     HAD MR. FERGUSON EVER APPEARED IN COURT AS AN ATTORNEY?
A.     I DON'T MUCH THINK SO. I DON'T RECALL BACK DURING THE YEARS IF HE HAD.
Q.     DID YOU KNOW HIM OTHERWISE?
A.     YES, SIR. I MIGHT GIVE YOU A LITTLE REBUTTAL HERE ON HIS STATEMENT OR IN ANSWER TO THE STATEMENT HE HAS MADE. THE MANDAMUS ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE MOORE FOR MYSELF WAS IN REGARD TO A PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT JUDGE MOORE HAD SAID I DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HOLD, AND THEN THE MAN THAT WAS INVOLVED IN IT WAS STILL IN JAIL WAITING ON A PRELIMINARY HEARING AND I HAD GOTTEN A RULING FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN REGARD TO THE FACT, AND WHEN I ANSWERED JUDGE MOORE'S MANDAMUS ORDER, I ALREADY HAD THE RULING IN HAND THAT I WOULD HEAR THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND IT WAS DISPOSED OF AT THAT TIME. THAT WAS THE END OF THAT.
Q.     IS THERE ANY RELEVANCE IN THAT CASE TO THE SITUATION THAT OCCURRED IN YOUR COURT OR THE REASON WE ARE HERE TODAY?
A.     THE CASE WAS RESOLVED, THE PRESENTATION AND DISPOSITION WAS MADE OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND IT WAS TERMINATED IN THE COURT AND THERE IS NO ANIMOSITY ON MY PART.
Q.     DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY OTHER DEALINGS WITH MR. FERGUSON BEFORE THIS INCIDENT EITHER PROFESSIONALLY OR SOCIALLY OR OTHERWISE BESIDES WHAT YOU JUST ALLUDED TO?
A.     THE ONLY TIME WAS FOR A DEPOSITION OVER A YEAR AGO THAT INVOLVED A CASE THAT MR. FERGUSON HAD AGAINST THE TOWN OF WOODRUFF, AND AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A DEPOSITION FEE INVOLVED IN IT, WHICH DIDN'T REALLY MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE TO ME, BUT I HAD NEVER HAD ANY ANIMOSITY FOR MR. FERGUSON, AND THE TREATMENT OF THE WARRANT AND THE PROBABLE CAUSE THAT I HAVE AND THE WAY I GOT IT, I BELIEVE WAS THE PROPER WAY TO PREPARE THE WARRANT FOR IT.
Q.     WHAT IS THE DATE THE WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR MR. FERGUSON'S ARREST?
A.     THAT DATE THAT IT WAS ISSUED WAS SEPTEMBER 1ST.
Q.     1989, RIGHT?
A.     1989, THAT'S RIGHT. WAIT A MINUTE, EXCUSE ME, THAT IS THE WRONG ONE. DATE OF ISSUE WAS AUGUST 28TH, EXCUSE ME, AND THE DATE IT WAS SERVED WAS SEPTEMBER 6TH, 1989.
Q.     WERE YOU FOLLOWING THE QUESTION WHEN I ASKED MR. JETER ABOUT HIS SWORN STATEMENT THAT WAS DATED OCTOBER 7TH? I BELIEVE YOU STATED THAT IT WAS YOUR NORMAL PROCEDURE TO HAVE THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND ANY WITNESSES?
A.     BY THE WITNESSES--MY WITNESS OF THE LANGUAGE OR WHATEVER IS WHEN THEY TELL ME. I DON'T WRITE IT INTO THE WARRANT BECAUSE IF IT'S GROSS OR WHATEVER, IT WILL COME OUT DURING THE COURT, BUT I WANTED TO GET A VERIFICATION OF PRECISELY WHAT HE DID HAVE FOR MY RECORDS.
Q.     WERE YOU INVOLVED IN MR. JETER AND MR. FERGUSON'S DISCUSSIONS TO DROP THE WARRANTS, WERE YOU PART OF THAT PROCESS AT ALL?
A.     NO, SIR, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WHAT THEY HAD IN MY OFFICE, THERE WASN'T ANY REAL DISCUSSION. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT. I ASKED MR. JETER A COUPLE OF TIMES IF HE WAS SURE HE WANTED TO DROP THE WARRANT. USUALLY WHEN I HAVE SOMEBODY WANTING TO DROP A WARRANT, I HAVE IT IN OPEN COURT AND ASK THE PERSON INVOLVED IF THEY ARE UNDER DURESS, AND THE REASON WHY I HAD THE OCTOBER 7TH BECAUSE I FELT THAT MR. JETER MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNDER DURESS ON THE DROPPING OF HIS WARRANT.
Q.     YOU DIDN'T HAVE A PROCEEDING IN OPEN COURT WHEN THEY DROPPED THE CHARGES?
A.     IT WAS IN CHAMBERS. MR. FERGUSON WANTED TO GET IT OVER AND OUT OF THE WAY, AND APPARENTLY MR. JETER TOO.
Q.     WHAT IS YOUR INTEREST IN THESE PROCEEDINGS TODAY? WHY DID YOU COME FORWARD TODAY?
A.     IT CONCERNS ME GREATLY THE WAY THAT MR. FERGUSON MADE THE CAVALIER APPROACH AS TO HOW THE LAW SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED, THAT IT WAS A LIGHTHEARTED THING. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE POINT HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE TO ME WAS HE WAS AN ATTORNEY, THAT HE WAS A LEGISLATOR AND HE SHOULD NOT BE CAUGHT UP WITH ANYTHING THAT WAS CONCERNED WITH GUTTER-TYPE ACTIVITIES WHEN HE INDEED WAS. AND, HIS ALLEGATIONS AND INSINUATIONS AND LIBELOUS STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE ABOUT THIS JUDGE REGARDING BIGOTRY AND RACISM THAT HE MADE PUBLIC, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT INTO THIS SITUATION THAT HE DID---
Q.     ARE THESE STATEMENTS YOU ARE SAYING HE MADE ABOUT YOU?
A.     YES, SIR. WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT IN THIS SITUATION LIKE HE DID, HIS RATIONALE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO GET OUT OF THE MESS HE HAD MADE FOR HIMSELF, SO HE STARTS FLAILING AROUND IN ALL DIRECTIONS AND MAKING ACCUSATIONS WHICH HE SHOULDN'T HAVE, WHICH TO ME WOULD NOT BE ONE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR A CIRCUIT JUDGESHIP, AND I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE MAY BE.

SENATOR POPE: I AM GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE IN A MINUTE, SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE I LEAVE.

Q.     MR. HARRISON, DID YOU HAVE THE WITNESSES BEFORE YOU PRIOR TO THE WARRANTS BEING SIGNED, THE OTHER WITNESSES TO THIS INCIDENT, MR. STEVENSON?
A.     THE WITNESSES WAS WITH MR. FERGUSON.
Q.     YOU TALKED TO BOTH OF THEM?
A.     BECAUSE I HAD A SWORN STATEMENT FROM BOTH OF THEM.
Q.     YOU HAD STATEMENTS FROM BOTH WILLIAM STEVENSON AND JOHN STEVENSON BUT YOU DIDN'T TALK TO THEM?
A.     YES. ON AUGUST 28TH BOTH OF THEM CAME IN AND THE WARRANT FOR MR. FERGUSON WAS SIGNED ON AUGUST 28TH.
Q.     BUT YOU HAD BOTH OF THOSE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE WARRANTS WERE ISSUED?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOU TESTIFIED A WHILE AGO THAT MR. FERGUSON HAS BEEN IN YOUR COURTROOM BEFORE OTHER THAN THIS TIME, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     I DON'T RECALL HAVING A CASE WITH MR. FERGUSON. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD EXCELLENT RELATIONS WITH MR. FERGUSON, AND, IN FACT, IN TALKING TO HIM I WAS KIDDING HIM ABOUT, "HOW ABOUT MY DEPOSITION? IT'S BEEN OVER A YEAR AGO AND YOU HAVEN'T PAID ME YET?" HE SAID, "IT'S IN THE MAIL"--LIGHT TYPE OF THING, AND THE WHOLE SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IF HE HADN'T PANICKED, AND WHEN HE REALIZED HE HAD HIMSELF IN THE SITUATION LIKE THIS, AND AT THE TIME I DID NOT KNOW THAT HE WAS A CANDIDATE FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FROM THE SEVENTH DISTRICT, BUT THE FACT HE WAS A LEGISLATOR AND AN ATTORNEY AND CREATING THE TYPE OF DISTURBANCE THAT HE DID IN THE CITY OF WOODRUFF WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE TO ME IF I HAD, BUT IT'S JUST---
Q.     MR. HARRISON, WHAT I WAS ASKING YOU, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE REASON YOU WERE HERE WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU CHARACTERIZED AS A CAVALIER APPROACH MR. FERGUSON HAD, AND I WAS WONDERING IF THIS WAS THE SOLE BASIS FOR THAT OPINION OR WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD HAD OTHER EXPERIENCES WITH HIM IN YOUR COURT BEFORE. HAS HE BEEN IN YOUR COURT PRIOR TO THIS TO YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A.     IF HE WAS, IT WAS SOMETHING VERY MINOR. LIKE I SAY, I NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH MR. FERGUSON WHATSOEVER. WE HAVE BEEN ON A FRIENDLY BASIS FOR ALL OF THESE YEARS SINCE THE MANDAMUS COURT ORDER, BECAUSE I CAN'T GET ANGRY WITH EVERY ATTORNEY, RIGHT OR WRONG, THAT COMES IN COURT, NEVER HAVE AND NEVER INTEND TO, AND I RESPECT HIM NOW AS AN ATTORNEY. THERE IS NO ANIMOSITY FROM MYSELF, BUT WHEN I ISSUE A WARRANT AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CALLS WHOEVER GETS IT AND ASKS HIM TO COME BY WE HAVE A WARRANT FOR YOU AND THEN SIX DAYS LATER HE MAY GO BY AND PICK IT UP AFTER HE HAS BEEN PROPERLY NOTIFIED, TO ME THAT IS A CAVALIER APPROACH TO THE LAW.

SENATOR POPE: I WILL TURN THE REINS BACK OVER TO OUR REAL CHAIRMAN. I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING TO LEAVE FOR A FEW MINUTES.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. HARRISON, WHEN DID YOU FIRST COME IN CONTACT WITH MR. FERGUSON, FIRST KNOW HIM?
A.     FIRST KNOW HIM WAS AT THE TIME OF THE MANDAMUS COURT ORDER, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN AROUND '79, LATE '79 OR EARLY '80.
Q.     THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN REGARD TO A CASE THAT WAS BEFORE YOUR COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY HEARING?
A.     YES. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GENERAL SESSIONS COURT CASE THAT HAD REQUESTED A PRELIMINARY HEARING AND JUDGE MOORE HAD ADVISED ME THAT A CITY RECORDER COULD NOT HAVE A PRELIMINARY HEARING, COULD NOT HOLD A PRELIMINARY HEARING.
Q.     BUT MR. FERGUSON HAD REQUESTED ONE AND YOU HAD DENIED THE PRELIMINARY FOR HIS CLIENT, IS THAT WHAT WAS HAPPENING?
A.     BECAUSE JUDGE MOORE HAD SET OUT AND THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING SOMEHOW IN THE COMMUNICATIONS, BUT, IN ANY CASE, I GOT A RULING FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HE DIRECTED ME TO HAVE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. AS WELL AS I REMEMBER, THAT WOULD BE THE LAST OCCASION, BUT LIKE I SAY, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY ANIMOSITY. I HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO HELP HIM IN ANY WAY I POSSIBLY CAN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS DISPLAY HE GAVE TO ME AND REMARKED, I HAVE GOT THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES HERE AND I WOULD BE PLEASED TO TURN THEM OVER TO PANEL.
Q.     LET ME ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. IN THE SUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF WOODRUFF, WERE YOU A NAMED DEFENDANT?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     WHO NOLPROSSED THE WARRANT THAT YOU ISSUED IN AUGUST OF '89, THE WARRANT YOU ISSUED IN REGARD TO MR. FERGUSON?
A.     I DID. I DISMISSED THE CHARGES ON BOTH OF THEM WITH THEIR SIGNATURE THAT "I DO NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE" AND SIGNED BY EACH ONE RESPECTFULLY.
Q.     SO I TAKE IT THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IMPROPER WITH THOSE CHARGES BEING DISMISSED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     IF MR. FERGUSON HADN'T PANICKED, AND AGAIN I THINK THIS WOULD BE WHAT MAKES ME THINK ABOUT HIS SHORTCOMINGS FOR BEING A GENERAL SESSIONS JUDGE, HE PANICKED, HE MADE STATEMENTS HE SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE. IF HE HAD COME OVER AND TALKED TO MR. JETER AND MYSELF, BUT HE JUMPED ON THE NEWS MEDIA THE FIRST THING, THE FIRST CRACK OUT OF THE BOX.
Q.     MY QUESTION IS, YOU DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IMPROPER WITH DISMISSING OR NOLPROSSING THESE TWO WARRANTS, DID YOU?
A.     WE CAN'T MAKE PEOPLE PROSECUTE UNLESS THEY WANT US TO PROSECUTE. HOWEVER, THERE IS DURESS INVOLVED IN A LOT OF DISMISSALS.
Q.     WELL, THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO DISMISS OR NOT IS YOURS, IS IT NOT?
A.     I CANNOT REFUSE A DISMISSAL.
Q.     SIR?
A.     I CANNOT REFUSE A DISMISSAL.
Q.     BUT YOU WENT AHEAD AND DISMISSED THE CHARGES, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DID ANYONE TALK TO YOU ABOUT COMING HERE TODAY AT ANY TIME?
A.     NO, SIR. THIS WAS MY OWN PEROGATIVE. I DID SEEK ASSISTANCE ON HOW AND WHAT TO DO TO FILE FROM ATTORNEY BEN HARRISON WITH NO OBLIGATION ON HIS PART. I JUST KNEW THAT HE WAS VERSED, OR SHOULD BE VERSED, IN THE PROCESS OF APPEARING BEFORE THIS BOARD.
Q.     DID YOU CONTACT ANY OTHER WITNESSES TO COME HERE TODAY?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU CONTACT ANY THIRD PARTY TO GET THEM TO CONTACT ANY WITNESSES TO COME HERE TODAY?
A.     NO, SIR, AND EXCEPT FOR PAUL--I ASKED PAUL IF HE WAS GOING TO TESTIFY. IT WAS MY IDEA FOR HIM TO TESTIFY. I WANTED HIM TO TESTIFY TO TELL HIS SIDE OF THE STORY THAT HADN'T BEEN TOLD.
Q.     DID YOU CALL THIS LADY LAWYER TO GET HER TO CONTACT MR. JETER?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THAT IS ALL I HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE?

Q.     MR. HARRISON, YOU SAID AT LEAST TWICE I BELIEVE THAT SOME STATEMENTS THAT MR. FERGUSON HAD SAID. WHAT TYPE OF STATEMENTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? YOU KEEP SAYING THE WAY HE HANDLED HIMSELF, LIKE WHAT?
A.     LIKE WHEN HE FOUND OUT HE HAD A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST, WHY CALL THE NEWS MEDIA. I WOULDN'T HAVE CALLED THE NEWS MEDIA. I WOULDN'T TELL ANYBODY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATES ON YOUR COMPLAINT AND ON THE WARRANT AND ON THE NEWS CLIPPINGS THAT I HAVE HERE, HE WAS THE ONE THAT RELEASED ALL THIS DATA TO THE NEWS MEDIA. THAT IS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, I DON'T GET INTO THAT TYPE OF THING. IN ONE OF THE NEWS ITEMS HERE, AND I WILL BE PLEASED TO LEAVE THIS IN REBUTTAL FROM BOTH OF US FOR THE BOARD IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM, BUT I TOLD MR. FERGUSON THAT AFTER I FOUND OUT HE WAS A CANDIDATE THAT I WOULD APPEAR BEFORE THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE.
Q.     NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

Q.     WHEN DID YOU TELL HIM THAT, MR. HARRISON?
A.     IN ONE OF HIS FAMOUS QUOTATIONS.
Q.     WAS IT RECENTLY?
A.     NO. THIS GOES ON BACK, THIS WAS SEPTEMBER 15TH, AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF MORE.
Q.     I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT CRITICAL.
A.     I WILL LEAVE IT WITH YOU FOR YOUR SCRUTINY, IN FACT, ALL MY PAPERS RELATIVE TO IT.
Q.     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A MAGISTRATE?
A.     GOING INTO 11 YEARS.
Q.     I WAS OUT WHEN YOU DOUBTLESS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION EARLIER. YOU HAVE BEEN A MAGISTRATE FOR 11 YEARS AND YOU ARE IN WOODRUFF. THAT IS WHERE MR. FERGUSON GREW UP, ISN'T IT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HAVE YOU KNOWN HIM ALL HIS LIFE?
A.     NO, SIR. THE FIRST TIME I KNEW MR. FERGUSON WAS WHEN HE HAD THIS CASE SHORTLY AFTER I WAS APPOINTED RECORDER ABOUT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT ENDED UP IN MANDAMOUS COURT ORDER. YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED THAT PART. ALL OF IT IS IN HERE, ALLEGATIONS, REBUTTAL, THE WHOLE BIT. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE AIRED ANYMORE IN THE PUBLIC UNLESS IT JUST NEEDS TO, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE FOR THE COMMITTEE TO PERUSE IT.
Q.     ANYTHING YOU HAND UP, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO HAVE. WE WILL FURNISH IT TO MR. FERGUSON IN CASE HE WANTS TO MAKE A COPY.
A.     MR. FERGUSON CAN HAVE A COPY.

Q.     JUDGE, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT MR. FERGUSON UPON BEING SERVED WITH THE WARRANT CALLED A PRESS CONFERENCE AND MADE IT PUBLIC AS FAR AS THE NEWS MEDIA IS CONCERNED?
A.     YES, SIR. TO ADD TO THE STATE OF CONFUSION, I'VE GOT A LETTER FROM MR. FERGUSON HERE TOO---
Q.     CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION FIRST?
A.     I WILL LISTEN.
Q.     HE AFTER BEING SERVED WITH THE WARRANT CALLED A PRESS CONFERENCE?
A.     BEFORE.
Q.     HE CALLED A PRESS CONFERENCE BEFORE HE WAS SERVED?
A.     YES. IT WAS COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR, THE WHOLE AIRING OUT SITUATION. HE CALLED ME A BIGOT AND A RACIST, WHICH IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER FOR ME. HE EVEN ASKED FOR A JURY TRIAL BEFORE HIS WARRANT WAS SERVED.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHERE WAS THE PRESS CONFERENCE CALLED?
A.     I HAVE TWO IN SPARTANBURG HERALD AND ONE IN THE GREENVILLE NEWS.
Q.     WHERE WAS IT CALLED, AT HIS OFFICE?
A.     I HAVE NO IDEA. HE IS THE ONE THAT CALLED IT.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHO THE NEWS REPORTERS WERE?
A.     LET'S SEE, IN SPARTANBURG WAS MARTIN MELODY, AND ONE IS FROM GREENVILLE, BOB PAISLEY--AND TWO OF THEM FROM MARTIN MELODY AND ONE OF THEM FROM GREENVILLE NEWS, BOB PAISLEY.
Q.     SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE MR. FERGUSON PHYSICALLY WAS WHEN THESE STATEMENTS WERE MADE?
A.     I HAVE NO IDEA. I JUST SAW IT WHEN I PICKED UP MY MORNING PAPER. AGAIN, I WILL STRESS I HAVE NO ANIMOSITY FOR MR. FERGUSON. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED HE IS A GREAT ATTORNEY, BUT I DO NOT FEEL HE SHOULD BE A CIRCUIT JUDGE FROM THE TREATMENT AND WHAT I OBSERVED IN MY COURT.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU, MR. HARRISON.
A.     I WILL PASS THIS TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE AND WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED WITH IT, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT BACK FOR MY FILE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MS. LAWRENCE, WOULD YOU COME UP AND BE SWORN.

JANICE BYARS LAWRENCE, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     MS. LAWRENCE, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING PATIENT WITH US AND WAITING AROUND HERE TODAY. DID YOU ALSO HAVE A SWORN STATEMENT SENT TO THE COMMITTEE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU DO THAT YOURSELF OR DID SOMEONE PREPARE IT ON YOUR BEHALF?
A.     NO, SIR. I DID IT MYSELF AND ALSO MY SISTER-IN-LAW HELPED ME ALSO.
Q.     YOUR STATEMENT DESCRIBES AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 10 OR SEPTEMBER 9, 1989?
A.     IT STARTED ON THAT EVENING, YES, SIR, IT WAS LATE.
Q.     AND WENT INTO THE MORNING OF THE 10TH?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     THAT WAS IN GREENVILLE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AT A PLACE CALLED THE MATRIX CLUB?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COMMITTEE--THEY HAVE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE HERE IN FRONT OF THEM--IF YOU COULD GO OVER THAT BRIEFLY, THEN WE CAN QUESTION YOU IN SOME DETAIL.
A.     DID YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER BRIEFLY HOW I KNEW MR. FERGUSON THAT LEADS INTO MY STORY FIRST?
Q.     THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
A.     MR. FERGUSON REPRESENTED A DEFENDANT THAT WAS CHARGED AND CONVICTED OF ROBBING AND MURDERING MY SISTER BACK IN 1983. THIS GENTLEMAN WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND ROBBERY AND HE WAS IN JAIL. ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE MURDER, AT THE TIME MR. FERGUSON DEFENDED THIS ONE PERSON, MR. HANEY, THERE WAS ALSO TWO OTHER GENTLEMEN. THERE WAS A LADY INVOLVED ALSO AND SHE WAS THE ONE TESTIFYING FOR THE STATE. SHE LATER WENT TO ANDERSON IN FEDERAL COURT AND SAID SHE LIED ABOUT WHAT WAS IN STATE COURT. SO WE HAD HEARD IT WAS GOING TO BE APPEALED AND THAT HANEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BE SET FREE AND HE WOULD NOT SERVE ANY LONGER. WELL, THAT IS THE END OF THAT STORY. THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HOW I KNEW OF MR. FERGUSON. THAT EVENING AS WE WERE LEAVING THE NIGHTCLUB, YOU CAN EITHER GO STRAIGHT OUT OR TO THE LEFT. TO THE LEFT YOU CAN GO TO THE SIDEWALK, SO WE EXITED TO THE LEFT. ABOUT THE SECOND CAR DOWN MR. FERGUSON WAS STANDING THERE WITH ANOTHER GENTLEMAN AND TWO LADIES. AS WE WENT OUT THE DOOR I SAW HIM, AND I LOOKED AT MY DATE AND I SAID, "THAT IS FERGUSON." HE SAID, "WHO?" I SAID, "SH, THAT IS FERGUSON. I WANT TO ASK HIM SOMETHING," AND HE SAID, "COME ON, COME ON, JAN." WE WENT DOWN, I GUESS WE WALKED ABOUT FROM HERE TO WHERE YOU ARE AND MR. FERGUSON---
Q.     THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 15 FEET?
A.     I GUESS, AND WE WERE A WAYS AWAY AND HE WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO IS THIS PERSON. I SAID "HE DEFENDED HANEY IN THE TRIAL AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS THE STATUS, WHAT IS GOING ON WITH IT AND HE WILL BE THE ONE TO ASK." SO HE SAID, "NO, COME ON, LET'S GO." I SAID, "NO, I REALLY WANT TO ASK HIM," BECAUSE IT WAS A GREAT CONCERN OF MINE. SO I WAS HEARING FROM MR. FERGUSON AS WE WERE WALKING, "YEAH, THAT'S MY NAME," AND I HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE. MY DATE, HE SAID---
Q.     YOUR DATE'S NAME WAS ROBERT TROY JOHNSON?
A.     YES. HE SAID, "IF YOU GO BACK UP THERE AND ASK HIM, I WILL GO WITH YOU." I SAID, "THAT IS FINE." SO I WALKED AND I APPROACHED MR. FERGUSON AND I SAID, "MR. FERGUSON?" HE SAID, "YEAH." I SAID, "MAY I SPEAK TO YOU, PLEASE?" HE SAID, "YEAH," AND I SAID, "COULD YOU STEP OVER HERE," AND HIS FISTS WERE IN HIS POCKETS. IT DIDN'T HIT ME AT ANYTIME THAT ANYTHING WOULD TAKE PLACE. WHEN I ASKED HIM TO STEP OVER HERE, THE REASON WHY I DID WAS BECAUSE OF THE WAY HE WAS ACTING. HE TOOK TWO STEPS. AS I TOOK A STEP TO THE RIGHT, MY DATE'S FACE WAS ABOUT RIGHT HERE (INDICATING), RIGHT BEHIND ME. AT THAT TIME HE BENT OVER AND GOT INTO MY DATE'S FACE AND SAID, "WHAT THE F ARE YOU LOOKING AT?" AND THEN MY DATE REPLIED. BEFORE ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN HE KNOCKED ME OVER AND HIT MY DATE, KNOCKED HIM ONTO A CAR, BEFORE HE COULD GET BACK UP HE HIT HIM AGAIN, AND THEN ANOTHER GENTLEMAN, WHICH I THINK HIS NAME IS GARY YOUNG, GRABBED MR. FERGUSON AND SAID, "IT'S NOT WORTH IT, TEE. IT'S NOT WORTH IT, TEE." THEN HE GOT IN FRONT OF MR. FERGUSON AND HE HIT MY DATE AGAIN. MY DATE DOESN'T REMEMBER THIS OTHER GENTLEMAN HITTING HIM BECAUSE HE IS STUNNED, AND THEN THESE FOUR PEOPLE COME OUT ALONG WITH A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE FROM MATRIX AND THEY APPROACHED US, AND BY THAT TIME THEY ARE SWEARING, USING PROFANITY, RAISING A BIG SCENE. I AM TRYING TO GET MY DATE TO COME ON, "LET'S GET IN THE CAR AND LEAVE, JUST CALM DOWN, JUST LEAVE LET'S LEAVE." THEY WERE YELLING, "COME ON, BOY, COME ON."
Q.     WHO IS "THEY"?
A.     MR. FERGUSON AND THE OTHER GENTLEMAN, AND USING PROFANITY, AND MR. PARKER MIMS, WHICH I HAD PUT INTO THE AFFIDAVIT THERE, HIM AND HIS WIFE APPROACHED ME WITH ANOTHER COUPLE. NOW, I DO NOT KNOW THEIR NAMES, BUT MR. AND MRS. MIMS DO. MR. MIMS WENT UP TO THE POLICE ALONG WITH ME AND SAID, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING? THE GUY HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING. IT'S THE OTHER TWO," AND AT THE TIME HE WALKED OUT, THAT IS WHEN HE SAW IT, MR. MIMS, AND THE POLICE TOLD ME IF I DIDN'T STAND BACK AND SHUT UP, I WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED ALSO. I HAD DONE NOTHING EXCEPT TO ASK MR. FERGUSON A QUESTION. HE HAD NO IDEA WHO I WAS.
Q.     MR. FERGUSON HAD NO IDEA WHO YOU WERE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF?
A.     I WAS GOING TO BUT I NEVER HAD A CHANCE.
Q.     WAS IT JUST YOU AND YOUR DATE?
A.     YES, SIR, AND MR. AND MRS. MIMS, THEY WOULDN'T LET ME DRIVE TO THE DETENTION CENTER, AND MR. MIMS INSISTED ON DRIVING THE CAR, MY CAR, WE WERE IN MY CAR, AND MRS. MIMS RODE WITH THE OTHER COUPLE. I ASSUME THEY HAD THEIR CAR. WHEN WE GOT DOWN THERE, THEY HAD ALREADY ARRESTED MY DATE, THE POLICE HAD, PUT HIM IN A CAR, IN A POLICE CAR, HANDCUFFED HIM. WHEN I GOT TO WHEREVER WE WERE AT TO TRY TO GET HIM OUT OF JAIL, MR. FERGUSON WAS IN THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE AND THE MAGISTRATE REFUSED TO SEE ME, AND THEN I ASKED FOR A WARRANT AGAINST MR. FERGUSON AND IT WAS REFUSED AND THE MAGISTRATE WOULDN'T SEE ME. HE FINALLY CAME OUT AND THEY STARTED TO TAKE THE INFORMATION ABOUT A WARRANT, AND THEN WHEN I EXPLAINED WHO HE WAS AND "THAT IS HIM RIGHT THERE," THEY STOPPED AND THEY WOULDN'T GIVE ME ONE.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE MAGISTRATE'S NAME?
A.     HER NAME WAS VERNIECE BUSH, AND IT'S DATED 9/10/88. WHEN WE PAID HIS BOND, THE TIME WAS 3 MINUTES AFTER 5 IN THE MORNING. IT TOOK THAT LONG.
Q.     I THINK I ERRONEOUSLY SAID 1989 EARLIER, BUT IT WAS 1988?
A.     RIGHT, YES, SIR.
Q.     VERNIECE BUSH WAS THE MAGISTRATE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND DID YOU SPEAK TO HER PERSONALLY?
A.     YES, SIR. SHE WOULDN'T SEE ME AT FIRST UNTIL I DEMANDED "I WANT TO SEE HER. WHAT ARE YOU CHARGING HIM WITH?" AT FIRST WHEN I FIRST GOT THERE WHEN MR. FERGUSON WAS IN THE OFFICE WITH THE MAGISTRATE, THEY TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO CHARGE HIM WITH PUBLIC DRUNK AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT. I SAID, "HOW COULD YOU DO THAT? DO SOMETHING. GIVE HIM A BREATHALYZER OR SOMETHING BECAUSE THAT IS NOT RIGHT, HE IS NOT." SO THEN AFTER MR. FERGUSON CAME OUT, SHE STILL REFUSED TO SEE ME. FINALLY WHEN I DID SEE HER, SHE DENIED HIM EVER BEING IN HER OFFICE. SHE DENIED KNOWING WHO HE WAS, AND I SAID, "SO YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ISSUE ME AN ARREST WARRANT FOR MR. FERGUSON?" SHE SAID, "WELL, YOU DO NOT LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN ABUSED."I HAD A CUT ON MY HAND, AND THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT I DID HAVE, BUT I WAS PUSHED TO THE GROUND. I WAS PUSHED AROUND. I HAD A VERY BAD HEADACHE AND HERE IT IS 3:30 IN THE MORNING AND I AM LIKE, "WHY CAN'T I GET HIM OUT OF JAIL?" FINALLY SHE SAID, "ALL WE ARE GOING TO CHARGE IS DISORDERLY CONDUCT," AND THAT IS ALL THEY CHARGED HIM WITH.
Q.     YOU MEAN YOUR DATE?
A.     MY DATE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE OTHER PARTY, WHICH THE TRUE PERPETRATOR HERE IS MR. FERGUSON, AND HE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. I DID CONTACT MR. MIMS OVER THE WEEKEND WHEN I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS DATE AND HE HAD TAKEN OFF FRIDAY AND HE SAID IT WAS TOO SHORT OF NOTICE THAT HE COULD COME DOWN AND GET OFF WORK.
Q.     FOR THIS HEARING YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
A.     YES, FOR THIS HEARING.
Q.     YOUR STATEMENT I THINK YOU SAID YOU MADE TWO OTHER TRIPS TO SEE THE MAGISTRATE IN GREENVILLE?
A.     YES, I DID. THE NEXT AFTERNOON--WE CAME STRAIGHT BACK HOME TO SPARTANBURG. I WENT STRAIGHT TO THE COURTHOUSE, SPOKE TO THE MAGISTRATE THERE.
Q.     IS THIS THE SAME MAGISTRATE?
A.     NO, SIR. I LEFT GREENVILLE WHEN THEY WOULD NOT GIVE ME A WARRANT FOR MR. FERGUSON'S ARREST, I CAME STRAIGHT TO SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND I WENT AND SPOKE TO THE MAGISTRATE THERE.
Q.     DO YOU REMEMBER THAT MAGISTRATE'S NAME?
A.     I DON'T, BUT I RECOGNIZE HIM.I TOLD HIM THE STORY. HE SAID THERE WAS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, I HAD UP TO A YEAR. I WENT BACK TWICE AGAIN--WELL, THAT WAS ON SATURDAY, THE 1OTH. WE WENT BACK TO SIGN A WARRANT ON MR. FERGUSON, MYSELF AND MY DATE, AND IT WAS REFUSED BY THAT MAGISTRATE THERE.
Q.     DID THEY TAKE A STATEMENT, A WRITTEN STATEMENT?
A.     NO, SIR, THEY REFUSED. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I ASKED HER TWICE, THIS MAGISTRATE, AND SHE SAID, "DO YOU NOT UNDER ME, MA'AM?" I SAID, "MA'AM, IT IS MY RIGHT. ARE YOU REFUSING TO GIVE ME AN ARREST WARRANT AGAINST THIS PERSON THAT ASSAULTED ME?" AND SHE SAID, "YES, I AM. OFFICER SO AND SO, STEP OVER HERE PLEASE. I WANT YOU TO WITNESS THIS," AND SHE LOOKS AT ME STRAIGHT IN THE FACE AND TELLS SHE IS NOT GOING TO GIVE ME AN ARREST WARRANT FOR MR. FERGUSON PERIOD AND I CAN LEAVE.
Q.     DID SHE GIVE YOU ANY REASON?
A.     NO, SIR. NO, SIR.
Q.     LET ME GO BACK TO THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1988. YOU SAID IT WAS ABOUT 11:30 P.M. WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HAD YOU AND YOUR DATE BEEN DRINKING?
A.     WE HAD WENT OUT FOR A LATE DINNER AT THE BIJOU RESTAURANT. AFTER WE LEFT THERE, WE WENT OVER TO MATRIX BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GO DANCING, BUT WE DIDN'T LIKE THE MUSIC AND SO WE LEFT. WE STAYED THERE FOR 40 MINUTES.
Q.     HAD YOU SEEN MR. FERGUSON INSIDE THE CLUB?
A.     NO, SIR. WE DECIDED TO LEAVE AND COME BACK HOME TO SPARTANBURG, AND SO AS WE WERE LEAVING, THAT IS WHEN IT ALL TOOK PLACE.
Q.     YOU KNEW HIM BECAUSE YOU HAD SEEN HIM AT THE TRIAL?
A.     YES, SIR, AND ALSO HE HAS BEEN IN WHERE I AM EMPLOYED ALSO, HIM AND THE OTHER GENTLEMAN THAT IS SITTING NEAR HIM ALSO. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY RECOGNIZED ME.
Q.     WHERE ARE YOU EMPLOYED?
A.     I AM EMPLOYED WITH LONG JOHN SILVER'S.
Q.     THEY HAD COME IN AS PATRONS TO THE RESTAURANT BEFORE?
A.     YES.
Q.     HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE TONE OF VOICE YOU USED WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING TO MR. FERGUSON TO "STEP OVER HERE"?
A.     I WALKED UP TO HIM, I HAD NO IDEA, MAYBE I WAS SO VERY NAIVE THAT PEOPLE ARE NICE TO EACH OTHER. I WALKED UP, I SAID, "MR. FERGUSON, MAY I SPEAK TO YOU, PLEASE?" HE SAID, "YEAH." I SAID, "COULD YOU STEP OVER HERE?" LIKE THAT AND THAT IS WHEN IT TOOK PLACE. HE TOOK TWO STEPS AND IT STARTED.
Q.     DID YOU OR YOUR DATE, MR. JOHNSON, EVER USE ANY ABUSIVE LANGUAGE?
A.     NO, SIR, NOTHING WAS EVER SAID TOWARDS MR. FERGUSON OR HIS PARTY UNTIL I SAID "MR. FERGUSON, MAY I SPEAK TO YOU PLEASE?"
Q.     WHY DID YOU REQUEST HIM TO STEP OVER SOMEWHERE RATHER THAN SPEAK WHERE YOU WERE?
A.     BECAUSE HE WAS SURROUNDED BY A GROUP OF PEOPLE AND HE HAD HIS FISTS IN HIS POCKETS AND I JUST HAD AN UNEASY FEELING AT THAT TIME, AND I HAD NEVER FELT LIKE THAT. I FELT LIKE I WAS TOTALLY COMFORTABLE SPEAKING TO THE MAN. I HAD NOTHING AGAINST HIM UNTIL THAT HAPPENED.
Q.     DID YOUR DATE DO ANYTHING? DID HE APPROACH MR. FERGUSON, DID HE SWING AT HIM, DID HE MAKE ANY KIND OF QUICK MOVEMENT LIKE TAKING HIS HANDS OUT OF HIS POCKET OR ANYTHING?
A.     NO, SIR. MY DATE IS MAYBE 5'8", 170 POUNDS, JUST A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN I AM. HE WAS JUST THERE FOR MYSELF, JUST FOR ME, AND I GUESS MR. FERGUSON DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY HE LOOKED OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I HAVE NEVER CONTACTED MR. FERGUSON AFTER THAT. I DO HAVE MEDICAL BILLS. I SENT MINE IN TO MY INSURANCE COMPANY BECAUSE MY INSURANCE COMPANY PAYS 100 PERCENT OF ACCIDENTS AND IT PAID MY 100 PERCENT. I HAVE MY DATE'S MEDICAL BILL HERE WHICH WE WENT ON THE 10TH, WE BOTH DID.
Q.     HOW MUCH WERE THOSE BILLS?
A.     HIS WAS $51, AND MINE WAS $51 ALSO. THE DOCTOR THAT SAW US SAID HE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TESTIFY. NOW, I HAVE NOT SPOKE TO HIM SINCE THAT DAY.
Q.     YOU SAID YOU CUT YOUR HAND?
A.     UH-HUH. IT WASN'T DEEP ENOUGH TO HAVE STITCHES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT WAS LIKE EITHER HIS NAIL OR A PIECE OF JEWELRY SCRATCHED MY HAND. I HAD A VERY BAD HEADACHE.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT YOUR DATE?
A.     HE HAD A BRUISED FACE AND A SWOLLEN NOSE.
Q.     WHY WAS HIS FACE BRUISED?
A.     BECAUSE MR. FERGUSON HIT HIM TWICE AND THE OTHER GENTLEMAN HAD HIT HIM ONCE IN THE FACE.
Q.     WITH THEIR FISTS?
A.     WITH THEIR FISTS, YES, SIR.
Q.     YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE MIMS BEFORE THAT EVENT?
A.     NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q.     THEY HAPPENED TO COME OUT WHILE THIS WAS OCCURRING?
A.     YES, SIR. HE TOLD ME HE WALKED OUT AS MR. FERGUSON WAS YELLING TOWARDS US. HE COULD NOT SEE, HE COULD NOT MAKE OUT WHAT WAS BEING SAID, BUT HE SAID THEN THERE WAS SCUFFLING, AND THAT IS WHEN HE KNOCKED ME OUT OF THE WAY AND HIT MY DATE AND THAT IS WHEN IT ALL STARTED. THEN HE ALSO REMEMBERS ALL OF THE SWEARING AND THE PROFANITY USED BY MR. FERGUSON AND HIS FRIEND.
Q.     EITHER AFTER THE POLICE OR THE SECURITY GUARD SHOWED UP OR LATER AT THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE, WAS THERE EVER ANY DISCUSSION OR EXPLANATION BETWEEN YOU AND MR. FERGUSON?
A.     NO, SIR, THERE WAS NOT. MR. FERGUSON AFTER HE CAME OUT OF THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE, HE WAS READY TO GO BUT THERE WAS A BLACK GENTLEMAN SITTING ACROSS FROM ME AND I WAS STANDING AT THE COUNTER WANTING TO FIND OUT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET MY DATE OUT OF JAIL BECAUSE WE HAD NOT DONE A THING, AND THE GENTLEMAN LOOKED AT ME AND HE SAID, "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?" AND I LOOKED AT HIM AND SAID, "DOING WHAT? I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING AND PLEASE DO NOT SAY ANYTHING TO ME." EVIDENTLY, IT WAS A FRIEND OF MR. FERGUSON'S BECAUSE HE SPOKE TO HIM WHEN HE CAME OUT, AND ALSO THE OTHER GENTLEMAN WAS STANDING ON MY SIDE OF THE COUNTER AND THEY STOOD OUT THERE AND STARED AT ME AND STARED AT ME. I WAS HARASSED TILL THEY LEFT. THEY NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO ME, BUT THEY STARED AT ME.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHO THEY WERE?
A.     I RECOGNIZED MR. FERGUSON AND THE NAME, GARY YOUNG, I BELIEVE I GOT IT THAT EVENING. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS CHARGED WITH ANYTHING, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MR. FERGUSON.
Q.     THE MIMS ACCOMPANIED YOU DOWN TO THE DETENTION CENTER?
A.     MR. MIMS INSISTED ON DRIVING MY CAR AND HE ASKED HIS WIFE, "DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH US AND I'LL DRIVE HER CAR AND YOU ALL MEET ME DOWN THERE?" AND SHE SAID, "NO, JUST GO AHEAD AND GET HER THERE," BECAUSE I WAS WANTING TO GO QUICKLY TO GET MY DATE OUT OF JAIL, AND SO HE DROVE MY CAR AND THE OTHER COUPLE AND MRS. MIMS WAS IN THE OTHER CAR BEHIND US. WE GOT DOWN THERE AND THEY TRIED TO TELL THE POLICE AT THE STATION ABOUT "YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE. THIS GUY HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING." THAT IS WHY THEY WERE SO UPSET.
Q.     DID YOU MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE, WOULD THEY TAKE A WRITTEN STATEMENT?
A.     I TRIED TO, AND AS I SAID EARLIER, HE STARTED TO TAKE IT, A GENTLEMAN, A POLICE OFFICER STARTED TO TAKE IT, AND THEN AFTER MR. FERGUSON CAME OUT, THEY SAID, "WHAT IS HIS HEIGHT AND WHAT IS HIS WEIGHT?" AND I SAID, "THAT IS HIM STANDING RIGHT THERE. THAT IS THE GENTLEMAN RIGHT THERE, MR. FERGUSON," AND THEY STOPPED AND THE MAGISTRATE SAID, "NO, NO, NO."
Q.     DID MR. MIMS EVER TALK TO THE MAGISTRATE?
A.     NO, SIR, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I CANNOT REMEMBER BUT I DON'T BELIEVE SO BECAUSE I THINK THEY HAD LEFT AT THAT TIME.
Q.     YOU SAID YOU MADE TWO OTHER TRIPS TO SEE MAGISTRATES AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THOSE. WHEN IN RELATION TO THE INCIDENT DID YOU GO BACK AND TALK TO MAGISTRATE VERNIECE BUSH AND ALSO---
A.     THAT NIGHT OF---
Q.     THE 1OTH?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     THE FOLLOWING EVENING?
A.     NO. IT'S THE MORNING. IT'S THE MORNING. IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW. IT HAPPENED ON A FRIDAY NIGHT AT 11:30. IT WENT INTO THE MORNING OF THE 10TH. IN THAT MORNING OF THE 1OTH I SPOKE TO THE MAGISTRATE VERNIECE BUSH FOR THE FIRST TIME. SHE REFUSED A WARRANT. I CAME BACK TO SPARTANBURG, SPOKE TO THE MAGISTRATE AT SPARTANBURG COUNTY, CAME BACK HOME, MADE SOME PHONE CALLS, WENT BACK TO THE COURTHOUSE OR WHENEVER IT WAS, DETENTION CENTER, IN GREENVILLE THAT SAME AFTERNOON. I CANNOT REMEMBER WHAT TIME IT WAS, BUT I DO KNOW IT WAS THAT AFTERNOON ON THE 10TH. THERE WAS A DIFFERENT MAGISTRATE. SHE REFUSED IT. THAT IS WHEN THE LADY, THE MAGISTRATE, ASKED THE POLICE OFFICER TO COME OVER AND STAND BESIDE HER SO SHE COULD TELL ME AGAIN THAT SHE WAS REFUSING A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST.
Q.     THE ONE THAT REFUSED IT THE SECOND TIME BACK OVER IN GREENVILLE, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT MAGISTRATE?
A.     YES, SIR, IT WAS.
Q.     YOU DON'T RECALL HER NAME?
A.     NO, SIR, I DON'T. YOU COULD PROBABLY MAYBE IF THEY HAVE A SCHEDULE THAT THEY HAVE KEPT, GET THAT NAME.
Q.     HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING SINCE THEN TO FOLLOW UP?
A.     NO, SIR. IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WAS WORKING TOTALLY AGAINST MYSELF AND MY DATE.
Q.     DID YOU HEAR ANY DISCUSSION BETWEEN MR. FERGUSON AND THE MAGISTRATE THAT EVENING?
A.     NO, SIR. THE DOORS WERE CLOSED.
Q.     DID YOU SEE HIM COME OUT OF THE DOOR?
A.     YES, SIR, I DID. I WAS IN THERE FOR ABOUT, I WOULD SAY ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO 20 MINUTES, AND WHEN HE DID COME OUT, HE SHUT THE DOOR BEHIND HIM AND THEN THE MAGISTRATE CAME OUT AND CAME AROUND THE COUNTER AND WENT BACK I GUESS WHERE THEY KEEP THE PRISONERS TO SET BOND OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE I WAS WANTING TO SPEAK TO HER AND THEY SAID, "SHE DOESN'T HAVE TIME BECAUSE SHE HAS TO SET BONDS FOR THE PRISONERS."
Q.     DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM WITH MR. FERGUSON AND THE MAGISTRATE?
A.     I DON'T REMEMBER, SIR. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN.
Q.     YOU SAY YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY FURTHER CONTACT WITH MR. FERGUSON OR SEEN HIM UNTIL TODAY?
A.     NO, SIR, I HAVEN'T.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     MS. LAWRENCE, WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE HANEY TRIAL?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HOW LONG DID THAT TRIAL LAST?
A.     HOW LONG AGO?
Q.     HOW LONG DID THE TRIAL LAST?
A.     I GUESS FOR ABOUT TWO WEEKS, MAYBE TWO AND A HALF. I CAN'T REMEMBER, ABOUT TWO, MAYBE THREE WEEKS.
Q.     WERE YOU IN COURT EVERY DAY?
A.     NO, SIR, I WAS NOT IN COURT EVERY DAY.
Q.     IF IT LASTED TWO WEEKS, HOW MANY OF THOSE DAYS WERE YOU IN COURT?
A.     I TRIED TO BE IN EVERY DAY THAT I COULD. I WOULD ONLY GET OFF TWO DAYS A WEEK AND I THINK I TOOK ABOUT FOUR, MAYBE FIVE, MAYBE SIX DAYS, MAYBE HALF OF IT. IT COULD BE MORE, IT COULD BE LESS.
Q.     WHO WAS THE SOLICITOR THAT PROSECUTED MR. HANEY?
A.     GOSNELL, BUT RICK VIETH WAS THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR AT THAT TIME.
Q.     DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. VIETH CONCERNING THE TRIAL?
A.     CONCERNING THE TRIAL AT THAT TIME?
Q.     YES, MA'AM.
A.     I TALKED TO HIM, I BELIEVE, ONE TIME.
Q.     DID YOU TALK WITH ANY INVESTIGATORS AT THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU TALK WITH ANYBODY ELSE WITH THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE ABOUT THE TRIAL?
A.     NO, SIR. THERE WAS ONE DETECTIVE THAT HAD GIVEN ME HIS CARD, MYSELF AND MY SISTER, WHEN WE WERE ON BREAK AND WE WERE ALL TALKING AND HE SAID HE WAS ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIVE DETECTIVES I BELIEVE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I STILL HAVE THAT CARD.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MR. VIETH?
A.     I DON'T HAVE HIS NUMBER. HE IS PRACTICING IN SPARTANBURG.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM?
A.     I COULD LOOK UP HIS PHONE NUMBER.
Q.     HAVE YOU EVER CALLED HIM ABOUT MR. HANEY SINCE THE TRIAL?
A.     NO, SIR. HE IS NO LONGER WITH THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE.
Q.     WOULDN'T HE BE THE LOGICAL PERSON TO CALL TO FIND OUT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH MR. HANEY?
A.     IT DIDN'T COME TO MY KNOWLEDGE AT THAT TIME, NO, SIR.
Q.     HAD YOU EVER HAD ANY CONVERSATION OR ANY CONTACT WITH MR. FERGUSON BEFORE SEPTEMBER 9, 1988?
A.     NO, SIR. I MAY HAVE SEEN HIM ON A STREET AS I WAS DRIVING BY, BUT THAT IS IT. I DON'T KNOW THE MAN.
Q.     AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 9, 1988 HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW YOU LIVED IN THIS WORLD?
A.     TO MY KNOWLEDGE. HE COULD, BUT I DON'T THINK HE DID.
Q.     YOU SAY YOU WERE WALKING AWAY FROM MR. FERGUSON?
A.     YES. WE WALKED RIGHT THROUGH THEM BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE SIDEWALK. THEY WERE ON THE SIDEWALK BY THEIR CARS. I ASSUME IT WAS THEIR CARS PARKED RIGHT THERE. THAT IS RIGHT OUT OF THE ENTRANCE DOOR.
Q.     YOU WALKED PAST WHERE MR. FERGUSON WAS?
A.     YES, SIR, GOING TO OUR CAR.
Q.     WHEN YOU HAD PASSED HIM, HE SAID, "THAT IS ME" OR "THAT IS MY NAME"?
A.     WHEN I CAME OUT OF THE DOOR, I LOOKED AT MY DATE AND I SAID, "THAT IS FERGUSON." HE SAID, "WHO?" AND I SAID "SH," AND WE WENT ON BY HIM. EVIDENTLY HE MUST HAVE HEARD ME BECAUSE HE GOES, "YEAH, THAT'S ME, THAT IS ME," AND THAT IS WHAT I HEARD, AND IT DIDN'T REGISTER. I DIDN'T PAY IT ANY ATTENTION. I SAID, "YES, HE REPRESENTED FRANKIE HANEY, THE GUY THAT'S IN JAIL NOW FOR KILLING CHERYL AND I HEAR THAT HE POSSIBLY WILL APPEAL OR THEY WILL SAY THAT THE GIRL IS GOING TO BE CHARGED WITH PERJURY IN STATE COURT INSTEAD OF FEDERAL COURT, SO HE MAY BE RELEASED, SO I AM GOING TO GO ASK HIM."
Q.     HOW FAR WERE YOU AWAY FROM MR. FERGUSON WHEN YOU TURNED AROUND TO GO BACK TOWARDS HIM?
A.     ABOUT FROM HERE TO WHERE THAT GENTLEMAN IS SITTING.
Q.     THAT IS 15 FEET AGAIN?
A.     I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY.
Q.     WHEN YOU WERE HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE MAGISTRATE IN GREENVILLE COUNTY, YOU NEVER ONCE ASKED THE MAGISTRATE TO HAVE MR. YOUNG ARRESTED?
A.     NO. I DID NOT KNOW HIS NAME. I DID NOT KNOW HIS NAME AT THAT TIME, AND I FORGET HOW I GOT HIS NAME.
Q.     DID YOU EVER ASK THE POLICE TO LOCATE THE OTHER MAN THAT WAS WITH MR. FERGUSON?
A.     HE WAS STANDING IN THE ROOM, SIR. HE WAS STANDING RIGHT THERE.
Q.     DID YOU EVER POINT TO WHO YOU LATER DISCOVERED WAS MR. YOUNG AND SAY "ARREST THAT MAN TOO"?
A.     I DIDN'T KNOW WHO--HIS NAME. I KNEW WHO HE WAS. HE WAS THE ONE THAT HIT---
Q.     I KNOW YOU DIDN'T KNOW HIS NAME, BUT DID YOU EVER POINT TO WHO YOU LATER DISCOVERED WAS MR. YOUNG AND ASK SOMEBODY TO ARREST THAT MAN?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     LIKE YOU WERE ASKING THEM TO ARREST MR. FERGUSON.
A.     I ASKED WHY HE WAS ON THIS SIDE OF THE COUNTER AND MY DATE WAS BACK THERE IN PRISON, I DID ASK THEM THAT, WHY WASN'T HE ARRESTED.
Q.     "HE" WAS MR. FERGUSON?
A.     NO. MR. FERGUSON WAS IN THE ROOM WITH THE MAGISTRATE. THE OTHER GENTLEMAN WAS STANDING ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE COUNTER I WAS, AND IT WAS LIKE STANDING AT A COUNTER LIKE THIS. HE WAS ABOUT RIGHT THERE AND HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT AND HE NEVER SAID A WORD. HE WAS THE ONE THAT HIT MY DATE ALSO.
Q.     YOUR DATE WAS MR. JOHNSON, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HE PLED GUILTY TO THE CHARGES?
A.     YES, SIR. WE WENT AND HE GOT AN ATTORNEY, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE ATTORNEY'S NAME IN GREENVILLE, AND THE ATTORNEY TOLD HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY AND JUST FORFEIT HIS BOND AND IT WOULD BE A LOT SIMPLER.
Q.     ON ADVICE OF A LAWYER IN GREENVILLE MR. JOHNSON PLED GUILTY?
A.     YES, SIR. AND WE WENT TO THE COURT DATE. I WAS THERE ALSO WHEN HE WENT.
Q.     THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

Q.     I NOTICE ON THE FIRST PAGE OF YOUR STATEMENT, AND, OF COURSE, THIS IS AFTER YOU HAD TURNED AROUND OF COURSE, YOU SAID BRIEF WORDS WERE THEN EXCHANGED BY MY DATE AND MR. FERGUSON. CAN YOU REMEMBER THOSE WORDS?
A.     DOWN AT THE BOTTOM?
Q.     DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, THAT LAST SENTENCE. IT'S CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE.
A.     RIGHT. MY DATE REPLIED, TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER, HE REPLIED THE EXACT SAME THING THAT MR. FERGUSON SAID TO HIM RIGHT AFTER HE SAID THAT AND THAT IS ALL HE SAID.
Q.     YOUR DATE SAID THAT BACK TO HIM?
A.     YES, SIR. THE BEST THAT I CAN REMEMBER HE DID.
Q.     YOUR DATE WAS STANDING BEHIND YOU?
A.     HE WAS STANDING RIGHT HERE. WHEN I ASKED MR. FERGUSON TO STEP OVER HERE, I TOOK A COUPLE OF STEPS TO THE RIGHT AND THAT KNOCKED ME INTO MY DATE, AND I GUESS HIS FACE WAS ABOUT RIGHT HERE. HE WAS KIND OF A STEP BEHIND ME.
Q.     HE WAS STANDING BESIDE YOU THEN I GUESS?
A.     YES, BUT MAYBE A STEP BACK, LIKE RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO STEP OVER HERE SO MR. FERGUSON COULD.
Q.     YOUR DATE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING FIRST?
A.     NO, SIR. HE NEVER, NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO MR. FERGUSON NOR HIS PARTY UNTIL MR. FERGUSON MADE THAT STATEMENT TO HIM.
Q.     YOUR DATE MADE THE SAME STATEMENT BACK TO HIM?
A.     AT THAT TIME, YES, SIR. THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER, YES, THAT IS THE ONLY THING HE EVER HAD A CHANCE TO SAY, DO OR ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL I HELPED HIM, AND THE OTHER WITNESSES HELPED HIM ALSO AND THEN THE POLICE GOT HIM.
Q.     NO OTHER WORDS WERE SAID BETWEEN YOUR DATE AND MR. FERGUSON?
A.     BEFORE HE HIT HIM?
Q.     THAT'S RIGHT.
A.     NO, SIR, NOT ANOTHER WORD, BECAUSE RIGHT AFTER IT CAME OUT OF THE MOUTH MR. FERGUSON HAD KNOCKED ME OVER AND HIT ROBERT.
Q.     WHAT HAPPENED THEN? HOW LONG WAS IT BEFORE A SECURITY GUARD CAME?
A.     IT WAS ALREADY JUST ABOUT OVER THEN, SIR. WHEN THEY GOT THERE, THERE WAS A LOT OF PROFANITY AND SWEARING AND IT WAS AWFUL. WHEN HE FIRST HIT MY DATE, I WILL ADD THIS, AND IT'S IN MY STATEMENT, WHEN HE FIRST HIT MY DATE, HE KNOCKED ME OVER OUT OF THE WAY. I DON'T REMEMBER IF I HIT THE GROUND, BUT WHEN I GOT UP, I GOT IN FRONT OF MR. FERGUSON LIKE THIS GOING "NO, PLEASE, NO, NO. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" I WAS CRYING AND HE KNOCKED ME OUT OF THE WAY AGAIN AND HE HIT HIM AGAIN, AND AT THAT TIME THE OTHER GENTLEMAN GRABBED HIS ARMS BEHIND MR. FERGUSON AND THEN GOT IN FRONT OF MR. FERGUSON SOMEHOW, AND I AM TRYING TO GET IN BETWEEN THEM AND MY DATE AND MY DATE IS UP AGAINST THE CAR, AND I'M GOING "PLEASE STOP," AND THEN THAT GENTLEMAN HITS HIM ALSO. HE HIT HIM ONE TIME. NOW, MY DATE CANNOT REMEMBER THAT GENTLEMAN, THE LAST GENTLEMAN, HITTING HIM. HE DOES REMEMBER MR. FERGUSON HITTING HIM.
Q.     WHERE WERE MR. AND MRS. MIMS AND THE OTHER COUPLE AT THAT TIME?
A.     THEY HAD JUST WALKED OUT WHEN THE HITTING STARTED. THAT IS WHAT THEY TOLD ME.
Q.     SO THEY WERE COMING OUT THE DOOR?
A.     YES, SIR, OUT THE SAME DOOR WE HAD CAME OUT OF.
Q.     HOW FAR WAS THAT FROM WHERE THE FIGHT TOOK PLACE?
A.     IT WAS TWO CAR SPACES DOWN, JUST RIGHT THERE AT THE DOOR, AND, SEE, WE WERE UP ON THE SIDEWALK. BY THE TIME IT WAS ALL OVER I CAN'T REMEMBER IF MR. FERGUSON AND MR. YOUNG WAS IN THE PARKING LOT OR ON THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE THEY WERE USING A LOT OF PROFANITY AND CUSSING AND SAYING "COME ON, COME ON, COME ON." I AM SAYING, "COME ON, LET'S GET IN THE CAR AND LEAVE," AND THEN IS WHEN THE SECURITY GUARD CAME OUT AND THEN THE POLICE ARRIVED AND THEY PUT MY DATE INTO THE POLICE CAR AND HANDCUFFED AND TREATED HIM LIKE A TRUE CRIMINAL I HAVE TO SAY, AND WE GOT NO CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER, NONE. I FELT TOTALLY HELPLESS.
Q.     HOW ABOUT MR. FERGUSON AND HIS FRIEND, WERE THEY TAKEN TO THE POLICE STATION ALSO?
A.     THEY WERE THERE WHEN I GOT THERE. WHEN I WALKED IN TO SEE THE MAGISTRATE, WHEN YOU WALK IN ITS A BIG OPEN SPACE AND RIGHT THERE IS A BIG LONG COUNTER, THE GENTLEMAN THAT I THINK HIS NAME IS GARY YOUNG WAS STANDING ON THIS SIDE OF THE COUNTER, THE SAME SIDE OF THE COUNTER I WAS ON, MR. FERGUSON WAS IN THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE. I STOOD THERE AND TRIED TO TELL THE POLICE WHO MY DATE WAS, I NEEDED TO GET HIM OUT WHATEVER IT TOOK JUST LET ME KNOW AND I WILL DO IT. I WANT HIM OUT AND I NEED HIM OUT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WELL, MR. MIMS AND THE OTHER GENTLEMAN THAT WAS WITH MR. MIMS AND MRS. MIMS AND THE OTHER LADY, THEY WERE TRYING TO TELL THE POLICE ALSO THAT THEY HAD ARRESTED THE WRONG PERSON BECAUSE THEY SAW IT. NO ONE GAVE US ANY CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER. IT WAS LIKE I DIDN'T EVEN EXIST AND MY DATE DIDN'T EVEN EXIST BECAUSE OF THE INFLUENCE MR. FERGUSON USED IN THAT MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE.
Q.     THE POLICE THAT ARRIVED WERE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT, DO YOU KNOW?
A.     I CAN'T REMEMBER, I WAS SO UPSET AT THAT TIME, SIR. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT, I DON'T KNOW.
Q.     THIS HAPPENED IN THE TOWN LIMITS OR OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS?
A.     I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE CITY LIMITS. THE MATRIX NIGHTCLUB IS AT THE HILTON THERE ON 385.
Q.     THANK YOU, MA'AM.

Q.     YOUR DATE, MR. ROBERT TROY JOHNSON, IS HE MARRIED?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE IS?
A.     YES, SIR. HE IS AT WORK RIGHT NOW.
Q.     HE KNEW YOU WERE COMING HERE TODAY?
A.     YES, HE DID.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHY HE DIDN'T COME?
A.     HE COULDN'T GET OFF. HE WAS OUT THREE DAYS LAST WEEK WITH STREP THROAT. I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND I REARRANGED MY SCHEDULE SO THAT I COULD BE HERE, AND I HAVE A PROFESSIONAL JOB, AND WHEN I HAVE TO GO BACK THIS EVENING, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO WORK.
Q.     YOU JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THE DATE OF THE HEARING?
A.     YES, SIR, THE DATE OF THE HEARING ON FRIDAY.
Q.     WHEN DID YOU FIRST FIND OUT MR. FERGUSON WAS SEEKING A JUDGESHIP?
A.     ABOUT A YEAR AGO, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOUR DATE ALSO LEARN AT THAT TIME?
A.     YES, SIR. WE HAVE BEEN DATING FOR FOUR YEARS.
Q.     HE NEVER INDICATED HE WANTED TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. FERGUSON?
A.     HE WANTED TO BE THE ONE TO BE DOWN HERE.
Q.     DID HE FILE A COMPLAINT?
A.     NO, I DID.
Q.     ONE OTHER QUESTION, WHERE WERE YOU BLEEDING?
A.     FROM MY HAND.
Q.     YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T HIT THE GROUND, WHAT DID YOU HIT?
A.     AS I TOLD THEM A WHILE AGO, I BELIEVE IT WAS EITHER HIS FINGERNAIL OR A PIECE OF JEWELRY. I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER IF I DID OR DID NOT HIT THE GROUND. I KNOW HE HIT ME HARD ENOUGH ON MY SHOULDERS, BOTH TIMES HE HIT ME WAS ON MY SHOULDERS, AND IT KNOCKED ME OFF BALANCE AND I WENT FLYING THIS WAY OR FLYING THAT WAY AND I CANNOT REMEMBER IF I HIT THE GROUND OR NOT. I COULD HAVE, I DON'T KNOW.
Q.     YOU SAY WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM HE HAD HIS FISTS IN HIS POCKET?
A.     NOT WHEN I FIRST SAW HIM, SIR. WHEN I WENT BACK UP TO HIM.
Q.     YOU WENT BACK UP TO HIM AND HE HAD HIS FISTS IN HIS POCKET?
A.     UH-HUH.
Q.     WHICH POCKET DID HE HAVE HIS FISTS IN?
A.     THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER, BOTH OF THEM.
Q.     PANTS POCKET OR COAT POCKET?
A.     PANTS POCKET.
Q.     PANTS POCKET?
A.     THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER, YES.
Q.     DID HE HAVE A COAT ON?
A.     YES, SIR, HE DID. HE HAD A TUXEDO ON TO MY KNOWLEDGE. THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER HE DID HAVE A TUXEDO ON THAT EVENING.
Q.     BASED ON THE CONTOUR OF HIS HAND YOU COULD TELL WHETHER HIS HANDS WAS JUST IN HIS POCKET AS OPPOSED TO HIS FISTS?
A.     IT WAS VERY BROAD AND IT LOOKED LIKE EITHER HE HAS WADS OF PAPERS IN HIS POCKETS OR HE HAS HIS FISTS IN HIS POCKETS.
Q.     YOU OBSERVED THAT?
A.     YES.
Q.     IN SPITE OF THAT, YOU STILL RAN UP TO HIM?
A.     YES, SIR, BECAUSE WHEN I REALIZED THAT, THAT IS EXACTLY THE TIME I SAID, "MR. FERGUSON, MAY I SPEAK TO YOU, PLEASE?" AND HE GOES, "YEAH," AND I SAID, "COULD YOU STEP OVER HERE, PLEASE?" HE GOES, "UH-HUH."
Q.     WHEN YOU OBSERVED HIS FISTS IN HIS POCKET, DID THAT SUGGEST ANYTHING TO YOU?
A.     WELL, AT THAT TIME SOMETHING STARTED GOING THROUGH MY MIND WHEN HE GOES "YEAH." THAT IS THE REASON I SAID, "WOULD YOU STEP OVER HERE, PLEASE," BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING ELSE, ANY OTHER TYPE OF ATTITUDE TO GET IN THE WAY OF SOMEONE BEING MEAN TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE. I DIDN'T GO UP TO HIM FOR HIM TO JUMP ON ME OR MY DATE.
Q.     ONE LAST QUESTION, HAD YOU NOT SPOKEN TO HIM OR ABOUT HIM, CHANCES ARE THIS INCIDENT NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     IF I HAD NOT WENT UP TO HIM, YOU ARE CORRECT. IF I HAD NOT WENT UP TO HIM, BUT I WENT UP TO HIM AS A CITIZEN.

Q.     LET ME ASK YOU JUST ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS. YOU LISTED ON YOUR AFFIDAVIT A BOND ON ROBERT TROY JOHNSON, YOU SAID IT WOULD BE ATTACHED?
A.     IT'S RIGHT HERE, SIR.
Q.     YOU DIDN'T SEND IT IN?
A.     NO, SIR. IT'S RIGHT HERE.
Q.     NOW, MR. FERGUSON REPRESENTED A DEFENDANT OR THE DEFENDANT?
A.     A DEFENDANT, ONE DEFENDANT. THERE WERE THREE DEFENDANTS AT FRANKIE LEE HANEY'S TRIAL. THERE WAS THREE DEFENDANTS FOR THE ROBBERY AND MURDER OF MY SISTER.
Q.     I ASSUME THEN THAT THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS HAD OTHER LAWYERS?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU RECALL WHO THEY WERE?
A.     ONE OF THEM WAS A GERALD--I DON'T REMEMBER HIS LAST NAME OR IF THAT IS HIS LAST NAME. THE OTHER WAS THEO MITCHELL AND HIS PARTNER. I DO BELIEVE THEO MITCHELL WAS IN HERE AND HE STILL MAY EVEN BE IN HERE. YES, SIR, I RECOGNIZE THEM ALSO. I REMEMBER THAT VERY WELL.
Q.     YOU SAY YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING ON APPEAL INVOLVING MR. HANEY?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WHEN WAS THAT MURDER TRIAL?
A.     THE MURDER TRIAL--SHE WAS MURDERED AUGUST 15, 1983. THE TRIAL WAS NOT UNTIL THE SPRING OF '84. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN MARCH OR APRIL.
Q.     SO SOME FOUR YEARS HAD ELAPSED?
A.     YES, SIR. SHE IS JUST NOW SERVING TIME FOR PERJURY IN FEDERAL COURT AND THAT IS THE REASON I HAD APPROACHED HIM AND ASKED HIM THE STATUS.
Q.     SO THE DEFENDANT HANEY WAS A FEMALE?
A.     NO. THE DEFENDANT HANEY IS A MALE. CONNIE SPENCER WAS A PERSON THAT WAS INVOLVED WITH THE MURDER. SHE WAS THERE AS A LOOKOUT. SHE DID NOT GO IN THE STORE. SHE TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE FOR THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE. AFTER THEY HAD MR. HANEY'S TRIAL, ALONG WITH THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS, IT WENT ON TO FEDERAL COURT FOR HER. SHE STATED THAT SHE LIED IN STATE COURT, SO AT THAT TIME THEY WERE GOING TO CHARGE HER WITH PERJURY EITHER IN FEDERAL COURT OR STATE COURT. WE DID NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME.
Q.     AND THAT WAS WHAT YOU WERE INTERESTED IN GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT?
A.     WE HAD HEARD THAT MR. HANEY WAS GOING TO APPLY FOR AN APPEAL SO THAT HE COULD GET OUT OF JAIL IF THEY COULD PROVE SHE LIED IN STATE COURT AGAINST HIM AND THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
Q.     POST-CONVICTION RELIEF PROBABLY.
A.     BUT, ANYWAY, THAT WAS MY CONCERN AND THE WHOLE REASON I APPROACHED MR. FERGUSON.
Q.     DID YOU EVER APPROACH SENATOR MITCHELL?
A.     HE DOESN'T LIVE IN SPARTANBURG AND I NEVER RAN INTO HIM, EXCEPT I JUST SAW HIM A FEW MINUTES AGO.
Q.     WHY DID YOU LIST THIS BOND OF MR. JOHNSON AS AN ATTACHMENT TO YOUR AFFIDAVIT?
A.     WELL, SO I CAN VERIFY MY STORY. I HAVE GOT THE TIME--WELL, NOT THAT HE WAS RELEASED, BUT FINALLY THE TIME THAT THEY TOOK THE BOND, AND WE HAD IT THE WHOLE TIME, $218. WHY DID IT TAKE UNTIL 3 MINUTES AFTER 5 IN THE MORNING TO RELEASE HIM?
Q.     IF YOU ARE ASKING ME, I SURELY CAN'T TELL YOU.
A.     I'M NOT, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THAT IS WHY I BROUGHT THE MEDICAL STATEMENT, AND I HAVE ALSO WRITTEN MY INSURANCE COMPANY TO GET MY STATEMENT BACK ALSO FROM WHERE I WENT TO THE DOCTOR ALSO, BUT I HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT YET.

Q.     MS. LAWRENCE, DURING THE INCIDENT, DID YOU NOTE ANY SIGN OF INTOXICATION ON THE PART OF MR. FERGUSON OR MR. YOUNG?
A.     WHAT I NOTICED WAS HIS EYES. WHEN HE CAME DOWN, HE IS VERY TALL, THAT IS THE ONLY TIME I HAVE STOOD NEXT TO HIM, WHEN HE CAME DOWN, HIS EYES WERE VERY, VERY LARGE AND BLOODSHOT, AND THAT IS WHEN HE WENT "WHAT THE F ARE YOU LOOKING AT?" AND HIS EYES WERE VERY BIG AND GLAZED OVER AND BLOODSHOT. NOW, I DON'T REMEMBER SMELLING ALCOHOL. I COULD HAVE, I DO NOT REMEMBER, I CANNOT SAY THAT, BUT I DO REMEMBER THAT.
Q.     THANK YOU.

Q.     MS. LAWRENCE, DID YOU KNOW ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1988 THAT MR. FERGUSON WAS SEEKING A JUDGESHIP?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     YOU SAID A MINUTE AGO YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO?
A.     EITHER A YEAR OR YEAR AND A HALF. I CAN'T REMEMBER.
Q.     THAT WOULD PUT IT SOMETIME AROUND SEPTEMBER OF '88, WOULDN'T IT?
A.     NO. I DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE WAY I DID FIND OUT HE WAS SEEKING A JUDGESHIP WAS THROUGH MY SISTER-IN-LAW, AND SHE IS A REPORTER FOR THE PAPER, AND THAT WAS AFTERWARDS.
Q.     WHERE DID YOU GET THE FORM THAT YOU FILLED OUT TO SEND IN FRIDAY TO THIS COMMITTEE?
A.     IS THAT NECESSARY?
Q.     YES, MA'AM.
A.     FROM MY FATHER.
Q.     HOW DID HE GET IT TO YOU?
A.     I HAVE NO IDEA. I DO KNOW BACK WHEN--RIGHT AFTER THE TRIAL OF MY SISTER HE GOT UP A PETITION STATING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE JUDGES BE ELECTED AND APPOINTED BY THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE LEGISLATURE.
Q.     WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOUR FAMILY HAS SOME VERY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THE LAWYERS WHO DEFENDED THE DEFENDANTS?
A.     NO, SIR. NO, SIR. I DISAGREE WITH THAT TOTALLY. IF YOU ARE INSINUATING THAT I HAD SOMETHING AGAINST MR. FERGUSON, NO, I DO NOT. I UNDERSTAND THAT HE HAS TO REPRESENT ANY CLIENT HE HAS TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY 100 PERCENT. I HAVE TO DO THAT WITH MY JOB ALSO.
Q.     I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

Q.     MR. FERGUSON, WAS HE REPRESENTING MR. HANEY OR APPOINTED BY THE COURT?
A.     HE WAS APPOINTED BY THE COURT.
Q.     SO, HE HAD NO CHOICE ON THAT?
A.     RIGHT, EXACTLY.
Q.     DID HANEY PLEAD GUILTY OR DID THE JURY FIND HIM GUILTY?
A.     THE JURY FOUND HIM GUILTY, YES, SIR.
Q.     WHAT WAS HIS SENTENCE, DO YOU MIND SHARING THAT WITH US?
A.     OH, GOSH, I CAN'T REMEMBER.
Q.     WAS HE SENTENCED TO DEATH?
A.     NO, IT WASN'T DEATH BY ELECTRIC CHAIR, NO, SIR. I DO KNOW THAT WE JUST FOUND OUT--THERE IS A VICTIM'S ASSOCIATION DOWN HERE THAT CALLS MY PARENTS PERIODICALLY WHENEVER SOMETHING IS GOING ON--HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UP FOR PAROLE I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT A MONTH OR TWO AGO RIGHT BEFORE THANKSGIVING AND WE ALL WENT DOWNTOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE AND WE WENT BACK IN THE JUDGE'S CHAMBERS AND HE PUT IT OFF UNTIL THE NEXT CIRCUIT OR WHATEVER, SO THAT HASN'T CAME UP AGAIN AT ALL.
Q.     THANK YOU, MA'AM.

Q.     IN THE LAST PART OF YOUR STATEMENT, MS. LAWRENCE, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE CRITICAL OF MR. FERGUSON'S USE OF INFLUENCE IN THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THAT IS?
A.     THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WHEN I WENT INTO THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE AFTER MR. FERGUSON HAD LEFT, AT FIRST SHE WOULD NOT SEE ME. WHEN I FINALLY GOT IN THERE, I ASKED HER WHY SHE WOULD NOT GIVE ME A WARRANT. I SAT IN THERE PROBABLY ABOUT 30 OR 40 MINUTES TO AN HOUR TALKING TO HER AND I SAID, "WHAT DID MR. FERGUSON SAY TO YOU? HE IS A STATE LEGISLATOR." SHE SAID, "WHO?" I SAID, "THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS IN HERE A WHILE AGO," AND SHE DENIED KNOWING WHO HE WAS, HIS NAME OR WHAT HE REPRESENTED, SHE DENIED IT ALL, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THERE BUT OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING INFLUENCED HER NOT TO GIVE ME ANY CONSIDERATION OR MY DATE ANY CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER.

Q.     HOW ABOUT THE POLICE THAT ARRESTED MR. JOHNSON?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     THEY ARRESTED HIM AT THE SCENE, DIDN'T THEY?
A.     YES, SIR. SEE, WHAT HAPPENED FIRST IS THE SECURITY GUARD CAME OUT. WHEN THE SECURITY GUARD GRABBED MY DATE, THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT GRABBED MR. YOUNG AND MR. YOUNG SAID, "I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING," AND THE SECURITY GUARD SAID, "I AM GOING TO ARREST YOU BECAUSE YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN FIGHTING," BECAUSE HIS SHIRT WAS OPEN, AND THAT IS WHEN I LOOKED OVER TO THE LEFT AND SAW THEM YELLING AT EACH OTHER AND THEN I WENT OVER TO MY DATE, ROBERT JOHNSON, AND WHEN I DID, THE SECURITY GUARD PUSHED HIM UP AGAINST THE WALL AND SAID, "IF YOU MAKE A MOVE, I AM GOING TO BREAK YOUR BACK, SON."
Q.     DID MR. FERGUSON USE ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE ON THE POLICE THERE?
A.     I HAVE NO IDEA. I DID NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION. I DO KNOW THEY WERE DOWN THERE BEFORE I WAS AND THEY WEREN'T BACK THERE ARRESTED.
Q.     BUT I AM ASKING YOU AT THE SCENE OF THE MATRIX, DO YOU CONTEND THAT MR. FERGUSON USED ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE WITH THE POLICE AT THE SCENE?
A.     YES, PROBABLY SO. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY, YES, SIR.
Q.     WHAT DID YOU SEE HIM DO THERE?
A.     I DID NOT SEE HIM DO A THING. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY HE WAS LET GO AND HE IS STANDING THERE ALL DRESSED UP AND MY DATE IS BACK THERE AND HE IS STRIPPED OF HIS CLOTHES AND HELD LIKE A COMMON CRIMINAL AND, YET, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO MR. FERGUSON OR THE OTHER GENTLEMAN. SO THERE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SOMETHING, BUT I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. JUST LIKE I DID NOT HEAR THE MAGISTRATE SAY ANYTHING TO HIM, BUT I DO KNOW HE WAS IN THAT ROOM WITH HER FOR A LONG WHILE.

Q.     MS. LAWRENCE, DID YOUR DATE EVER TAKE A SWING OR TRY TO HIT THE OTHER PERSON?
A.     NO, SIR, NOT ONE TIME, NOT ONE TIME. HE COULDN'T IF HE EVEN WANTED TO. HE WAS STUNNED. THE FIRST SHOT STUNNED HIM. WHEN HE CAME BACK UP OFF THAT CAR, HE WAS GOING "GOSH," AND THEN I WAS IN FRONT OF MR. FERGUSON WAVING MY ARMS, GOING "NO, PLEASE NO. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" AND HE KNOCKED ME OUT OF THE WAY AGAIN AND CAME AGAIN. I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH FIST HE HIT HIM WITH BUT HE KNOCKED HIM BACK DOWN, AND AT THAT TIME MR. YOUNG GOT IN FRONT OF HIM AND HIT HIM AGAIN, AND HE DOES NOT EVEN REMEMBER MR. YOUNG HITTING HIM. HE JUST REMEMBERS MR. FERGUSON. I REMEMBER MR. YOUNG HITTING HIM AFTER MR. FERGUSON HIT HIM TWICE.
Q.     MR. FERGUSON AND MR. YOUNG, DO YOU KNOW HOW THEY GOT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A.     NO, SIR, I DO NOT. THEY WERE THERE BEFORE I GOT THERE.
Q.     BUT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THEY GOT THERE?
A.     NO, SIR, I DO NOT. WHEN I CAME IN, LIKE I SAID, MR. YOUNG WAS STANDING ON THIS SIDE OF THE COUNTER. AT THAT TIME I DIDN'T KNOW MR. FERGUSON WAS IN THERE IN THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE, BUT I STOOD THERE AND HE FINALLY CAME OUT.
Q.     THANK YOU, MA'AM.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THANK YOU.

JAMES ARTHUR CHEEK, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     MR. CHEEK, YOU ALSO SUBMITTED A WITNESS AFFIDAVIT FORM TO THE COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, I DID.
Q.     IS IT IN REGARD TO A MAGISTRATE COURT PROCEEDING IN WHICH YOU REPRESENTED A GENTLEMAN THAT HAD CHARGES PRESSED AGAINST HIM BY MR. FERGUSON?
A.     YES, IT IS.
Q.     YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA?
A.     YES. I HAVE BEEN LICENSED TO PRACTICE SINCE 1977.
Q.     I WILL NOTE FOR THE COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE ATTACHED A TRANSCRIPT FROM THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING IN WHICH MR. FERGUSON TESTIFIED AND THAT YOU ALSO SUPPLIED A CASSETTE TAPE OF THAT HEARING AND I HAVE LISTENED TO THE TAPE, AND THE TRANSCRIPT IS AN ACCURATE COPY OF THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT BEFORE WE GO INTO THE QUESTIONING?
A.     YES, I WOULD. BY WAY OF EXPLANATION, I AM JAMES CHEEK. I AM A NATIVE OF SPARTANBURG. DURING THE SUMMERS I LIVED IN WOODRUFF SO I HAVE KNOWN MR. FERGUSON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOW, SINCE TEENAGERS. WE WERE ROOMMATES FOR A FEW MONTHS IN COLLEGE AND ONE YEAR IN LAW SCHOOL. I HAVE KNOWN HIM DURING HIS PRACTICE OF LAW IN SPARTANBURG AND WE HAVE HAD AN ON AND OFF GOOD RELATIONSHIP. I HAVE REFERRED CLIENTS TO HIM. WE WORKED TOGETHER ON THE HANEY TRIAL THAT MS. LAWRENCE MENTIONED EARLIER. WE WERE CO-COUNSEL IN DEFENSE OF MR. HANEY. ALSO I HAVE NO REASON OTHER THAN TO BRING TO YOU WHAT I HAVE BROUGHT TO THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. I WANTED THE COMMITTEE TO KNOW THAT MR. FERGUSON AND I WERE BOTH CANDIDATES FOR THE SAME POSITION IN THE LEGISLATURE TWICE. HE SOUNDLY DEFEATED ME BOTH TIMES AND I RESPECT HIM AS A LEGISLATOR, BUT I WANTED TO BRING THESE MATTERS TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS PANEL BECAUSE I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LAWYER AND SOMEONE THAT ASPIRES FOR A JUDICIAL POSITION.
Q.     THE STATEMENT YOU PROVIDED US WITH HAD TO DO WITH A SET OF FACTS WHERE YOU REPRESENTED MRS. FERGUSON'S FORMER HUSBAND, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     HERBERT PRINCE.
Q.     AND THE CHARGE THAT WAS BROUGHT HAD TO DO WITH HARASSMENT OVER THE TELEPHONE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU WERE REPRESENTING MR. PRINCE IN THAT ACTION?
A.     YES.
Q.     AND THE TRANSCRIPT YOU PROVIDED US WAS THE DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FERGUSON AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND THE GIST OF YOUR REASON FOR TESTIFYING HERE TODAY HAD TO DO WITH SOME REMARKS THAT MR. FERGUSON MADE DURING THE HEARING, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     NOT ONLY THE REMARKS BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE WARRANTS HAD NEVER BEEN SWORN AGAINST MR. PRINCE AND MR. FERGUSON, BEING AN ATTORNEY, KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN AT THE TIME THAT HE SWORE THE AFFIDAVIT TO THE WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION HE GAVE THE OFFICER WAS FALSE, AND THAT THE INFORMATION HE GAVE AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS CONTRADICTORY AND TENDED TO MISREPRESENT THE FACTS TO THE COURT. THOSE ARE CONCERNS I HAVE, AS I FEEL THAT KIND OF ACTION TENDED TO POLLUTE AND IMPEDE THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY.
Q.     WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID MR. FERGUSON DO, IF YOU WILL GIVE US SOME FACTS ON THAT?
A.     I SAID THAT HE DID FILE AN AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT HE FELT THAT MR. PRINCE HAD ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. MR. FERGUSON INDICATED THAT FIRST TO THE COURT THAT MR. PRINCE HAD INITIATED THE CONTACT WITH HIM AND ALSO INDICATED THAT MR. PRINCE HAD MADE THE UNLAWFUL TELEPHONE CALLS, WHEN, IN FACT, IT WAS MR. FERGUSON WHO INITIATED THE TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS BOTH TIMES. HE SWORE TO THE COURT THAT MR. PRINCE HAD CALLED HIM OR RETURNED HIS CALL AND GAVE MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT THE TIMES THAT THE INITIAL TELEPHONE CALLS WERE MADE.
Q.     FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMITTEE, I AM SURE THEY READ OVER IT, BUT FOR OTHERS, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS--I KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL DISPUTED FACTS--BUT THE UNDISPUTED FACTS WERE THAT SOME FRIENDS OF THE FERGUSONS WERE COMING TO VISIT THEM AT THEIR HOME AND THEY STOPPED AT A MINI-MART OR SOMETHING TO GET DIRECTIONS TO THE HOME AND MR. PRINCE HAD TOLD THEM WHERE THEY LIVED, GAVE THEM DIRECTIONS AND THEN SAID, "TELL KAY"--MRS. FERGUSON--"PRINCE SAID HELLO." WHEN THE FERGUSON'S FRIENDS ARRIVED AT THEIR HOME, THEY RELAYED THAT MESSAGE, AND MR. FERGUSON MADE A PHONE CALL AT SOME POINT DURING THAT EVENING TO MR. PRINCE, AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS, BUT TELLING HIM NOT TO SEND ANY MESSAGES TO THE HOUSE TO HIS WIFE. THEN THE NEXT DAY, THE NEXT MORNING AT SOME POINT, THERE WAS A TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION AGAIN BETWEEN MR. PRINCE AND MR. FERGUSON, AND IT WAS THE COMMENTS MADE IN THAT COMMUNICATION THAT RESULTED IN A WARRANT, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY RIGHT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
A.     I WANT TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THESE FACTS RELATED BY MR. FERGUSON WERE TOTALLY INCORRECT. HE KNEW AT THE TIME THAT HE SWORE THAT WARRANT THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE FACTS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE WARRANT, BUT WAS NOT ONLY SATISFIED WITH HAVING MR. PRINCE ARRESTED, HE PROSECUTED THE MATTER TO THE POINT OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING WHICH HE KNEW WAS NOT NECESSARY.
Q.     WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR SAYING THAT MR. FERGUSON DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT--ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS--THE RIGHT TO BRING THE CHARGES?
A.     WELL, THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THERE BE MORE THAN ONE COMMUNICATION IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE HARASSMENT OR THAT THE PROFANE LANGUAGE HAS TO BE INITIATED BY THE PERSON MAKING THE PHONE CALL, AND THERE WAS NOT ANYTHING MR. FERGUSON COULD SUBSTANTIATE. IN FACT, HE SAYS IN HIS CLOSING REMARKS TO THE COURT THAT "GRANTED, COUNSEL, MAYBE NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE BY THIS CLIENT WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL OVER THE TELEPHONE," SO HE KNEW AT THE TIME.
Q.     THAT IS ON PAGE 14?
A.     PAGE 14 OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT.
Q.     THE BOTTOM HALF?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     SO YOU ARE SAYING BY THAT STATEMENT THAT HE GRANTED THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE PROPER AUTHORITY OR SET OF FACTS TO HAVE A WARRANT SWORN OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT. I HAD CONTACTED MR. FERGUSON IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND ASKED HIM ABOUT DROPPING THE WARRANT, AND AT THAT TIME HE JUST LAUGHED AND STARTED HUMMING AND WALKED AWAY. BY COMING TO HIM, "TEE, YOU KNOW THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THIS. YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, WHY DON'T YOU DROP THE WHOLE MATTER?" AND HE JUST WALKED AWAY. I AM SAYING THAT THIS WHOLE MATTER COULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED AT THAT POINT. HE KNEW AT THAT POINT THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE FACTS IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE WARRANT THAT HE HAD BROUGHT, YET HE STILL PUT MR. PRINCE THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING AND IT WAS UNCALLED FOR.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE DISPOSITION OF THE HEARING?
A.     THE DISPOSITION WAS THAT ALL CHARGES AGAINST MR. PRINCE WERE DROPPED AND THE WARRANT WAS DISMISSED.
Q.     WERE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES BESIDES MR. FERGUSON THAT TESTIFIED?
A.     THERE WERE NO OTHER WITNESSES. HE WAS THE ONLY WITNESS.
Q.     THE TRANSCRIPT YOU PROVIDED FOR US IS THE TOTAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING?
A.     THAT WAS THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING.
Q.     YOUR CLIENT CONTENDED THAT MR. FERGUSON HAD NOT ONLY CALLED HIM THAT NIGHT---
A.     BUT ALSO CALLED HIM BACK THE NEXT MORNING. HE TOOK HIS PHONE OFF THE HOOK AFTER THE INITIAL PHONE CALL AND PUT THE PHONE BACK--WHAT HE TOLD ME--HE PUT THE PHONE BACK ON WHEN HE WAS TO LEAVE THE HOUSE AND THE PHONE RANG AGAIN SHORTLY BEFORE 11 O'CLOCK A.M.
Q.     MR. FERGUSON CONTENDED IN THE HEARING THAT MR. PRINCE HAD CALLED HIM THE NEXT MORNING, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THE NEXT MORNING. ALSO MR. FERGUSON AT PAGE 10 VERY CLEARLY SAYS, "NO, I HAD NOT CALLED HIM." I HAD REFERRED TO THE NIGHT BEFORE WHEN MR. FERGUSON MADE THE FIRST PHONE CALL TO MR. PRINCE AND UNDER SWORN TESTIMONY HIS COMMENT WAS, "NO, I HADN'T CALLED HIM," AND THEN ON PAGE 9 GOING IN THE REVERSE ORDER, HE SAID IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS "WAS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL THAT HAPPENED THAT MORNING?" HE SAID, "THAT CALL IS THE ONLY CALL I REMEMBER MAKING THAT MORNING," WHICH MEANS AT THAT POINT IN TIME HE WAS SO CONFUSED IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD MADE THE PHONE CALL THE FOLLOWING MORNING ALSO WHEN HE TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT HE HAD NOT MADE THAT TELEPHONE CALL.
Q.     FROM THE TRANSCRIPT THERE DID APPEAR TO BE SOME CONFUSION OVER WHICH TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WAS BEING ALLUDED TO, DO YOU AGREE TO THAT? I AM NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.
A.     WELL, I KNOW THAT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE OFFICIAL PHONE CALL HE REFERRED TO THAT AS BEING THE MIDNIGHT PHONE CALL, OR SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT, AND I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR AT THIS POINT WE ARE TAKING ABOUT WHAT UNUSUAL HAPPENED THAT MORNING, WHETHER OR NOT HE GOT ANY OTHER PHONE CALLS THAT MORNING, ANY HANG-UPS THAT MORNING, SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY CONFUSION WHATSOEVER AS TO WHAT HE WAS TESTIFYING TO.
Q.     IN YOUR SWORN STATEMENT YOU ALSO ALLUDED TO SOME TESTIMONY ON PAGE 10 OF THE TRANSCRIPT WHERE MR. FERGUSON SAID, "WELL, JUST LET ME SAY IF HE OR YOU OR ANYONE ELSE TAKES IT UPON THEMSELVES TO SEND MESSAGES TO MY HOUSE TO MY WIFE, THE NEXT TIME I MIGHT NOT GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO TRY TO GET SOME"---AND THEN HE GOES ON AFTER YOU MAKE A STATEMENT--YOU ASKED "WHAT PROCESS MIGHT YOU TRY TO GO THROUGH, MR. FERGUSON?" HE RESPONDED, "WELL, THERE ARE OTHER PROCESSES. I WILL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU." WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DO YOU PLACE ON THOSE STATEMENTS AND WHY THEY ARE PART OF YOUR AFFIDAVIT?
A.     THE SIGNIFICANCE I ATTACH TO THOSE STATEMENTS IS THAT IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT AT THAT POINT THAT MR. FERGUSON WAS ISSUING A THREAT AND THAT IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE LEGAL PROCESSES, AND THE ONLY OTHER PROCESSES AVAILABLE TO ANY PERSON IS AN ILLEGAL PROCESS, EITHER THROUGH VIOLENCE OR SOME OTHER MEANS. NOW, I THINK AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT THAT KIND OF TESTIMONY, THAT KIND OF DEMEANOR CERTAINLY WAS IMPROPER AND TENDS TO BRING, I THINK, DISREPUTE ON THE JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR HIM TO ENGAGE IN THAT KIND OF THREATENING ACTIVITY.
Q.     ASSUMING THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MR. FERGUSON HAD MADE WERE TRUE, WOULD HE POSSIBLY HAVE HAD A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION?
A.     AGAINST MYSELF OR MR. PRINCE?
Q.     AGAINST MR. PRINCE.
A.     FOR THE HARASSMENT?
Q.     YES, SIR.
A.     HE VERY POSSIBLY COULD HAVE. I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT HE HAD ANY INTENT OF DOING. HAD THAT BEEN THE CASE, I THINK HE WOULD HAVE TAKEN A CIVIL APPROACH TO START WITH, WHICH WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT HE WOULD HAVE SENT THE MAN A LETTER AND DOCUMENTED THAT THE COMMUNICATION HAD BEEN MADE AND REQUEST THAT HE NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATION. THERE WAS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND AT THE TIME THAT HE MADE THAT COMMENT FROM HIS STANCE AND FROM THE VOLUME OF HIS REACTION AND FROM THE MANNER IN WHICH HE DELIVERED IT THAT IT WAS DEFINITELY THREATENING. IT WAS NOT ANYTHING SAYING ANY KIND OF CIVIL--HE DIDN'T SAY CRIMINAL OR SOME OTHER PROCESS, HE SAID LEGAL OR SOME OTHER PROCESS.
Q.     DID HE AT ANY OTHER TIME ALLUDE TO A PROCESS OR METHOD HE MIGHT GO ABOUT IN ALTERING THE SITUATION? OTHER THAN THE STATEMENTS HE MADE IN HIS TESTIMONY, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE HE SAID THAT MADE YOU THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME TYPE OF THREAT?
A.     NO.
Q.     WHEN YOU SAY THREAT, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY HE WAS THREATENING TO DO?
A.     I INTERPRETED TO MEAN HE INTENDED TO INFLICT BODILY HARM ON SOMEBODY.
Q.     HAVE YOU EVER SEEN HIM DO THAT BEFORE?
A.     INFLICT BODILY HARM?
Q.     YES, SIR.
A.     YES, I HAVE.
Q.     ON WHAT OCCASIONS?
A.     WELL, ON ONE OCCASION DURING COLLEGE WE HAD AN INCIDENT WHERE THERE WAS A BASKETBALL GAME BETWEEN HIS BASKETBALL TEAM AND ANOTHER FRATERNITY TEAM, INTRAMURAL, AND HE BECAME VERY VIOLENT AND KNOCKED ANOTHER ONE OF OUR SCHOOLMATES TO THE GROUND DURING THE BASKETBALL GAME. DURING ANOTHER OCCASION I KNOW--WELL, HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY INFLICT PHYSICAL HARM DURING COLLEGE, HE AND SOME OTHER STUDENTS WERE INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING INCIDENT ON CAMPUS, PRESENTING A FIREARM ON CAMPUS DURING A SNOWBALL FIGHT AND USED THE LANGUAGE THEN THAT IF HE NEEDED TO INFLICT BODILY HARM ON SOMEBODY, HE WOULD HAVE NO RESERVATIONS IN DOING IT.
Q.     HE HAD A FIREARM ON CAMPUS IN HIS POSSESSION?
A.     YES. HE AND ANOTHER MAN, I DON'T KNOW HIS REAL NAME BUT WE CALLED HIM BIRD. HE WAS A GUY OUT OF ATLANTA, AND IT STARTED DURING A SNOWBALL FIGHT AND THEY TOOK THE GUN TO WOODRUFF THAT NIGHT AND SECRETED IT AWAY SOMEWHERE.
Q.     WAS THIS AT WOFFORD COLLEGE?
A.     YES. ALSO AT THE LAW SCHOOL ONCE HE AND I HAD A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT SOMETHING AND HE CAME NEXT DOOR TO THE APARTMENT WHERE I WAS AND OFFERED TO INFLICT BODILY HARM ON ME THEN. HE HAD A GLASS PICTURE RAISED AT MY HEAD. I THINK HE IS FULLY CAPABLE OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.
Q.     NONE OF THESE LAST STATEMENTS THAT YOU JUST INCLUDED WERE IN YOUR SWORN AFFIDAVIT, WERE NOT?
A.     I DID NOT PUT THEM IN THE AFFIDAVIT BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO GO INTO ALL OF THAT, BUT SINCE YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, I RESPONDED TO IT.
Q.     THOSE SITUATIONS, WOULD YOU SAY HE WAS THE ANTAGONIST?
A.     ALWAYS THE ANTAGONIST.
Q.     HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH MR. FERGUSON SINCE THE HEARING ON THE HARASSMENT CHARGE?
A.     WE BOTH PRACTICE LAW THERE IN SPARTANBURG SO QUITE NATURALLY WE SEE EACH OTHER IN THE HALLWAYS AND WE SEE EACH OTHER AT THE COURTHOUSE, BUT BEYOND THAT WE HAVE VERY LITTLE CONTACT.
Q.     HOW HAVE YOUR RELATIONS BEEN DURING THAT TIME?
A.     VERY POOR. I WILL SPEAK TO HIM, BUT GENERALLY HE DOES NOT RESPOND. THE MOST AMICABLE CONTACT WE HAVE HAD HAS BEEN THIS PAST WEEK WHEN HE APPROACHED ME ABOUT HAVING A MEETING WITH OTHER BLACK ATTORNEYS IN SPARTANBURG. I HAD INITIALLY SAID I WASN'T GOING TO PARTICIPATE, BUT HE STOPPED ME PRIOR TO A MUNICIPAL COURT HEARING AND ASKED ME TO COME AND I TOLD HIM I WOULD RETHINK MY POSITION AND GET BACK WITH HIM.
Q.     HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS PROCEEDING HERE TODAY?
A.     I KNEW THAT THE PROCEEDING WOULD BE COMING UP AND I CONTACTED ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN SPARTANBURG AND TOLD HIM I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO KEEP UP WITH IT MYSELF BUT WHEN THE TIME CAME, I WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT IT SO I COULD MAKE PREPARATIONS TO APPEAR.
Q.     YOU PREPARED YOUR STATEMENT YOURSELF?
A.     YES, I DID.
Q.     MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

Q.     THIS IS LIKE A COLLEGE REUNION TODAY, ISN'T IT?
A.     SEEMS THAT WAY.
Q.     ON PAGE 11 OF THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE MAGISTRATE COURT HEARING YOU ASKED MR. FERGUSON IF HE WAS THREATENING YOU, DID YOU NOT?
A.     I ASKED HIM WAS HE THREATENING.
Q.     HE RESPONDED THAT HE WAS NOT?
A.     WELL, HE SAID THAT IN WORDS, BUT THOSE WORDS WERE VERY CONTRADICTORY TO HIS DEMEANOR.
Q.     AT ANY POINT DID THE JUDGE REBUKE MR. FERGUSON FOR HIS SPEECH OR HIS DEMEANOR DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?
A.     THE JUDGE DID NOT INTERFERE. HE JUST SAT THERE AND LET IT ALL GO ON THE RECORD, AND THAT IS THE COMMENT HE MADE AFTERWARDS THAT HE DID NOT INTERFERE BECAUSE HE WANTED IT ALL TO BE IN THE RECORD.
Q.     DO YOU HAVE THE WARRANT WITH THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WAS SIGNED AGAINST MR. PRINCE WITH YOU TODAY?
A.     NO, I DON'T. I THOUGHT I SUBMITTED THAT. I INTENDED TO SUBMIT IT.
Q.     WHO SIGNED THAT WARRANT?
A.     MR. FERGUSON SIGNED THE WARRANT.
Q.     DO YOU RECALL THE LANGUAGE IN THE AFFIDAVIT?
A.     THE LANGUAGE IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 5TH OF 1983 MR. PRINCE MADE TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS TO MR. FERGUSON AND USED THREATS AND PROFANE LANGUAGE WITH ALL INTENT TO HARASS HIM.
Q.     WHAT IN THAT AFFIDAVIT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY THAT MR. FERGUSON GAVE AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?
A.     WHAT IS DIFFERENT IS THAT MR. FERGUSON IN FACT WAS THE PERSON WHO MADE BOTH TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS. MR. FERGUSON WAS THE PERSON WHO USED THE PROFANE LANGUAGE, AND THERE WERE NO THREATS.
Q.     MR. FERGUSON DIDN'T CONCEDE THAT POINT DURING HIS TESTIMONY, DID HE?
A.     HE SAID ON ONE OCCASION--WELL, HE NEVER ACTUALLY CONCEDED THAT, NO.
Q.     SO THERE IS NOTHING IN THE TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT MR. FERGUSON GAVE THAT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AFFIDAVIT ON THE WARRANT, IS THERE?
A.     THERE WERE NO THREATS MADE BY MR. PRINCE AND THERE WERE NO PROFANE LANGUAGE USED BY MR. PRINCE. BACK ON THE POINT OF PROFANE LANGUAGE, BUT HE DID ADMIT HE WAS THE PERSON THAT MADE BOTH PHONE CALLS, THAT MR. PRINCE NEVER INITIATED THOSE TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS.
Q.     I HAVE READ THE TESTIMONY AND I DON'T SEE WHERE MR. FERGUSON SAID HE MADE THE SUNDAY MORNING CALL. HE SAID THAT MR. PRINCE CALLED HIM ON SUNDAY MORNING.
A.     MY INTERPRETATION OF THE--FOR ONE THING HE SAID HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY TELEPHONE CALLS ON PAGE 10 HALFWAY THROUGH THE HEARING, AND ON PAGE 9 HE SAYS, "THAT CALL IS THE ONLY CALL I REMEMBER MAKING THAT MORNING." I DON'T REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OTHER CALL WHICH I GOT THAT MORNING WHICH I FOUND OFFENSE OR ANYTHING," SO HE IS CLEARLY TALKING ABOUT SUNDAY MORNING AND NOT SATURDAY NIGHT.
Q.     I COULD FIND IT FOR YOU, BUT IN SEVERAL OTHER PLACES IN HIS TESTIMONY HE SPECIFICALLY SAYS--YOU POINTEDLY ASKED HIM HOW DID HE KNOW IT WAS MR. PRINCE, HOW DID HE RECOGNIZE THE VOICE AND HE SAID IN NUMEROUS PLACES IN THE TESTIMONY THAT MR. PRINCE CALLED HIM ON SUNDAY MORNING AND HE RECOGNIZED HIS VOICE, DID HE NOT?
A.     HE SAID ON NUMEROUS CASES, AND IT'S MY CONTENTION THAT EACH TIME HE SAID THAT IT WAS A LIE UNTIL HE GAVE THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY FROM THIS OTHER PAGE. I WILL SHARE THIS WITH YOU, I DID TALK WITH THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING AND IT'S MY IMPRESSION HE HAD THE SAME IMPRESSION I HAD FROM MR. FERGUSON'S TESTIMONY.
Q.     THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. CHEEK, THIS INCIDENT HAPPENED IN 1983, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, IT DID.
Q.     NOW EVERYTHING YOU TOLD US TODAY, YOU ALLUDED TO WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR CLIENT, WHAT HE DID TO YOUR CLIENT, WHAT DID MR. FERGUSON DO TO YOU?
A.     WHAT DID HE DO TO ME PERSONALLY?
Q.     THE REASON WHY YOU ARE HERE TODAY. WHAT DID HE DO TO YOU?
A.     I THINK THAT THE THING I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO IF I SEE SOMETHING HAS BEEN DONE, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO BRING THAT TO THIS PANEL'S ATTENTION THAT HIS OFFER TO BE A JUDGE WHEN HE KNOWS HE IS ENGAGED IN THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY IN THE COURTROOM WHERE I WAS PRESENT, TO ME THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD WARRANT ME BEING HERE.
Q.     THAT IS WHY YOU ARE HERE TODAY?
A.     THAT IS WHY I AM HERE.
Q.     AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT BACK IN 1983 BEING A LAWYER AND FAMILIAR WITH OUR CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, IF YOU THOUGHT THAT MR. FERGUSON VIOLATED THE CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS BACK IN 1983 BY LYING TO THE COURT AS YOU SAID, AND OTHER INNUENDOS YOU STATED, DOESN'T THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS DEMAND THAT YOU BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION?
A.     AT THAT TIME I DID NOT WANT---
Q.     ANSWER MY QUESTION PLEASE.
A.     I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD.
Q.     DID YOU DO IT?
A.     NO, I DID NOT.
Q.     I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
A.     I DID NOT. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND AS TO WHY I DID NOT.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: GO AHEAD.
A.     MR. PRINCE HAD COMMUNICATED WITH ME AFTER THE HEARING AND INDICATED HE WAS GOING TO TAKE SOME ACTION AND, THEREFORE, I DID NOT WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF TRYING TO INFLUENCE HIM TO MAKE THIS ACTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, AND I FELT THAT IT WAS OVER WITH AND THERE WAS NOT ANYTHING I NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO TRY TO HURT MR. FERGUSON IN HIS PRACTICE. AS I SAID, MY CONCERN IS NOT FOR HIM AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY BECAUSE I THINK EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE A LIVING THE BEST THEY CAN, BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS KIND OF CONDUCT SHOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A JUDGESHIP.
Q.     MR. CHEEK, DO YOU THINK THAT MR. FERGUSON IS QUALIFIED TO BE A LEGISLATOR?
A.     YES, SIR, I DO.
Q.     WELL, THEN CONSEQUENTLY ARE YOU SAYING THAT JUDGES ARE BETTER THAN LEGISLATORS?
A.     NO, SIR. I AM SAYING THAT JUDGES HAVE A DIFFERENT JOB THAN LEGISLATORS. JUDGES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SIT AND THEY HAVE A CERTAIN TEMPERAMENT THAT IS NOT REQUIRED OF LEGISLATORS. YOU WOULD EXPECT LEGISLATORS ON MANY OCCASIONS TO BE COMBATIVE WITH ONE ANOTHER OVER ISSUES, BUT I THINK THAT WHEN YOU DEAL WITH A JUDGE, SOMEONE SITTING IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY IN A COURTROOM, THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE A DIFFERENT TEMPERAMENT. MY COMMENTS TODAY ARE DIRECTED TOWARD THE TEMPERAMENT RATHER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PERSONAL AGAINST MR. FERGUSON. I WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO HURT HIM IN HIS LAW PRACTICE. I THINK HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT. I AM HERE ABOUT THE JUDICIARY, NOT THE LEGISLATURE.
Q.     HAVING BEATEN YOU TWICE FOR THE HOUSE RACE, HAVING BEEN ELECTED A COUPLE OF MORE TIMES, DON'T YOU FEEL THAT HIS CHARACTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY HIS CONSTITUENTS?
A.     I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS CONSTITUENTS HAVE DONE AS FAR AS EXAMINING HIS CHARACTER. I WOULD AGAIN RESPOND THAT WE LOOK FOR SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOR PEOPLE TO REPRESENT US IN THE LEGISLATURE THAN WE LOOK FOR PEOPLE TO REPRESENT US IN JUDGESHIPS. IT WOULD PLEASE ME NO END FOR MR. FERGUSON TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THE LEGISLATURE. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT POSITION. IF HE IS NO LONGER IN THAT POSITION, THEN I THINK I WOULD STAND A GOOD CHANCE OF RUNNING AND WINNING. I HAVE GREAT NAME RECOGNITION. I HAVE OFFERED FOR THE POSITION BEFORE, SO MY POSITION HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTACKING HIM PERSONALLY. IN FACT, IT'S CONTRARY TO MY OWN BEST INTERESTS BEING HERE IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT POSITION I STAND TO GAIN. THAT IS NOT WHY I AM HERE FOR MY OWN PERSONAL GAIN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. CHEEK, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, YOU AND MR. FERGUSON WERE IN COLLEGE TOGETHER AND BRIEFLY WERE ROOMMATES?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     BUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN STRAINED AT BEST SINCE 1983? WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR RELATIONSHIP AS STRAINED?
A.     YES, SIR. I WOULD SAY IT'S BEEN STRAINED BEFORE THEN, AS FAR BACK AS--THE FIRST TIME HE OFFERED FOR OFFICE, THAT WAS IN '82 PROBABLY.
Q.     DID YOU RUN IN 1982 ALSO?
A.     NO. MR. FERGUSON CALLED ME AND ASKED ME TO REPRESENT HIM AND MANAGE HIS CAMPAIGN AND I TOLD HIM I COULD NOT DO THAT. THAT THE PERSON HE WAS RUNNING AGAINST, HE RAN AGAINST MR. BARKSDALE, THAT I COULD NOT DO THAT AGAINST MR. BARKSDALE, BUT WE STILL COMMUNICATED THEN. AS I SAID, I HAVE REFERRED CLIENTS TO HIM AND I HAVE REFERRED CLIENTS THAT HE HAS GOTTEN A LARGE FINANCIAL REWARD FROM. I HAVE NO PERSONAL ANIMOSITY TOWARDS HIM. I HOPE THAT HE DOESN'T INTERPRET MY BEING HERE TODAY AS BEING PERSONAL ANIMOSITY. I AM HERE BECAUSE OF THE FACT WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BRING TO THIS PANEL ANYTHING WE THINK THAT TOUCHES ON A PERSON'S TEMPERAMENT AS A JUDGE, AND THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO DO.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MR. FERGUSON YOU CAN RESPOND ALL YOU WANT TO, BUT YOU CAN'T RESPOND YET. WE WILL TAKE A 5 MINUTE BREAK.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THERE ARE CERTAIN PROCEDURAL THINGS THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO WORK ON AND WE WILL HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOLLOWING MR. FERGUSON'S RESPONSE. LET ME TELL YOU THAT THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE PROVIDE THAT NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN ON VOTING OR MAKING A DETERMINATION IN THE ABSENCE OF THREE SENATORS AND THREE HOUSE MEMBERS. WE DO NOT HAVE THREE SENATORS HERE TODAY. WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO PRESENT IN ORDER TO HAVE A HEARING, THREE PRESENT IN ORDER TO VOTE. SENATOR MARTIN IS EXCUSED AND IN COURT. SENATOR MCCONNELL IS SICK. SO I WOULD TELL ALL OF YOU THAT THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD THEY WILL SHOW UP THIS AFTERNOON FOR A FINAL DECISION ON QUALIFICATIONS THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE NUMBER. IT MAY BE WE WILL RECEIVE PROXIES FROM ONE OF THE SENATORS BY TOMORROW OR THE NEXT DAY AND COULD THEN PROCEED. WE WILL HAVE IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SOME OF THE MATTERS THAT BY OUR RULES, IF YOU HAVE READ OUR RULES, CANNOT BE TAKEN UP IN PUBLIC SESSION, BUT I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC SESSION THIS AFTERNOON, MR. FERGUSON, WITH YOUR RESPONSE, AND THEN WE WILL GET THE TRANSCRIPT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND WE WILL GET BACK TOGETHER AS SOON AS WE CAN. MR. FERGUSON.

MR. FERGUSON: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I REALIZE I AM STILL UNDER OATH. I WILL PROCEED IF YOU SO DIRECT.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: YES.

MR. FERGUSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, AS TO THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL EARL JETER WHICH WAS GIVEN EARLIER, I WILL NOT COMMENT FURTHER. I STAND ON MY REMARKS AS TO MR. JETER AND THE INCIDENT, I STAND ON THOSE. AS TO RECORDER HARRISON, I WOULD STAND ON MY REMARKS WHICH WERE MADE IN REFERENCE TO HIM. I WOULD SIMPLY ADD THAT AT NO POINT DID I EVER CALL ANY PRESS CONFERENCE OR CONFERENCES AS A RESULT OF THE WARRANT WHICH HE SIGNED. WHEN I KNEW ANYTHING, THE PRESS WAS BEATING DOWN MY DOOR, AND I THOUGHT HE CALLED THEM. I DON'T KNOW WHO CALLED THEM, BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THEY WERE CONTACTING ME. AS TO MS. BYARS, I MUST TESTIFY WITH SOMEWHAT MIXED FEELINGS. OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS HER SISTER AND HER SISTER EVEN UNDER STRAINED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRAGIC LOSS OF A SISTER IS GOING TO OBVIOUSLY WORK A VERY DAMAGING TOLL, A HEAVY TOLL ON A PERSON'S EMOTIONAL STABILITY, AND FROM LISTENING TO HER TESTIMONY I GATHER THEY WERE VERY CLOSE. IT WAS UNFORTUNATE. HOWEVER, THE FACT IS THAT I WAS APPOINTED, AND I THINK SHE CONCEDES I WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THAT GENTLEMAN, AND I DID THE BEST THAT I THOUGHT I COULD AT THE TIME GIVEN MY EXPERIENCE. THE STATE SOUGHT THE DEATH PENALTY. HE WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. I CONSIDERED THAT A VICTORY. CERTAINLY NOT A VICTORY AS IT RELATES TO THE LOSS OF MS. LAWRENCE'S SISTER, BUT A VICTORY AS AN ATTORNEY, AND TO LAY PEOPLE THAT MIGHT SOUND INCONSISTENT, CALLOUS OR WHATEVER, BUT YOU ALL ARE LAWYERS AND YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE WE DO TAKE AN OATH TO ZEALOUSLY REPRESENT OUR CLIENTS AND I TRY TO DO THAT. AS TO THE SITUATION WHICH OCCURRED IN GREENVILLE, I TAKE ISSUE WITH SOME OF THE THINGS SHE SAID. AGAIN, KEEPING IN MIND THAT SHE IS TESTIFYING FROM AN EMOTIONAL PERSPECTIVE. IT WAS DARK. IT WAS AT NIGHT WHEN THIS THING HAPPENED. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AND I DIDN'T KNOW THIS GENTLEMAN WAS HER BOYFRIEND, BUT IT WAS A GENTLEMAN THAT WAS WITH HER, HE HAD BEEN DRINKING HEAVILY. I DARE SAY HE WAS EITHER EXTREMELY HIGH OR DRUNK. AS THE YOUNG LADY INDICATED, SHE CAME UP TO ME. I WAS, ALONG WITH THIS MAN HERE, REGINALD THOMAS, I ASKED HIM TO GO WITH ME TO GREENVILLE TO MEET ANOTHER MAN BY THE NAME OF GARY YOUNG TO MEET ME AT THE HILTON THERE. GARY YOUNG AND I PLAYED FOOTBALL TOGETHER AND HE WAS VISITING WOODRUFF, OUR HOMETOWN, FROM NEW YORK AND HE CALLED ME ON A WEDNESDAY AND WANTED TO GET TOGETHER ON THURSDAY AND I SAID, NO, I HAD A HEARING THAT FRIDAY MORNING, LET'S GET TOGETHER THAT FRIDAY EVENING, AND HE DROVE FROM WOODRUFF TO GREENVILLE. I DROVE FROM SPARTANBURG, ALONG WITH MR. THOMAS, TO GREENVILLE. WE WERE PREPARING TO LEAVE AND MR. THOMAS WAS TALKING TO TWO YOUNG LADIES FROM EASLEY AND WAS IN THE PROCESS OF INTRODUCING ME TO THEM, AND THEY SAID, "WE KNOW TEE FERGUSON"--THEY HAD SEEN ME ON T.V. OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. ABOUT THIS TIME THE YOUNG LADY, MS. LAWRENCE, WALKED UP ON MY RIGHT SIDE. I AM A GOOD BIT TALLER THAN SHE IS AND I HAD TO LOOK OVER. SHE SORT OF LOOKED AROUND AND SAID, "YOU ARE TEE FERGUSON, AREN'T YOU?" I SAID, "YES." SHE TURNED AROUND, WALKED AROUND BEHIND ME AND I SORT OF WAS FOLLOWING HER AND SHE LEANED AROUND FROM THE OTHER SIDE AND SAID, "YOU REMEMBER, DON'T YOU?" AND I SAID, "SPARTANBURG?" THE QUESTION WAS ARE YOU FROM SPARTANBURG, BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW HER. TODAY WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT--I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER HER FROM THE TRIAL. I AM NOT CONTESTING SHE WAS THERE. I SAID, "ARE YOU FROM SPARTANBURG?" AND IT WAS THEN A LITTLE BIT LATER THAT SHE ASKED IF SHE COULD TALK WITH ME AND I SAID, "YES." SHE SAID, "IN PRIVATE," AND WALKED UP THE SIDEWALK A COUPLE OF STEPS, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE SECURITY GUARDS AND THE POLICE OFFICERS WERE NOT ONLY INSIDE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE MATRIX CLUB, THEY WERE STANDING AT THIS EXIT NEAR THE PARKING LOT WHEN I WENT IN. WE WERE GOING ALONG THERE AND THE NEXT THING I KNEW HER BOYFRIEND, I GUESS THE YOUNG MAN WHO WAS WITH HER, WHO TO ME WAS HIGHLY INTOXICATED OR DRUNK, MUMBLED SOMETHING AND ACTED AS THOUGH HE WAS GOING TO SWING AT ME, AND GARY YOUNG, THE MAN WHO WAS VISITING FROM NEW YORK, HIT HIM. WHEN YOUNG HIT HIM, REGINALD THOMAS SORT OF PUSHED ME AND SAID, "LET'S GO." SO WE WERE GOING AWAY FROM THE FIGHT, AND THE YOUNG LADY, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE THING THAT IMPRESSED ME MOST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SORT OF SHOES SHE HAD ON BUT SHE WAS JUMPING STRAIGHT UP IN THE AIR, IT WAS LIKE 4 FEET IN THE AIR. SHE WAS JUMPING SO HIGH I COULD ALL BUT SEE THE BOTTOM OF HER SHOES, SCREAMING THAT I WAS A MURDERER, AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT. I STILL DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT. I SAID, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ON BUT IT MUST BE POWERFUL," AND REGINALD WAS TELLING HER TO GO ON, AND I STILL DIDN'T KNOW WHO SHE WAS. SO WE STARTED WALKING. MY CAR WAS NOT PARKED NEXT TO THE DOOR. MY CAR WAS PARKED UP A HILL ON THE STREET, SO TO SPEAK. SO I SAID, "EVERYBODY WHO IS GOING WITH ME BEST COME ON," AND WE STARTED WALKING UP THIS HILL GOING TO MY CAR WHEN REGINALD SAID TO ME THAT THEY ARE ARRESTING YOUNG, AND I WENT BACK AND APPARENTLY THE OFFICER HAD SEEN--THE OFFICER WAS OUT THERE BECAUSE APPARENTLY HE WAS RIGHT ON IT WHEN THE FIGHT TOOK PLACE. THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE STANDING THERE AND THE POLICE OFFICERS--SHE SAYS THERE WERE TWO OR THREE BLOWS, I HEARD ONE OR SAW ONE, AND AS SOON AS REGGIE PUSHED ME, I ASSUMED THE OFFICER JUMPED ON IT, BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD, THIS WAS A POLICE OFFICER WHOM I SAW, ARRESTED NOT ONLY THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS WITH HER BUT ARRESTED GARY YOUNG. I ASKED HIM WHERE HE WAS GOING TO TAKE THEM AND HE SAID TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER. THEY HAVE A JOINT CITY-COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER IN GREENVILLE. REGINALD AND I GOT IN MY CAR TOGETHER AND RODE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER, AND WHEN WE WALKED INSIDE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER, THE MAGISTRATE HAD GARY YOUNG IN HER OFFICE TALKING WITH HIM. I DON'T KNOW WHERE MS. LAWRENCE'S DATE WAS, BUT SHE WAS TALKING WITH HIM AND THEY MUST HAVE--I KNOW THEY WERE IN THERE A GOOD 20-30 MINUTES TALKING. I REPRESENT A DISTRICT FROM SPARTANBURG. I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THERE. I DID NOT KNOW THE MAGISTRATE. IT WAS A BLACK, FEMALE MAGISTRATE. THAT'S THE ONLY TIME I HAVE EVER SEEN HER. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW GREENVILLE HAD A BLACK MAGISTRATE, LET ALONE A FEMALE. BUT, ANYWAY, SHE TALKED WITH YOUNG FOR A WHILE AND WE STOOD AROUND OUT THERE AND I SAW MS. LAWRENCE. IT WAS CHAOTIC TO SAY THE LEAST SOMEWHAT, AND AFTER ABOUT 45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR OF BEING THERE, IF NOT LONGER, GARY YOUNG, WE POSTED BOND FOR HIM AND WE LEFT. HE DROVE TO WOODRUFF AND REGINALD THOMAS AND I DROVE TO SPARTANBURG, AND GARY YOUNG FORFEITED BOND. THERE WERE POLICE OFFICERS ALL OVER THAT PLACE. IF I HAD BEEN DOING ALL THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN IT. I DIDN'T HIT THE MAN. I DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY ABOUT IT. IT'S UNFORTUNATE AND I REGRET THE LOSS OF HER SISTER, BUT IF I HAD STRUCK HIM, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. THERE WERE POLICE OFFICERS ALL OVER THAT PARKING LOT AND RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE LOUNGE. AND AS TO MR. CHEEK, I WOULD SIMPLY SAY AGAIN I TOOK AN OATH RIGHT PRIOR TO MY TESTIFYING AND I TOOK AN OATH AND I SWORE TO TELL THE TRUTH, AND I SAY TO YOU IT IS THE TRUTH, THAT I HAVE NEVER HAD A FIREARM DURING ANY SNOW FIGHT AT WOFFORD COLLEGE, AND FOR ANYONE TO SIT AND SAY THAT TODAY IS TANTAMOUNT TO COMMITTING PERJURY. I SAY THAT WITH NO RESERVATIONS. I WOULD RESERVE--I CERTAINLY HOPE I AM NOT LATER SUED BY MR. PRINCE FOR DISCUSSING HIS BUSINESS IN THIS THING. I STAND ON MY STATEMENT THAT I MADE CONCERNING THAT. I SWORE A WARRANT--AGAIN A GREAT DEAL OF THE BACK DROP HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN. THIS GENTLEMAN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, FOR WHATEVER REASON WOULD LITERALLY DRIVE AROUND THE BLOCK IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE ALL DAY LONG AT TIMES, AND THERE WERE NUMEROUS TIMES I WOULD BE ON MY WAY HOME AND WOULD MEET HIM AND HE WOULD LITERALLY DRIVE AROUND THE BLOCK, AROUND THE BLOCK, AROUND THE BLOCK, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, I NEVER SAID ONE WORD TO HIM ABOUT IT. I FELT IT WAS A PUBLIC THROUGHWAY AND AS LONG AS HE WAS NOT INHIBITING OUR GOING AND COMING, I HAD NO RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING, AND I NEVER DID. IT WAS ONLY WHEN HE, I THINK, DUPED MY RELATIVE INTO UNWITTINGLY BRINGING THIS MESSAGE WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WAS GOING TO SERVE AS AN ANNOYANCE, THAT I CALLED HIM AND ASKED HIM NOT TO SEND ANY MESSAGES. THE NEXT MORNING I WAS RUSHING TO GET TO CHURCH, WHICH STARTS AT 11 AT THE CHURCH I ATTEND, WHEN I GOT THIS CALL WITH THE UGLY LANGUAGE, AND IT WAS THEN I TOOK THE WARRANT. I SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THAT I HAD BEEN HARASSED OVER THE TELEPHONE. I FEEL LIKE WHAT HE DID WAS HARASSMENT. I FEEL THAT THE MAGISTRATE DISMISSED IT BECAUSE I COULD NOT--THE CALL THAT SUNDAY MORNING NO ONE GAVE A NAME. I HAD TO RELY ON WHAT I FELT WAS MY RECOLLECTION OF HIS VOICE. HE WAS NOT PERSUADED BY THAT. I CAN'T SAY THAT I REGRET IT. I SIMPLY WANTED IT TO STOP, AND I HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH MR. PRINCE SINCE, AND I'M APPRECIATIVE OF IT. AS TO MY SUPPOSEDLY THREATENING MR. PRINCE OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE COURTROOM, I DID NOT DO THAT. WHEN I MADE THE STATEMENT ABOUT OTHER PROCEDURES, I WAS NOT SPEAKING IN ANGER. I WAS SAYING THAT I COULD VERY WELL SUE IN A CIVIL ACTION, AND MR. CHEEK, I THINK, WOULD HAVE MADE HIS CLIENT AWARE OF THAT. OTHER THAN THAT--AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHEN I STARTED PRACTICING LAW IN SPARTANBURG ON JANUARY 22ND, 1979, THAT IS WHEN I OPENED MY OFFICE, I WAS THE ONLY PRIVATE BLACK LAWYER IN THE COUNTY. I CARVED A NICHE THROUGH HARD WORK AND PERSERVERANCE FOR MYSELF. THE PEOPLE I GET IN MY LAW PRACTICE, I GET THEM BECAUSE I GET THE RESULTS, AND HARD WORK DOES THAT. I THINK IT WOULD DO IT FOR ANY ATTORNEY. MR. CHEEK HAS NEVER REFERRED ANY CASES TO ME THAT I AM AWARE OF. AS FAR AS HIM EVER MANAGING MY CAMPAIGN, I REFUSE TO ALLOW ANYBODY OTHER THAN MY WIFE TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THAT BECAUSE SHE DID IT. SHE PUT IT TOGETHER ON PAPER. SHE WORKED HERSELF SICK AT TIMES TO SEE ME BECOME A REPRESENTATIVE. CERTAINLY MR. CHEEK COULDN'T DO FOR ME WHAT HE OBVIOUSLY COULDN'T DO FOR HIMSELF, AND THAT IS RUN A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSE DISTRICT 31 SINCE 1980. IN SUMMATION, I WOULD SAY TO YOU ALL IN RETROSPECT THAT IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE. I HAVE GROWN AS A RESULT OF THIS SCREENING, I REALLY HAVE. IT'S A FIRST TIME EXPERIENCE FOR ME. WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER AS COLLEAGUES BUT I HAVE GAINED AN EVEN HIGHER RESPECT FOR YOU ALL. THE POSSIBILITY OF SERVING AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE IN THIS STATE FOR ME IS A GREAT, GREAT ACHIEVEMENT FOR AN OLD COUNTRY BOY FROM WOODRUFF LIKE TEE FERGUSON. I CAN FURTHER ASSURE YOU THAT AS I HAVE WORKED HARD AS A LAWYER, AS I HAVE WORKED HARD AS A LEGISLATOR, I WILL, LIKEWISE, WORK HARD AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE--NOT TO BE A GOOD BLACK CIRCUIT JUDGE, BUT TO BE A GREAT CIRCUIT JUDGE PERIOD. ONE FOR WHOM YOU ALL WILL BE ETERNALLY PROUD TO HAVE CLEARED THROUGH SCREENING HOPEFULLY AND HAVING VOTED FOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I WILL ANSWER THEM.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

REPRESENTATIVE MCEACHIN: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MR. THOMAS' VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. FERGUSON?

Q.     MR. FERGUSON, IN THE INCIDENT THAT MS. LAWRENCE TESTIFIED ABOUT, YOU SAID THAT HER DATE HAD ACTED AS THOUGH HE WAS GOING TO SWING, DID HE EVER ACTUALLY SWING AT YOU?
A.     SEE, HE WAS DRINKING HEAVILY.
Q.     DID YOU SEE HIM DRINKING?
A.     NO, I DIDN'T, BUT HE WAS DRUNK. HE WAS STAGGERING.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT HIS APPEARANCE?
A.     HE WAS DRUNK. I HAVE REPRESENTED ENOUGH PEOPLE, HE WAS DRUNK. HIS SPEECH WAS SLURRED. HE WAS VERY MUCH UNSTEADY ON HIS FEET. HE WAS DRUNK, TRUST ME.
Q.     WHAT SIZE FELLOW WAS HE, DO YOU RECALL?
A.     WELL, I AM 6'3, I WOULD DESCRIBE HIM PROBABLY AS BEING ABOUT--I WOULD SAY BETWEEN 5'6 AND 5'9. IT WAS AT NIGHT AND, SEE, HE NEVER REALLY STOOD STRAIGHT UP. SEEMINGLY HE HAD ON A WHITE SHORT SLEEVE SHIRT. HE IS A DARK HAIRED GENTLEMAN. HE HAD ON SOME DARK SLACKS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TYPE SHOES HE HAD ON. I DON'T RECALL WHETHER HE HAD A MUSTACHE OR NOT, BUT IT WAS AT NIGHT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD RECOGNIZE HIM IF HE CAME IN THE ROOM NOW BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY TIME I HAVE EVER SEEN HIM.
Q.     WHEN YOU WERE FIRST APPROACHED BY MS. LAWRENCE AND MR. JOHNSON, WERE YOU STANDING IN A CROWD OF PEOPLE?
A.     THERE WERE FOUR PEOPLE. THERE WERE FIVE. I WAS STANDING SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK. THESE TWO WOMEN FROM EASLEY WERE STANDING TO MY LEFT. REGGIE THOMAS WAS SORT OF STANDING IN FRONT OF THEM, AND AGAIN HE WAS GETTING READY--HE SAID SOMETHING LIKE, "I WANT YOU ALL TO MEET TEE FERGUSON," AND ONE OF THE WOMEN SAID, "I KNOW TEE FERGUSON ALREADY," OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND I SAID, "HOW DO YOU KNOW ME?" AND SHE WAS SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT SHE HAD SEEN ME ON T.V. OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT, WHEN MS. LAWRENCE WALKED UP FROM MY RIGHT SIDE AND LEANED AROUND, SHE SORT OF LEANED AROUND AND SAID, "YOU ARE TEE FERGUSON, AREN'T YOU?" AND THEN WALKED AROUND BEHIND ME AND LEANED UP FROM MY LEFT SIDE AFTER I SAID, "YES." SHE SAID, "YOU REMEMBER, DON'T YOU?" AND I SAID, "SPARTANBURG?" AS IF TO SAY "ARE YOU FROM SPARTANBURG?"
Q.     DID SHE APPEAR INTOXICATED OR UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANYTHING FROM YOUR OBSERVATIONS?
A.     WELL, NOT TO ME SHE DIDN'T SEEM DRUNK. IF SHE WAS, SHE WASN'T STAGGERING DRUNK. NOW THAT IS THE ONLY TIME I HAD EVER SEEN HER SO, BUT SHE WAS BY NO MEANS TO ME DRUNK OR ANYTHING.
Q.     YOU SAID YOUR FRIEND, GARY YOUNG, THREW THE FIRST BLOW, IS THAT ACCURATE?
A.     FROM WHAT I COULD SEE, HER BOYFRIEND WAS KIND OF ROCKING, GETTING READY TO COME LIKE AT ME, BECAUSE I WAS SORT OF STANDING BETWEEN--HE AND MS. LAWRENCE WERE STANDING THERE FACING ME, AND HE KIND OF ROCKED BACK AND LOOKED LIKE HE WAS COMING, AND ABOUT THIS TIME GARY, WHO WAS STANDING ON HIS RIGHT SIDE, REACHED AROUND HIM AND HIT HIM. I MEAN IT JUST WENT WILD.
Q.     DID YOU EVER STRIKE A BLOW DURING THAT ALTERCATION?
A.     NO. IT JUST KIND OF WENT WILD FROM THERE, AND REGGIE PUSHED ME AND SAID, "LET'S GO." AS WE WERE LIKE FOUR OR FIVE STEPS AWAY, THE YOUNG LADY WAS JUMPING STRAIGHT UP IN THE AIR AND CALLING ME A MURDERER OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Q.     THAT IS WHEN THE POLICE JUMPED IN?
A.     YES. IT WASN'T LONG AFTER THE POLICE HAD BOTH OF THEM.
Q.     DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION WITH ANY OF THE OFFICERS THERE ON THE SCENE?
A.     I WENT TO THE OFFICER THERE AT THE SCENE AND ASKED HIM WHERE WERE THEY GOING TO TAKE THEM AND HE SAID, "TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER," AND SO HE PUT BOTH GARY YOUNG AND THIS YOUNG LADY'S ASSOCIATE IN THE BACK OF A POLICE CRUISER. I DON'T EVEN RECALL IF IT WAS--IT PROBABLY WAS NOT IN THE SAME CRUISER, I JUST DON'T RECALL, AND TOOK THEM TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER. REGGIE AND I WENT TO THE CAR AND DROVE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER. WHEN I WENT IN, THE MAGISTRATE HAD GARY YOUNG BACK IN AN OFFICE WITH PART WOOD, PART GLASS DOOR CLOSED. NOW, THE YOUNG LADY SAID THAT OUT OF DEFERENCE TO ME I WAS NOT ARRESTED. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE PEOPLE. THEY DIDN'T KNOW ME.
Q.     WHICH PEOPLE?
A.     THE MAGISTRATE DIDN'T KNOW ME. I HAD NEVER MET THE WOMAN. THERE WERE SOME OFFICERS---
Q.     DID YOU KNOW THOSE OFFICERS?
A.     I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THEM.
Q.     DID YOU KNOW ANY OF THE OFFICERS WHO WERE INVOLVED ON THE SCENE OR IN THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE?
A.     IF THERE WAS A POLICE OFFICER THERE WHOM I KNEW, I DID NOT KNOW IT, I DON'T RECALL IT. I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THE OFFICERS.
Q.     DID YOU EVER HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE MAGISTRATE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?
A.     NO. AS I RECALL, THE MAGISTRATE KEPT GARY YOUNG IN THIS OFFICE FOR AWHILE, AND THEN THE MAGISTRATE BROUGHT GARY OUT AND SAT HIM--GREENVILLE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER HAS A LONG DESK, COUNTER LIKE, ALL THE WAY, LONG LIKE 60-70 FEET PROBABLY-- SHE BROUGHT GARY YOUNG OUT AND SAT HIM DOWN BEHIND THAT COUNTER ON A CHAIR AND HE SAT THERE FOR WHAT I THOUGHT WAS AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WHILE SHE WAS PROBABLY FINISHING PAPER WORK, AND WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING TOGETHER SOME MONEY TO GET HIM OUT, BECAUSE YOU HAD TO POST A CASH BOND, WHICH WE DID, AND WE POSTED THE CASH BOND AND WE LEFT. HE WENT TO WOODRUFF AND REGGIE THOMAS AND I WENT BACK TO SPARTANBURG. THAT IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE, THERE WERE POLICE OFFICERS RIGHT THERE AND IF I HAD HIT HIM, I WOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL, NO QUESTION.
Q.     DO YOU RECALL MS. LAWRENCE SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT "STEP OVER HERE," THOSE WORDS?
A.     SHE DID SAY THAT.
Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING IN HER TONE OF VOICE IN THAT STATEMENT THAT WAS THREATENING OR OTHERWISE?
A.     NO, NO. THAT IS WHAT MADE IT SO CONFUSING. SHE SAID "TEE FERGUSON, MAY I SPEAK TO YOU?" OR "MAY I TALK TO YOU?" I SAID, "YES." NOW I WAS LEANING OVER WHEN I SAID IT TO HER. SHE IS A LITTLE BIT SHORTER THAN I AM. AS FAR AS RED EYES, MY EYES MAYBE ARE ALWAYS RED, BUT I SAID, "YES," AND SHE SAID, "IN PRIVATE," TO WHICH I DID NOT RESPOND. SHE WALKED OFF A COUPLE OF STEPS, JUST WALKED RIGHT UP THE SIDEWALK, AND I WAS GOING AND SHE WAS SAYING SOMETHING, AND THEN THAT IS WHEN HER BOYFRIEND, HE WAS SO DRUNK YOU COULDN'T HELP BUT NOTICE HIM, AND HE WAS KIND OF WOBBLING IN AND OUT LOOKING AT ME AND IT WAS THEN I GUESS--HE WAS JUST GOING TO ROCK BACK ON ME AND THAT IS WHEN YOUNG REACHED AROUND AND HIT HIM, AND THAT IS WHEN IT ALL BROKE LOOSE.
Q.     HAVE YOU EVER APPEARED IN A MAGISTRATE'S COURT AS AN ATTORNEY THERE AT THE CITY COUNTY COMPLEX IN GREENVILLE WHERE MR. YOUNG AND MR. JOHNSON WERE TAKEN? NOT THAT PARTICULAR MAGISTRATE BUT---
A.     FOR THE PURPOSES OF HOLDING A PRELIMINARY HEARING?
Q.     FOR WHATEVER REASON.
A.     I WENT THERE ON ONE OCCASION. I WAS REPRESENTING A FEDERAL DEFENDANT WHOM I WAS REPRESENTING WAS BEING HELD, AND I WENT THERE ONE FRIDAY EVENING, EARLY EVENING, TO VISIT WITH HIM. I DON'T RECALL EVER HAVING GONE THERE--AT MOST I WOULD HAVE GONE THERE TWICE IN MY LIFE.
Q.     I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TESTIMONY THAT MR. CHEEK OFFERED TODAY. HAD THERE BEEN ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU FOR QUITE SOME TIME?
A.     WELL, YOU KNOW THAT IS A SUBJECTIVE SORT OF THING.
Q.     FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW?
A.     NO. THAT IS BASED ON MY PHILOSOPHY. I THINK IT'S DEBILITATING EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY TO BE NEGATIVE, AND FOR THAT REASON I DON'T--I PURGE MYSELF OF IT.
Q.     JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION, A NUMBER OF WITNESSES HAVE ALLUDED TO ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU HAVE A REPUTATION FOR A TEMPER OR GETTING INTO CONFRONTATIONS OR PHYSICAL AFFRONTS, THAT TYPE OF THING, WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON--I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN SPECIFIC INSTANCES THAT HAVE BEEN COVERED, BUT IN GENERAL AS A REPUTATION--DO YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON THAT?
A.     I HAVE PRACTICED LAW FOR 12 YEARS NOW AND I PRACTICED IN FRONT OF SOME OF WHAT I THINK ARE PROBABLY THE MOST, LET'S JUST SAY JUDGES WHO WOULD NOT TOLERATE IGNORANT BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF AN ATTORNEY. I HAVE NEVER BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, NEVER BEEN PLACED IN JAIL AS A RESULT OF ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I RAN FOR OFFICE THE FIRST TIME IN 198O AND MY WIFE AND JUST A FEW OTHERS WE LOST BY 80 VOTES AGAINST A SIX-YEAR INCUMBENT. RAN TWO YEARS LATER AND WON, RAN AND WON AND RAN TWO YEARS LATER AND I WAS REELECTED, RAN TWO YEARS FOLLOWING, REELECTED, RAN TWO YEARS AGO AND JUST WON BY PROBABLY A WIDER MARGIN THAN I HAVE EVER WON. IT'S MY BELIEF THAT IF I WAS THE AL CAPONE TYPE PERSON THAT SOME WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE, CONSTITUENTS JUST DON'T STAND FOR THAT SORT OF THING. I HAVE INTERACTED WITH PEOPLE OF ALL RACES, CREEDS, COLORS AND NATIONALITIES FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE. I DON'T BULLY PEOPLE AND HAVE NEVER TRIED. IT'S UNFORTUNATE FOR ME OBVIOUSLY THAT I EVEN ALLOWED MYSELF TO GET INTO THESE TWO SITUATIONS THAT WERE PUBLICIZED OR WRITTEN ABOUT IN THE PAPER. AS FAR AS MY WOFFORD DAYS, I REALLY USED WOFFORD AS A PLACE TO GO TO SLEEP AND GO TO CLASS, BECAUSE I WORKED. I WORKED FULL-TIME FOR THREE YEARS AT TRAILWAYS BUS STATION, WHAT WAS THEN TRAILWAYS BUS STATION. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY TIME TO SPEND ON CAMPUS, AND WHEN I WAS ON CAMPUS, I WAS TIRED AND WENT TO BED, AND I DIDN'T HAVE STRENGTH, TIME NOR ENERGY FOR FIGHTING. SO, NO, I DON'T ACCEPT THAT AT ALL. I THINK THAT IS, IF I MAY, I THINK THAT IS THE BANDWAGON THAT THOSE WHO WOULD NOT SEE ME OCCUPY THIS POSITION HAVE TAKEN, AND I CAN'T FAULT THEM FOR THAT. IT SEEMS TO BE A VERY OBVIOUS SORT OF POLITICAL WEAPON. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NOT ONE I WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN HAD I BEEN IN THEIR SHOES ATTEMPTING TO UPSTAGE TEE FERGUSON FOR THIS POSITION, BUT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN MY COLLEAGUES, YOU HAVE SEEN ME PROFESSIONALLY, POLITICALLY AND SOCIALLY HERE IN COLUMBIA. SO I THINK IF I WAS GIVEN TO THOSE TYPES OF--IF I HAD THOSE TYPES OF PROCLIVITIES, SUCH AN UNCONTROLLABLE TEMPER, IT WOULD HAVE COME OUT AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER.

MR. BATES: THAT IS ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE?

MR. FERGUSON, ANYONE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT WE WILL BE HAPPY TO HEAR THEM.

MR. FERGUSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL REGGIE THOMAS. HE WAS WITH ME AT THE HILTON THAT EVENING.

REGINALD THOMAS, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     MR. THOMAS, WERE YOU WITH MR. FERGUSON ON SEPTEMBER 9, '88 AT THE MATRIX?
A.     YES, SIR, I WAS.
Q.     TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED.
A.     WELL, MR. FERGUSON CALLED ME LATE THAT AFTERNOON AND ASKED THAT I GO WITH HIM THAT AFTERNOON BECAUSE HE HAD A FRIEND WHO HAD COME DOWN FROM NEW YORK, GARY YOUNG, AND I AGREED TO DO IT, AND WE WENT OVER ABOUT 10:00 THAT NIGHT AND HE MET WITH HIM, AND I UNDERSTAND THEY PLAYED FOOTBALL TOGETHER AT WOODRUFF AND HE HADN'T SEEN HIM FOR A LONG TIME. THEY GREETED EACH OTHER AND GARY YOUNG BOUGHT EACH ONE OF US A DRINK, AND I AM A DANCER, I HIT THE DANCE FLOOR AND I TOLD TEE BEFORE I LEFT, I SAID, "I AM NOT GOING TO STAY LONG." HE SAID, "OKAY, I WANT TO GO OVER AND MEET MY FRIEND BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM FOR A LONG TIME." AND, AS MOST POLITICIANS, TEE WAS WORKING THE CROWD, AND I REFER TO HIM AS TEE BECAUSE HE IS A FRIEND OF MINE. MR. FERGUSON WAS WORKING THE CROWD, TALKING TO FRIENDS AND GREETING, AND I TOLD HIM BEFORE WE GOT THERE, "TEE, IF YOU GET ON THE DANCE FLOOR, I AM GETTING OFF BECAUSE YOU HAVE BIG FEET AND CAN'T DANCE," SO I NEVER DID SEE HIM GET ON THE DANCE FLOOR. ABOUT 45 MINUTES LATER HE SAID, "ARE YOU READY TO GO?" AND I SAID, "YES, LET'S GO," AND AS WE WALKED OUT THE FRONT OF THE HILTON, A YOUNG LADY SAID TO ME "ARE YOU REGGIE THOMAS?" AND I SAID, "YES," AND SHE SAID, "YOUR DADDY TAUGHT ME AT SOUTH CAROLINA STATE," AND I STOPPED TO TALK TO THEM. I SAID, "THIS IS TEE FERGUSON," AND SHE SAID, "OH, I KNOW TEE. HE IS ON T.V. ALL THE TIME," AND AT THAT TIME THE YOUNG LADY-- MS. LAWRENCE IS IT?--CAME BY AND SHE LOOKED AT TEE AND SAID, "YOU ARE TEE FERGUSON, AREN'T YOU?" AND HE SAID, "YES," AND WE WERE LIKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK, THE FIVE OF US. SHE WALKED AROUND AND SHE SAID IN PASSING, "YOU REMEMBER, DON'T YOU?" AND HE SAID, "SPARTANBURG?" AND SHE KEPT WALKING AND SHE DIDN'T ANSWER, AND THE YOUNG MAN THAT WAS WITH HER I TOO THOUGHT WAS HIGH OR DRUNK BECAUSE HE WAS NOT WALKING WITH HER, HE WAS WALKING BEHIND HER TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH HER IN A STAGGERING WALK. I SAID TO THE GIRL, "BOY, HE IS DRUNK," AND HE CAUGHT HER BY HER RIGHT HAND AND SPUN HER AROUND AND THEY WERE TALKING AND THEN SHE CAME BACK AND SHE SAID, "ATTORNEY FERGUSON, MAY I SPEAK WITH YOU A MINUTE?" HE SAID, "YES," AND SHE SAID, "IN PRIVACY," AND THEY BOTH SHIFTED OVER TO THE NEXT CAR, AND I WAS OBSERVING THE YOUNG MAN WHO WAS WITH HER AND HE FOLLOWED AND I FOLLOWED HIM AND YOUNG WAS WITH ME. IT LOOKED LIKE EVERYBODY FOLLOWED TOGETHER, SO WHATEVER CONVERSATION THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE WASN'T GOING TO BE PRIVATE BECAUSE WE ALL MOVED OVER. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. HE WENT TO LISTEN TO HEAR WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY AND THE YOUNG MAN THAT WAS WITH MS. LAWRENCE LOOKED AT ME AND I LOOKED AT HIM AND HE LOOKED AT YOUNG AND ASKED YOUNG, "WHAT THE F ARE YOU LOOKING AT?" AND THAT IS WHEN YOUNG HIT HIM BACK OVER ON THE CAR, AND WHEN THAT HAPPENED, I PUSHED TEE OFF THE SIDEWALK ONTO THE PARKING LOT AND I SAID, "LET'S GO, TEE, IT'S NOT WORTH IT, LET'S GO, WHATEVER THE PROBLEM IS." AT THAT TIME SHE WAS JUMPING UP AND DOWN TO MY RIGHT AND TEE WAS TO MY LEFT, SAYING "YOU MURDERER, YOU MURDERER. YOU ARE JUST A MURDERER," AND I WAS HOLLERING AT HER "GET AWAY LADY, JUST GET AWAY, GO ON AND LEAVE US ALONE." EVENTUALLY SHE TURNED AWAY AND WE WERE STILL WALKING ACROSS THE PARKING LOT AND I LOOKED BACK TO SEE IF SHE WAS GONE AND I SAID, "TEE, THEY ARE LOCKING YOUR BOY UP," AND HE TURNED AROUND AND WENT BACK OVER TO THE POLICEMAN AND ASKED HIM, "WHERE ARE YOU TAKING HIM?" HE SAID TO THE COUNTY STATION OR SOMETHING, SO TEE SAID, "LET'S GO, REGGIE. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO DOWN AND BAIL HIM OUT." WE WENT DOWN THERE AND WHEN WE WENT IN, AS HE SAID, GARY YOUNG WAS IN THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE. YOU COULD SEE HIM THROUGH THE GLASS WINDOW ACROSS THE COUNTER. HE WAS IN THERE. HE STAYED IN THERE ABOUT HALF AN HOUR. MR. FERGUSON WENT AND SAT DOWN AND I STAYED AT THE COUNTER. ABOUT 15 MINUTES LATER MS. LAWRENCE CAME UP AND SHE WAS ABOUT 5 FEET AWAY FROM ME AND I JUST LOOKED AT HER. I WANTED TO ASK HER WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM OR WHY WAS SHE--BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT IT FROM THE CLUB TO THE POLICE STATION. I ASKED TEE, I SAID, "WHY DID SHE CALL YOU A MURDERER? HAVE YOU EVER HAD SOMEBODY SENTENCED TO DEATH THAT YOU REPRESENTED OR SOMETHING?" AND HE SAID, "NO."I SAID IT MUST BE SOME CASE RELATED OR SOMETHING, AND HE DIDN'T KNOW HER, SO I WANTED TO ASK HER, AND SHE IS CORRECT, I LOOKED AT HER AND WE LOOKED AT EACH OTHER FOR ABOUT 3 MINUTES WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING, AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK HER WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE WHOLE INCIDENT BACK THERE, WHY WERE YOU HOLLERING MURDER OR ANYTHING, AND WE JUST STAYED THERE, AND FINALLY ATTORNEY FERGUSON POSTED BAIL FOR MR. YOUNG AND WE LEFT. MR. YOUNG, WE TOOK HIM BACK TO THE HOTEL AND HE GOT IN HIS CAR AND WENT BACK TO WOODRUFF AND WE WENT TO SPARTANBURG, AND THAT IS AS MUCH AS I KNOW ABOUT THAT CASE.
Q.     DO YOU LIVE IN SPARTANBURG?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     ARE YOU AN ATTORNEY?
A.     NO, SIR. I AM PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
Q.     I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. THOMAS, DID MR. FERGUSON EVER SAY ANYTHING UGLY OR USE ANY PROFANITY TO MS. LAWRENCE OR HER DATE?
A.     NO, SIR. TO MY KNOWLEDGE NEITHER ONE SAID ANYTHING TO EITHER ONE, BECAUSE WHEN WE MOVED OVER, HER DATE LOOKED AT ME AND LOOKED AT MR. YOUNG AND SAID WHAT HE SAID, AND I NEVER DID HEAR THEM SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE IT WAS ALL IN A MATTER OF SECONDS THAT THIS OCCURRED.
Q.     UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DID MR. FERGUSON HIT ANYONE?
A.     NO, SIR. HE DIDN'T HIT NOBODY.
Q.     THANK YOU.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC SESSION. WE WILL HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION NOW, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, EVERYONE MAY BE EXCUSED.

(WHEREUPON, THE TAKING OF THE HEARING WAS CONCLUDED AT 5:15 P.M.)

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: I WILL CALL THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE TO ORDER. WE HAVE RECONVENED IN PUBLIC SESSION TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF FOUR WITNESSES SUBPOENAED BY THIS COMMITTEE. COUNSEL TELLS ME THEY HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED. I BELIEVE THEY ARE ALL HERE AND HE WILL CALL THOSE WITNESSES AND THEY WILL BE SWORN TO GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY NOW.

MR. BATES: ROBERT TROY JOHNSON PLEASE COME UP HERE.

ROBERT TROY JOHNSON, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     PLEASE BE SEATED. MR. JOHNSON, WE HAVE A COURT REPORTER OVER HERE WHO IS TAKING EVERYTHING DOWN, SO YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP WHENEVER YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS. IF I ASK YOU SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, ASK ME TO STATE IT ANOTHER WAY SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE GET YOUR APPROPRIATE RESPONSE. YOUR FULL NAME IS ROBERT TROY JOHNSON, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WHERE DO YOU LIVE, MR. JOHNSON?
A.     I LIVE IN SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q.     WERE YOU AT THE MATRIX NIGHTCLUB IN GREENVILLE ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 9TH AND MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 10TH, 1988?
A.     YES, SIR, I SURE WAS.
Q.     ABOUT WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE THERE THAT NIGHT, DO YOU REMEMBER?
A.     I'M NOT QUITE SURE. IT WAS PROBABLY AROUND 10 OR 11. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT TIME IT WAS.
Q.     WHERE HAD YOU BEEN PRIOR TO THAT?
A.     WE HAD BEEN OUT TO EAT AT THE BIJOU.
Q.     THAT WAS YOU AND MS. LAWRENCE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HAD YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DRINK THAT NIGHT?
A.     I HAD HAD A COUPLE OF GLASSES OF WINE AT THE BIJOU.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT AT THE MATRIX?
A.     I HAD ONE BEER.
Q.     WAS THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL YOU HAD THAT NIGHT?
A.     YES.
Q.     YOU HAD TWO GLASSES OF WINE AND ONE BEER?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND INSIDE OF THE MATRIX?
A.     PROBABLY ABOUT 45 MINUTES. WE GOT THERE AND WEREN'T REALLY HAVING A VERY GOOD TIME AND WE DECIDED TO GO HOME.
Q.     COULD YOU DESCRIBE TO US WHAT HAPPENED AS YOU LEFT THE CLUB THERE THAT NIGHT?
A.     YES, SIR. WE WERE LEAVING THE CLUB AND AS WE WERE WALKING OUTSIDE, MR. FERGUSON WAS STANDING OVER NEAR A CAR WITH ANOTHER GENTLEMAN AND TWO LADIES, AND I DIDN'T KNOW THEM AT THE TIME, I HAD NO IDEA WHO HE WAS, AND JAN MENTIONED WHO HE WAS, AND I SAID, "OKAY." WE WALKED PAST HIM AND WE WERE GOING TO OUR CAR AND SHE SAID SHE WANTED TO ASK HIM A QUESTION ABOUT SOME EVIDENCE OR SOMETHING TO DO WITH HER SISTER'S CASE THAT WAS GOING ON AT THE TIME, AND I SAID, "WELL, LET'S JUST FORGET ABOUT IT AND GO ON HOME." SHE SAID, "NO, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO ASK HIM," AND SO WE WALKED OVER TO HIM AND HE WAS STANDING THERE, AND SHE HAD ASKED IF SHE COULD ASK HIM A QUESTION AND HE WAS KIND OF RUDE, YOU KNOW, "WHAT? WHAT DO YOU WANT?" SHE SAID, "COULD YOU STEP OVER HERE, PLEASE?" I WAS RIGHT BESIDE HER. I WASN'T SAYING ANYTHING, JUST STANDING WITH HER, AND BEFORE SHE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION HE LOOKS DOWN AT ME AND SAYS, "WHAT THE F ARE YOU LOOKING AT?" AND I REPLIED THE SAME QUESTION BACK TO HIM, AND BY THE TIME I COULD FINISH, HE HAD SWUNG AT ME AND HIT ME AND KNOCKED ME ONTO A CAR.
Q.     WHERE DID HE HIT YOU?
A.     HE HIT ME ON THE FACE. I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE, JUST IN THE FACE. THEN I REMEMBER GETTING UP OFF THE CAR BECAUSE IT HAD STUNNED ME. I HAD NO IDEA THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. I WOULDN'T HAVE GONE OVER THERE IF I KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO ME, BUT I PICKED MYSELF OFF THE CAR AND I REMEMBER BEING HIT AGAIN, AND AFTER THAT I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q.     WHO HIT YOU THE SECOND TIME?
A.     I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. FERGUSON.
Q.     YOU ARE NOT SURE?
A.     I'M NOT POSITIVE. I KNOW FOR A FACT IT WAS HIM WHO HIT ME THE FIRST TIME, AND JAN TOLD ME THAT MR. YOUNG HAD HIT ME ALSO, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER HIM HITTING ME, AND I REMEMBER STANDING UP AND I WAS DAZED BUT I WAS VERY UPSET AND I WAS YELLING, AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I WAS YELLING. I WAS PROBABLY SWEARING. THERE WAS A BIG CROWD OF PEOPLE OUT THERE, AND MR. FERGUSON AND MR. YOUNG WERE OUT IN THE PARKING LOT. IT LOOKED LIKE MR. YOUNG HAD PULLED HIM BACK THERE TELLING HIM TO STOP OR WHATEVER, AND AT THAT TIME I WAS YELLING AND I WAS JUST PRETTY UPSET, AND A MATRIX SECURITY GUARD HAD GRABBED ME FROM BEHIND AND PUT ME UP AGAINST THE WALL AND THAT IS WHEN I WAS ARRESTED, AND THEN IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AFTER THAT WHEN ALL THE POLICE ARRIVED, AND I WAS ALREADY HANDCUFFED AND THE POLICE JUST PUT ME IN THE CAR, AND THE SECURITY OFFICER WAS VERY RUDE TO ME. HE TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO BREAK MY BACK IF I MOVED. SO I WANTED TO COOPERATE AS MUCH AS I COULD SO I COULD GET OUT OF THE PREDICAMENT I WAS IN THAT I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Q.     BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER, LET ME ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS. AT THE TIME THAT YOU AND MS. LAWRENCE APPROACHED MR. FERGUSON, HOW CLOSE WERE YOU STANDING TO MS. LAWRENCE?
A.     RIGHT NEXT TO HER. I PROBABLY HAD MY ARM AROUND HER, I WAS THAT CLOSE.
Q.     HOW CLOSE WERE YOU ALL TO MR. FERGUSON WHEN SHE FIRST SPOKE TO HIM?
A.     WE WERE PROBABLY A COUPLE OF FEET AWAY. WE WERE WALKING TOWARDS HIM AND RIGHT BEFORE WE GOT TO HIM SHE ASKED IF SHE COULD HAVE A WORD WITH HIM.
Q.     AND DID YOU SAY ANYTHING AT ALL?
A.     NO. I SAID NOTHING.
Q.     HOW CLOSE WAS MR. YOUNG TO MR. FERGUSON?
A.     I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE HE WAS STANDING.
Q.     WERE THERE ANY OTHER MEN STANDING AROUND THERE?
A.     NO.
Q.     DID YOU MAKE ANY TYPE OF GESTURES, ANY MOVEMENT TOWARDS MR. FERGUSON?
A.     NO, I DIDN'T, NOT UNTIL HE HAD ASKED ME THAT QUESTION.
Q.     AT THAT POINT DID YOU MAKE ANY GESTURES?
A.     I REPLIED BACK TO HIM.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT PHYSICALLY, DID YOU STEP TOWARDS HIM?
A.     NO. I WAS JUST STANDING THERE. I AM PRETTY SURE I HAD MY HANDS IN MY POCKETS JUST STANDING THERE.
Q.     YOUR TESTIMONY THEN IS THAT MR. FERGUSON MADE THE FIRST COMMENT, YOU COMMENTED BACK TO HIM AND THEN HE SWUNG AND STRUCK YOU ONCE, AND THEN YOU WERE STRUCK AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT SURE WHO IT WAS BUT YOU THINK IT WAS MR. FERGUSON?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q.     AND THAT THE SECURITY GUARDS ARRIVED SOON THEREAFTER?
A.     YES. THEY HAD ARRIVED AFTER I WAS SHOUTING, THAT IS PROBABLY WHY THEY---
Q.     DID YOU HIT THE CAR THE FIRST TIME AFTER YOU WERE STRUCK?
A.     YES. HE KNOCKED ME ONTO THE CAR.
Q.     YOU STOOD BACK UP?
A.     YES.
Q.     AFTER THE SECOND BLOW WERE YOU KNOCKED DOWN?
A.     I WAS KNOCKED TO THE GROUND, YES.
Q.     DID YOU AGAIN GET UP?
A.     YES, EVIDENTLY.
Q.     THAT WAS WHEN THE SHOUTING BEGAN?
A.     YES.
Q.     WHO WERE YOU SHOUTING WITH?
A.     I WAS SHOUTING BY MYSELF I GUESS AT MR. FERGUSON AND I WAS SHOUTING AT THE CROWD TO TELL THEM WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
Q.     WHAT WERE YOU SAYING?
A.     I DON'T REMEMBER. I WAS JUST VERY UPSET AND PRETTY DAZED AT THE TIME.
Q.     WAS ANYBODY YELLING BACK AT YOU?
A.     YES, MR. FERGUSON WAS YELLING. HE WAS OUT IN THE PARKING LOT.
Q.     DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE WAS YELLING?
A.     NOT EXACTLY. I DON'T EXACTLY REMEMBER.
Q.     HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED AND WHEN THE SECURITY GUARDS FIRST ARRIVED ON THE SCENE?
A.     THE SECURITY GUARDS OR THE POLICE?
Q.     SECURITY.
A.     PROBABLY JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES, PROBABLY A MINUTE OR TWO AFTER THE SHOUTING BEGAN.
Q.     IT WAS THE HILTON SECURITY THERE OR WHOEVER?
A.     MATRIX SECURITY, I GUESS.
Q.     AND YOU SAID THEY SUBDUED YOU?
A.     YES. HE GRABBED ME FROM BEHIND AND I DIDN'T SEE HIM AND THAT IS WHEN HE PUT ME AGAINST THE WALL AND HANDCUFFED ME.
Q.     WAS ANYBODY ELSE GRABBED?
A.     NOT THAT I NOTICED, NO.
Q.     YOU DIDN'T NOTICE OR NO ONE ELSE WAS?
A.     I DIDN'T NOTICE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE NOBODY WAS.
Q.     HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN WHEN YOU WERE HANDCUFFED AND WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED?
A.     PROBABLY ABOUT 5 MINUTES, NO MORE THAN 5 TO 10 MINUTES.
Q.     WHAT WENT ON DURING THOSE 5 MINUTES?
A.     HE HAD ME AGAINST THE WALL. I REMEMBER MY GIRLFRIEND COMING UP AND SAYING THAT HE HAD ARRESTED THE WRONG PERSON, AND HE WAS RUDE. HE TOLD HER TO GET BACK OR HE WAS GOING TO ARREST HER ALSO. HE TOLD ME NOT TO MOVE OR HE WAS GOING TO BREAK MY BACK, AND JUST HAD ME HELD THERE UNTIL THE POLICE CAME.
Q.     WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED?
A.     THEY WENT AHEAD AND PUT ME IN THE CAR AND I WAITED THERE FOR PROBABLY 15 MINUTES OR SO. I AM NOT SURE HOW LONG.
Q.     SITTING IN THE CRUISER?
A.     YES, SIR, IN THE BACK SEAT, AND MY GIRLFRIEND CAME UP TO ME AND TALKED TO ME THROUGH THE WINDOW AND TOLD ME THAT SHE HAD SOME WITNESSES WHO HAD SAW WHAT HAPPENED, AND SHE DIDN'T DESCRIBE WHAT THEY SAW, BUT SHE SAID THAT ONE OF THE WITNESSES WAS GOING TO DRIVE HER TO THE POLICE STATION BECAUSE SHE WAS REAL UPSET AT THE TIME.
Q.     DID THE POLICEMAN--DID YOU TALK WITH HIM AND TRY TO EXPLAIN WHAT OCCURRED?
A.     YES, I DID. WELL, I SAT IN THE BACK SEAT AND I SAID, "I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. HE HIT ME. I CAN'T BELIEVE I AM GETTING CHARGED WITH THIS," BUT I ALSO WANTED TO BE VERY COOPERATIVE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO SHOUT AT HIM BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T HAVE DONE ME ANY GOOD, SO I PRETTY MUCH KEPT QUIET AND ANSWERED THEIR QUESTIONS.
Q.     DID HE ASK YOU QUESTIONS?
A.     YES, AND HE ASKED ME WHAT HAPPENED AND I TOLD HIM THE WHOLE STORY.
Q.     YOU TOLD HIM BASICALLY WHAT YOU TOLD US HERE TODAY?
A.     YES, EXACTLY.
Q.     WAS ANYBODY ELSE ARRESTED ON THE SCENE THAT YOU KNOW OF?
A.     NOT THAT I KNOW OF. THEY SAID GARY YOUNG WAS ARRESTED, BUT I NEVER SAW HIM THERE. IN FACT, JAN SAYS HE WAS OUTSIDE THE MAGISTRATE'S DOOR AT THE TIME SHE SAW MR. FERGUSON.
Q.     I AM INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF. SO YOU ARE TRANSPORTED DOWN TO THE DETENTION CENTER, WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
A.     WHEN I GOT THERE, THEY BROUGHT ME IN AND TOOK ALL MY BELONGINGS AND GAVE ME A LITTLE JUMP SUIT AND BLANKET AND PUT ME IN A ROOM UNTIL--I WAS IN THERE FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS I GUESS. THEN WHEN THEY GOT ME OUT, I WAS FINGERPRINTED AND HAD MY PICTURE TAKEN, AND THAT IS BASICALLY IT, AND THEN THEY LET ME GO.
Q.     DID YOU EVER TALK TO THE MAGISTRATE WHILE YOU WERE THERE?
A.     I TALKED TO THE MAGISTRATE AFTER IT WAS ALL OVER WITH AT ABOUT 5 IN THE MORNING. IT WAS REALLY LATE OR EARLY IN THE MORNING.
Q.     WHAT WAS SAID IN THAT DISCUSSION?
A.     I WAS REALLY TIRED. I TOLD HER THAT--SHE WANTED TO TRY TO CONVINCE ME THAT IT WAS MR. YOUNG WHO HIT ME AND I TOLD HER IT WAS NOT MR. YOUNG WHO HIT ME. I SAW MR. FERGUSON HIT ME. I FELT HIM HIT ME. SHE TRIED TO CONVINCE ME THAT I WAS DRUNK, WHICH I DID HAVE A BEER AND A COUPLE OF GLASSES OF WINE BUT I WAS NOT DRUNK, AND I TOLD HER THAT I DID HAVE BEER, AND SHE SAID "WELL, YOU NEED TO LET IT GO AND STAY OUT OF TROUBLE," IS BASICALLY WHAT SHE TOLD ME.
Q.     DO YOU REMEMBER HER NAME?
A.     BUSH I THINK HER LAST NAME WAS. I AM NOT SURE OF HER FIRST NAME.
Q.     DID YOU REQUEST THE MAGISTRATE TO ISSUE A WARRANT FOR MR. FERGUSON'S ARREST?
A.     AT THAT NIGHT I DID NOT, NO.
Q.     DID YOU AT ANY OTHER TIME?
A.     YES, I DID. WE WENT BACK THE SAME DAY, IT WAS EARLY IN THE MORNING. WE WENT BACK THAT SAME SATURDAY AFTER I GOT OUT. WE WENT HOME TO GET SOME SLEEP AND WENT BACK AND THERE WAS ANOTHER MAGISTRATE THERE AND WE REQUESTED A WARRANT.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW THAT MAGISTRATE'S NAME?
A.     NO, I SURE DON'T. AND SHE WOULD NOT LET US SIGN A WARRANT AND SHE DID NOT GIVE US A REASON. SHE HAD A POLICE OFFICER COME AND WITNESS HER TELLING US SHE WOULDN'T SIGN US A WARRANT. THAT IS ALL SHE DID, SHE NEVER GAVE US A REASON WHY SHE WOULDN'T.
Q.     DID YOU SEE MR. FERGUSON AT ANY TIME WHILE YOU WERE AT THE DETENTION CENTER?
A.     NO, I SURE DIDN'T.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT MR. YOUNG?
A.     NO, I SURE DIDN'T.
Q.     DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF MR. FERGUSON USING HIS INFLUENCE AT THE POLICE STATION OR ON THE SCENE OR ANY OTHER TIME DURING THAT NIGHT?
A.     NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, NO.
Q.     MS. LAWRENCE WAS HERE LAST TUESDAY TO TESTIFY AND SHE EXPLAINED THAT YOU COULD NOT BE PRESENT. WHAT IS THE REASON YOU COULDN'T BE PRESENT?
A.     WELL, WHERE I WAS WORKING, I WORK HOURLY AND I HAD BEEN OUT THE WEEK BEFORE FOR THREE DAYS, I HAD STREP THROAT, AND IT WAS VERY SHORT NOTICE AND I COULDN'T AFFORD TO TAKE IT OFF AT THE TIME.
Q.     WHERE DO YOU WORK?
A.     I WORK AT LOWE'S--I DON'T WORK THERE RIGHT NOW.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. JOHNSON, WHERE WERE YOU WORKING IN SEPTEMBER OF '88?
A.     I WAS WORKING AT LOWE'S.
Q.     IS THAT WHERE YOU WORK NOW?
A.     I DON'T WORK THERE PRESENTLY RIGHT NOW. I WAS THERE LAST WEEK. IT WAS MY LAST WEEK.
Q.     DID YOU KNOW LAST WEEK IT WAS GOING TO BE YOUR LAST WEEK?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOU SAY YOU ATE AT THE BIJOU RESTAURANT?
A.     YES.
Q.     WHERE IS THAT?
A.     IT'S DOWNTOWN. IT'S RIGHT DOWNTOWN IN GREENVILLE.
Q.     DID ANYONE EAT WITH YOU?
A.     ME AND MS. LAWRENCE.
Q.     ANYONE ELSE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU MEET ANYONE AT THE MATRIX?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU SEE ANYONE YOU KNEW THERE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     HAD YOU EVER BEEN THERE BEFORE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     YOU SAY WHEN YOU CAME OUT OF THE MATRIX, YOU SAW MR. FERGUSON AND MR. YOUNG AND TWO LADIES?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU EVER SEE A MR. REGINALD THOMAS?
A.     NO.
Q.     DID YOU EVER SEE THREE GENTLEMEN WHERE MR. FERGUSON WAS STANDING?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW HOW MR. YOUNG WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE IN GREENVILLE?
A.     I HAVE NO IDEA.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IT WAS A CITY POLICE OFFICER OR A SHERIFF'S DEPUTY THAT ARRESTED YOU?
A.     I GUESS IT WAS A CITY POLICE OFFICER. I AM NOT QUITE SURE.
Q.     WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT A MAGISTRATE, WAS IT A CITY JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE THAT YOU WENT BEFORE?
A.     IT WAS A MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Q.     DO YOU RECALL THE ARRESTING OFFICER'S NAME?
A.     NO, SIR, I SURE DON'T.
Q.     DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU TELL THE ARRESTING OFFICER THAT MR. FERGUSON HAD STRUCK YOU?
A.     YES, I DID.
Q.     YOU TOLD HIM THAT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU TOLD HIM THAT?
A.     I WAS IN THE BACK SEAT OF THE CAR.
Q.     AT THE PREMISES OF THE MATRIX?
A.     YES. I TOLD HIM ABOUT THREE TIMES IN THE CAR AT THE MATRIX, DRIVING THERE AND WHEN I GOT TO THE POLICE STATION. I TOLD A COUPLE OF OTHER PEOPLE ALSO.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE POLICE OFFICER'S RESPONSE WHEN YOU TOLD HIM THAT?
A.     THEY JUST DIDN'T SEEM REAL INTERESTED. THEY LISTENED TO ME AND THEY DIDN'T CUT ME OFF, BUT THEY DIDN'T SEEM REAL INTERESTED IN IT.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW THE MIMS?
A.     NO, I DON'T KNOW THE MIMS.
Q.     HAVE YOU TALKED TO THEM SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 1988?
A.     THE FIRST TIME I TALKED TO THEM WAS THIS MORNING WHEN I GOT HERE AND I INTRODUCED MYSELF.
Q.     DID YOU SEE THEM ON THE NIGHT OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1988?
A.     I NEVER SAW THEM, NO.
Q.     THAT IS ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

Q.     MR. JOHNSON, TELL US AGAIN WHERE YOU WERE STANDING WHEN MS. LAWRENCE WENT BACK TO SEE MR. FERGUSON. WHERE WERE YOU STANDING, BESIDE HER, BEHIND HER OR WHERE?
A.     I WAS STANDING BESIDE HER BASICALLY, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND HER, BUT BASICALLY BESIDE HER.
Q.     WHERE WAS MR. FERGUSON STANDING?
A.     HE WAS IN FRONT OF US WHEN WE APPROACHED HIM.
Q.     IN FRONT OF HER OR IN FRONT OF YOU?
A.     BOTH OF US. WE WERE WALKING SIDE BY SIDE TOWARDS HIM. HE WAS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US AND SHE ASKED HIM TO STEP TO THE SIDE.
Q.     WHICH SIDE, TO THE LEFT SIDE OR RIGHT SIDE?
A.     I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T QUITE REMEMBER WHICH WAY IT WAS, BUT AT THAT TIME HE WAS STANDING TO MY RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. HE WASN'T ALL THE WAY TO MY RIGHT. HE WAS RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.
Q.     HE WAS MORE IN FRONT OF YOU THAN MS. LAWRENCE?
A.     NO, BECAUSE MS. LAWRENCE--WELL, JAN WAS RIGHT NEXT TO ME TO MY LEFT BUT SHE WAS KIND OF FACING HIM ALSO. IT WAS ALMOST LIKE WE WERE IN A CIRCLE I GUESS FROM WHAT I REMEMBER. I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW WE WERE STANDING.
Q.     TELL US AGAIN WHAT HAPPENED AFTER MS. LAWRENCE ASKED FOR FERGUSON TO STEP TO THE SIDE.
A.     WE TOOK A COUPLE OF STEPS AND HE LOOKED DOWN AT ME, HE WAS VERY ANGRY AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHY. I DON'T KNOW WHY HE WOULD BE ANGRY WITH ME BECAUSE I HADN'T SAID ANYTHING. HE LOOKED AT ME AND ASKED WHAT THE F I WAS LOOKING AT, AND I REPLIED THE SAME THING BACK TO HIM, AND WHEN I DID IS WHEN HE STRUCK ME.
Q.     WHERE WAS YOUR HANDS?
A.     I'M NOT SURE WHERE MY HANDS WERE. I HAVE A HABIT OF KEEPING MY HANDS IN MY POCKET A LOT, I PROBABLY HAD MY HANDS IN MY POCKET, BUT I AM NOT FOR SURE.
Q.     DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO MOVE TOWARD MR. FERGUSON?
A.     NO, SIR, I SURE DIDN'T.
Q.     ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
A.     YES. I AM POSITIVE.
Q.     ARE YOU SURE IT WAS MR. FERGUSON THAT HIT YOU AND NOT SOMEONE ELSE?
A.     POSITIVE.
Q.     WITHOUT A DOUBT?
A.     WITHOUT A DOUBT.
Q.     NO MORE QUESTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. JOHNSON, YOU SAID YOU HAD TWO GLASSES OF WINE AND A BEER THAT NIGHT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WHAT SIZE WERE THE GLASSES OF WINE, CAN YOU GIVE US A MEASUREMENT?
A.     JUST REGULAR WINE GLASSES, I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER.
Q.     WERE YOU INTOXICATED OR SOBER?
A.     I WAS SOBER.
Q.     SOBER?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU SAID THAT MR. FERGUSON HIT YOU BUT YOU DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE? YOU CAN'T SHOW US?
A.     HE HIT ME IN THE FACE. I AM PRETTY SURE IT WAS IN MY CHEEK, BUT I REALLY DON'T REMEMBER IT HAPPENED SO FAST.
Q.     COULD IT HAVE BEEN IN YOUR HEAD?
A.     WELL, I GUESS IT COULD HAVE, YES.
Q.     COULD IT HAVE BEEN ON THE CHIN?
A.     IT WASN'T ON MY CHIN. IT WAS UP--I AM PRETTY SURE IT WAS IN MY CHEEK.
Q.     YOU FELL ON THE CAR, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND DID HE KNOCK YOU OUT?
A.     MAYBE FOR A SECOND. I'M NOT SURE. I WAS VERY DAZED WHEN I GOT UP. WHEN I PICKED MYSELF UP OFF THE CAR, I WAS KIND OF DAZED AND THEN I WAS HIT AGAIN AND THEN I RECALL JUST STANDING UP OFF THE GROUND AFTER THAT.
Q.     AND WERE YOU UP OFF THE GROUND STANDING UP WHEN YOU WERE HIT THE SECOND TIME?
A.     I WAS UP OFF THE CAR THE SECOND TIME I WAS HIT. ACCORDING TO JAN, I WAS HIT A THIRD TIME, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.
Q.     YOU WERE CHARGED WITH DISORDERLY CONDUCT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOU WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL FOR THIS OFFENSE, WERE YOU NOT?
A.     YES.
Q.     YOU ALSO PLED GUILTY?
A.     YES, SIR, TO DISORDERLY CONDUCT, BECAUSE I WAS DISORDERLY AFTER HE HIT ME.
Q.     I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

Q.     MR. JOHNSON, DID YOU EVER STRIKE ANYONE, DID YOU EVER ATTEMPT TO HIT ANYBODY IN THE INCIDENT?
A.     NO, I SURE DIDN'T.
Q.     DID YOU EVER DRAW YOUR FISTS BACK AND ATTEMPT TO?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MR. JOHNSON, WE THANK YOU FOR APPEARING. I REALIZE YOU CAME BECAUSE WE SUBPOENAED YOU AND REQUIRED YOU TO ATTEND. IF YOU HAVE ANY EXPENSES OR IF YOU ARE IN NEED OF TRANSPORTATION, LET THE COMMITTEE KNOW.
A.     OKAY. THANK YOU.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THE NEXT WITNESS WILL BE MR. PARKER MIMS.

PARKER MIMS, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     MR. MIMS, WHERE DO YOU LIVE?
A.     IN LAURENS.
Q.     AND WERE YOU AT THE MATRIX NIGHT CLUB IN GREENVILLE ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1988?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU KNOW OR DO YOU KNOW MR. JOHNSON WHO JUST TESTIFIED, OR MS. LAWRENCE?
A.     NOT UNTIL THAT NIGHT.
Q.     THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME YOU HAD EVER MET THEM?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT MR. FERGUSON, HAD YOU SEEN HIM OR KNOW HIM?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     AT WHAT TIME DID YOU GET TO THE MATRIX THAT NIGHT?
A.     I REALLY DON'T REMEMBER, MAYBE 10, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q.     YOU WERE WITH YOUR WIFE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     COULD YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED THAT NIGHT?
A.     OKAY. AS WE WERE LEAVING MATRIX, I STEPPED OUTSIDE. THE FIGHT WAS REALLY OVER, OR WHATEVER TOOK PLACE WAS OVER. ALL I HEARD WAS MAYBE SOME LOUD YELLING AND TALKING. AS FAR AS ACTUALLY SEEING ANYBODY HIT ANYBODY, I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THE HITTING. AFTER IT WAS OVER MS. LAWRENCE WAS UPSET, I SAW THAT--I MEAN I DIDN'T THINK SHE NEEDED TO DRIVE TO THE POLICE STATION BY HERSELF, SO I OFFERED TO DRIVE HER THERE, AND THAT IS REALLY ABOUT ALL I KNOW ABOUT IT.
Q.     SO YOU SAW NO BLOWS BEING STRUCK?
A.     NO, SIR. ALL THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE.
Q.     HAD THE SECURITY GUARDS ARRIVED ON THE SCENE BY THE TIME YOU HAD COME OUT THE DOOR?
A.     THEY WERE COMING OUT THERE, YES, SIR.
Q.     WHAT DID YOU HEAR AND WHO WAS SPEAKING?
A.     I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I HEARD. I HEARD SOME YELLING, AND TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID, I DON'T KNOW.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS SPEAKING, WHO WAS DOING THE YELLING?
A.     MR. FERGUSON MIGHT HAVE. I HEARD HIM SAY SOMETHING BUT WHAT HE SAID I DON'T KNOW. I COULDN'T TELL.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW WHO HE WAS SPEAKING TO?
A.     NO, SIR. I FIGURED IT WAS THE FELLOW THAT---
Q.     MR. JOHNSON?
A.     MR. JOHNSON.
Q.     HOW FAR APART WERE THEY AT THAT TIME?
A.     OH, FROM ME TO YOU AT LEAST.
Q.     15 FEET OR SO?
A.     AT LEAST, YES, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU SAY THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE ON THE SCENE?
A.     I'M THINKING THEY WERE COMING.
Q.     THEY WERE APPROACHING AS YOU WERE?
A.     APPROACHING I THINK, YES, SIR. I MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE MAYBE A LITTLE BEFORE THEY WERE BUT NOT MUCH. IN FACT, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN THERE.
Q.     DID MR. JOHNSON HAVE ON HANDCUFFS AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU CAME OUT?
A.     I REALLY DON'T REMEMBER THAT EITHER.
Q.     DID YOU MAKE ANY STATEMENT OR TALK TO THE SECURITY GUARD?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT THE POLICEMAN WHO ARRIVED ON THE SCENE?
A.     I SAID NOTHING TO HIM. WHEN WE GOT TO THE POLICE STATION TO THE DESK SERGEANT, THE ONLY THING THAT I SAID WAS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE WAS THE ONLY ONE ARRESTED. I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT, AS FAR AS WHY THEY JUST ARRESTED ONE, OR MAYBE THEY ARRESTED ANOTHER ONE, I DON'T KNOW.
Q.     DID YOU SEE THEM PUT MR. JOHNSON IN THE SQUAD CAR?
A.     YES.
Q.     DID YOU SEE THEM PUT ANYBODY ELSE IN THE SQUAD CAR?
A.     I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q.     HAD YOU BEEN DRINKING?
A.     I HAD TWO BEERS AT MATRIX.
Q.     THAT WAS IT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DID THE POLICE ASK YOU, EITHER ON THE SCENE OR AT THE STATION, WHAT YOU HAD SEEN?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN MR. JOHNSON OR MS. LAWRENCE SPOKE TO THE MAGISTRATE AT THE DETENTION CENTER?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU EVER MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE MAGISTRATE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU SEE MR. FERGUSON WHEN YOU WERE DOWN AT THE DETENTION CENTER WITH MS. LAWRENCE?
A.     I SAW HIM THERE, YES, SIR.
Q.     WHAT WAS HE DOING?
A.     I REALLY--I AM NOT REAL SURE.
Q.     DID YOU SEE HIM TALK TO THE MAGISTRATE?
A.     I CAN'T SAY THAT I DID, NO. I CAN'T SAY THAT.
Q.     DID YOU EVER SEE ANY TYPE OF ACTIVITY THAT YOU WOULD TERM USE OF INFLUENCE BY MR. FERGUSON EITHER ON THE SCENE OF THAT INCIDENT AT THE MATRIX OR AT THE POLICE STATION?
A.     HONESTLY I CAN'T SAY THAT I DID, NO, SIR. I DON'T REMEMBER A WHOLE LOT ABOUT THE INCIDENT, IT HAPPENED SO LONG AGO. MS. LAWRENCE CALLED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED---
Q.     WOULD YOU SPEAK UP.
A.     I CAN'T REMEMBER EVERY--IT'S HARD FOR ME TO REMEMBER WHAT I DID LAST WEEK.
Q.     I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

Q.     MR. MIMS, DID YOU COME OUT OF THE MATRIX AHEAD OF YOUR WIFE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN BEHIND YOU?
A.     SHE WAS BEHIND ME, YES, SIR.
Q.     YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN WHATEVER YOU SAW BEFORE YOUR WIFE SAW IT?
A.     OH, YES, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU SEE ANYONE WITH MR. FERGUSON, ANY OTHER PEOPLE?
A.     YES, SIR, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHO THEY WERE.
Q.     COULD YOU IDENTIFY THEM BY SEX?
A.     MALE. I KNOW I SAW ONE MALE.
Q.     DID YOU SEE MORE THAN ONE?
A.     THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANOTHER ONE, I'M NOT SURE.
Q.     YOU SAY YOU TALKED WITH MS. LAWRENCE ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO?
A.     I THINK IT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO. SHE CALLED ONE NIGHT ON THE PHONE SAYING SHE WAS COMING DOWN HERE LAST WEEK.
Q.     DID SHE ASK YOU TO COME?
A.     YES, SIR. WELL, SHE DIDN'T ASK ME. SHE ASKED ME IF I WOULD LIKE TO COME.
Q.     AND YOUR RESPONSE WAS?
A.     NO, SIR. I DIDN'T FEEL I HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO REALLY HELP WHATEVER THE SITUATION, PLUS IT WAS AWFUL SHORT NOTICE.
Q.     DID YOU TELL HER EVERYTHING YOU KNEW ABOUT IT WHEN SHE CALLED YOU SEVERAL WEEKS AGO?
A.     YES, SIR, ALL I COULD REMEMBER.
Q.     YOU TOLD HER EVERYTHING YOU COULD REMEMBER BEFORE SHE CAME AND TESTIFIED TO THIS COMMITTEE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     THAT IS ALL I HAVE, MR. MIMS.

Q.     MR. MIMS, IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THIS LADY, DID YOU EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT CHARGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN LODGED AGAINST MR. JOHNSON?
A.     I MIGHT--WHAT I PROBABLY SAID, I THINK I SAID, IS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY MR. JOHNSON WAS THE ONLY ONE LOCKED UP. THAT IS ALL I REMEMBER SAYING. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT, WHY HE WAS THE ONLY ONE LOCKED UP. OF COURSE, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TOOK PLACE, WHO STARTED WHAT. I DIDN'T SEE ALL OF THAT.
Q.     ON THE SCENE OF THIS INCIDENT, DID YOU APPROACH THE YOUNG LADY AND OFFER ASSISTANCE TO HER?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND DID YOU ON THE SCENE AGREE WITH HER, "AGREE FULLY THAT MR. FERGUSON AND MR. YOUNG SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED"?
A.     I CAN'T SAY THAT I SAID THAT, NO, SIR. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I KNOW I SAID I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY MR. JOHNSON WAS THE ONLY ONE LOCKED UP. THAT IS ALL I REMEMBER SAYING.
Q.     YOU WEREN'T AWARE THAT MR. YOUNG WAS ALSO LOCKED UP?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT NOW?
A.     I GUESS SO.
Q.     HAD YOU HEARD THAT BEFORE I JUST SAID IT?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU DID NOT SEE THE ACTUAL FIGHT?
A.     NO, SIR. IT WAS OVER REALLY WHEN I CAME OUT AS FAR AS THE HITTING.
Q.     YOU DID, HOWEVER, GO TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER OR THE JAIL?
A.     I DROVE MS. LAWRENCE. I DIDN'T THINK SHE NEEDED TO DRIVE.
Q.     HOW LONG DID YOU REMAIN THERE?
A.     15 MINUTES MAYBE.
Q.     DID YOU LEAVE THE LADY THERE?
A.     YES, SIR. I MADE SURE THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE ALL RIGHT. SHE MADE HER PHONE CALL. SHE WAS GOING TO GET HOME OR WHATEVER, AND AFTER SHE DID THAT I LEFT, YES, SIR.
Q.     LET ME THANK YOU FOR APPEARING. I KNOW THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO ATTEND BY VIRTUE OF OUR SUBPOENA. IF THERE ARE EXPENSES IN YOUR ATTENDING, LET US KNOW WHAT THOSE EXPENSES ARE, AND IF YOU NEED ANY ASSISTANCE OR TRANSPORTATION, WE WILL PROVIDE IT FOR YOU.
A.     THANK YOU.

Q.     MR. MIMS, WHEN YOU SAW THE INCIDENT, DID YOU SEE ANYONE'S CLOTHES OUT OF PLACE, TORN, ANYONE THAT APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN IN A FIGHT? CAN YOU RECALL ON THAT MATTER?
A.     NOT REALLY, NO, SIR. MR. JOHNSON'S SHIRTTAIL OR SOMETHING MIGHT HAVE BEEN OUT, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY, NO, SIR.
Q.     THANK YOU.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ONE FURTHER QUESTION. WAS MR. JOHNSON WEARING GLASSES AS HE IS WEARING TODAY THAT NIGHT, OR DO YOU RECALL?
A.     I DON'T RECALL.
Q.     THANK YOU.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MRS. MIMS.

LYNN MIMS, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     COULD YOU TELL US YOUR FIRST NAME, MRS. MIMS?
A.     LYNN.
Q.     WE HAVE HEARD YOUR HUSBAND'S TESTIMONY, AND I THINK WE WILL PROBABLY BE BRIEF WITH THE QUESTIONING. DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING OR HEARING ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOUR HUSBAND DID NOT TESTIFY TO ON THE SCENE OF THE MATRIX THAT NIGHT SEPTEMBER 9TH, 1988?
A.     THE ONLY OTHER THING I CAN ADD IS THAT I HAD GONE TO THE RESTROOM AND WHEN I CAME OUT, MR. JOHNSON WAS UP AGAINST THE WALL AND MS. LAWRENCE WAS HYSTERICAL, AND SEVERAL OF THE PEOPLE AROUND MR. JOHNSON'S CAR WERE HOLLERING. THERE WAS A LOT OF LOUD SCREAMING AND HOLLERING GOING ON. IT WASN'T JUST OUT OF ONE PERSON.
Q.     YOU SAY YOU WENT TO THE RESTROOM, IS THAT BEFORE YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND LEFT THE MATRIX?
A.     YES, IT WAS. HE HAD ALREADY GONE OUT OF THE BUILDING AND I TOLD HIM TO WAIT ON ME OUT THERE.
Q.     WHEN YOU CAME OUT, YOU SAW SEVERAL PEOPLE YELLING AND MAKING A DISTURBANCE.

Q.     DID YOU EVER SEE ANYBODY SWING AT ONE ANOTHER?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT WAS BEING YELLED?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU REMEMBER WHO WAS YELLING?
A.     I KNOW MS. LAWRENCE WAS AND I KNOW SOMEBODY AROUND MR. FERGUSON'S CAR AREA WAS, BUT AS FAR AS SAYING IT WAS HIM YELLING, I COULD NOT DO THAT.
Q.     HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS MR. FERGUSON'S CAR?
A.     WELL, I AM ASSUMING IT WAS. THEY WERE STANDING THERE. I BELIEVE IT WAS A WHITE LIMOUSINE.
Q.     DID YOU EVER TALK TO THE POLICE OR THE SECURITY GUARDS OR ANYBODY THERE ON THE SCENE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU GO TO THE DETENTION CENTER?
A.     YES, SIR. I WENT AND PICKED MY HUSBAND UP.
Q.     HE DROVE MS. LAWRENCE'S CAR AND YOU FOLLOWED HIM?
A.     YES.
Q.     DID YOU MAKE ANY STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE AT THE STATION?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU SEE MR. FERGUSON AT THE DETENTION CENTER?
A.     YES, SIR. I SAW HIM STANDING AT THE DESK, BUT RIGHT AT THE FRONT DESK WHERE THE OFFICERS WERE BEHIND THE DESK.
Q.     DID YOU SEE HIM TALKING TO ANYBODY?
A.     NOT ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR.
Q.     DID YOU SEE ANYBODY ELSE ARRESTED OR PUT IN THE POLICE CAR AT THE SCENE OTHER THAN MR. JOHNSON?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     DID MR. JOHNSON APPEAR INTOXICATED TO YOU OR DID YOU GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO SEE?
A.     I WASN'T CLOSE ENOUGH TO SEE, NO, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU SEE MR. FERGUSON ON THE SCENE AT THE MATRIX?
A.     INSIDE THE CLUB?
Q.     YES, DID YOU SEE HIM INSIDE?
A.     NO, SIR. I DON'T THINK I DID.
Q.     DID YOU SEE HIM OUTSIDE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WHERE WAS HE?
A.     STANDING IN FRONT OF THAT WHITE LIMOUSINE.
Q.     WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR, WHAT WAS HE DOING?
A.     I'M PRETTY SURE WHEN I CAME OUT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A GREENVILLE CITY POLICE OR THE SECURITY GUARD FROM MATRIX, SOMEBODY IN A UNIFORM WAS STANDING THERE TALKING TO HIM OR STANDING IN THAT VICINITY TALKING TO THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS SOMEBODY FROM MATRIX OR WHAT, BECAUSE ONCE I CAME OUT OF THE DOOR, I NEVER ACTUALLY WENT OUT INTO THE PARKING LOT. I KIND OF STAYED BACK.
Q.     DID YOU TALK TO MS. LAWRENCE FACE TO FACE AT ANYTIME?
A.     YES, SIR. I THINK AT THE DETENTION CENTER WAS THE FIRST TIME I SPOKE TO HER.
Q.     DID SHE APPEAR INTOXICATED TO YOU?
A.     NO, SIR, JUST VERY HYSTERICAL FROM WHAT ALL HAD HAPPENED IN THE PARKING LOT.
Q.     MRS. MIMS, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN REMEMBER THAT YOU CAN ADD TO YOUR HUSBAND'S TESTIMONY?
A.     NO, SIR.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

MS. MIMS, THANK YOU FOR COMING SUBJECT TO OUR SUBPOENA, AND I WOULD OFFER YOU THE SAME ASSISTANCE THAT WE OFFERED THE OTHER WITNESSES. IT IS AN IMPORTANT PROCEEDING WE ARE INVOLVED IN TODAY AND YOUR TESTIMONY IS IMPORTANT TO US IN ARRIVING AT A PROPER DECISION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

J. R. WARD, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     MR. WARD, YOU ARE AN OFFICER WITH THE GREENVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT?
A.     SIX YEARS THIS JULY.
Q.     AND BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF '88 WHAT SHIFT WERE YOU WORKING?
A.     I WAS WORKING THE THIRD SHIFT.
Q.     WHEN DOES THAT REQUIRE YOU TO BE ON DUTY?
A.     I COME ON AT 11 O'CLOCK AND HAVE ROLL CALL AND I WAS BACK ON THE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 11:30.
Q.     AND DO YOU REMEMBER MAKING A CALL TO THE MATRIX AT THE HILTON IN GREENVILLE THAT EVENING?
A.     YES, SIR, I DO.
Q.     DID YOU FILL OUT AN INCIDENT REPORT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT IN FRONT OF YOU?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WHAT WERE YOU DOING AT THE MATRIX? WHY WERE YOU THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
A.     I WAS THERE IN THE SECURITY OFFICE TALKING WITH THE ASSISTANT SECURITY DIRECTOR IN REFERENCE TO ANOTHER CASE. I AM NOT SURE WHICH ONE IT WAS. IT WASN'T PERTAINING TO THIS CASE AT ALL. WHILE I WAS IN THERE, I HAD ANOTHER SECURITY OFFICER COME TO THE SECURITY OFFICE AND ADVISED ME THERE WAS A FIGHT IN THE PARKING LOT. AT THAT TIME I RUN OUT AND WHILE I WAS RUNNING OUT, I RADIOED HEADQUARTERS TO SEND ME ANOTHER BACK-UP UNIT. WHEN I ARRIVED, WHEN I WALKED OUTSIDE, I COULD HEAR A LOT OF CUSSING GOING ON AND VERY LOUD. IT WAS COMING FROM A BLACK MALE, MR. YOUNG, AND A WHITE MALE, MR. JOHNSON. I SAW MR. JOHNSON. HE WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK KIND OF NEXT TO THE BUSHES OR PLANTS THERE, AND MR. YOUNG WAS KIND OF IN THE PARKING LOT AND THEY WERE BOTH CUSSING AT EACH OTHER, AND I TOLD ONE OF THE SECURITY OFFICERS, I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE, "YOU HOLD MR. JOHNSON BACK HERE," AND I WENT OVER TO GET MR. YOUNG, AND I TOLD THEM THEY WERE BOTH GOING TO JAIL FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT. MR. YOUNG'S SHIRT WAS TORN OPEN. IT WAS MORE OR LESS UNBUTTONED DOWN LIKE THEY HAD BOTH BEEN IN A FIGHT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY PHYSICAL MARKS ABOUT NEITHER ONE OF THEM'S FACE OR ANYTHING. I PUT THE CUFFS ON MR. YOUNG AND PLACED HIM IN MY PATROL VEHICLE. AT THAT TIME SOME OF THE OTHER UNITS HAD ARRIVED AT THAT TIME, AND THE SECURITY OFFICER THEY CARRY CUFFS TOO, SO THEY CUFFED MR. JOHNSON FOR ME AND WE JUST LEFT THEIR CUFFS ON AND PLACED HIM IN ANOTHER PATROL VEHICLE. I AM NOT SURE WHICH OFFICER IT WAS THAT TRANSPORTED MR. JOHNSON, BUT I TRANSPORTED MR. YOUNG TO THE DETENTION CENTER. AS I WAS PLACING MR. YOUNG IN MY PATROL VEHICLE, MR. FERGUSON WALKED UP TO ME, HE ADDRESSED HIMSELF AS AN ATTORNEY FROM SPARTANBURG AND ASKED ME HOW MUCH HIS BOND WAS GOING TO BE AND WHAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH, AND I ADVISED HIM OF WHAT THE BOND WOULD BE AND WHAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH.
Q.     WHAT WAS THAT?
A.     $218 FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT. THAT WAS THE BOND FOR BOTH SUBJECTS. THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE. IT WAS A BIG THING AND I WAS TRYING TO GET BOTH OF THEM OUT OF THE WAY AWAY FROM THAT PLACE SO WE COULD GET ORDER BACK AT THE MATRIX. WE GOT ON DOWN TO THE DETENTION CENTER AND I TOOK MR. YOUNG TO THE FRONT DESK AND PUT HIM BEHIND THE FRONT DESK. THE OTHER OFFICER TOOK MR. JOHNSON TO THE SALLY PORT. THE REASON FOR THAT WAS TO KEEP THEM BOTH SEPARATED SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE A CONFRONTATION IN THE SALLY PORT THERE. AS FAR AS I COULD REMEMBER, MR. FERGUSON CAME DOWN AND POSTED BOND FOR MR. YOUNG, WHO I BELIEVE HE WAS FROM NEW YORK, AND WE PUT MR. JOHNSON IN DETENTION. AS FAR AS I KNOW, HE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO GET OUT AT THE TIME. BOTH OF THEM HAD BEEN DRINKING. WHILE I WAS ON THE SCENE I SMELLED--I WAS CLOSE ENOUGH TO BOTH OF THEM WHERE I COULD SMELL THE ODOR OF ALCOHOL COMING FROM THEM, BOTH THEIR EYES WERE RED. THEY BOTH LOOKED LIKE THEY HAD BEEN IN A FIGHT BUT I NEVER SAW ANYONE SWING AT EACH OTHER OR ANYTHING. AS FAR AS MR. FERGUSON IS CONCERNED, I NEVER SAW HIM SWING AT ANYBODY, OTHER THAN HE JUST COME UP AND ASKED ME THE QUESTION. BASICALLY THAT IS ABOUT IT.
Q.     ON THE SCENE THERE AT THE MATRIX WAS THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU SPOKE TO MR. FERGUSON WAS WHEN HE APPROACHED YOU AT YOUR VEHICLE AND ASKED ABOUT THE BOND AND INTRODUCED HIMSELF AS AN ATTORNEY?
A.     AS FAR AS I CAN REMEMBER, YES.
Q.     WAS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
A.     NO, SIR. HE CAME DOWN TO THE DETENTION CENTER AND I SHOWED HIM THE MAGISTRATE WHO HE WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO ABOUT GETTING MR. YOUNG OUT OF JAIL.
Q.     WHEN YOU CAME OUT, YOU SAID YOU SAW MR. JOHNSON AND MR. YOUNG YELLING AT EACH OTHER, WAS MR. FERGUSON DOING ANYTHING TO CATCH YOUR ATTENTION?
A.     NO, SIR. HE WAS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT AWAY FROM MR. YOUNG, PROBABLY I WOULD SAY 15, 20 FEET AWAY FROM HIM, AND HE WAS KIND OF OFF TO HIMSELF. I DIDN'T REALLY--HE DIDN'T REALLY SAY ANYTHING TO ME UNTIL HE CAME UP TO ME AND INTRODUCED HIMSELF.
Q.     DID YOU NOTICE ANY SIGNS OF INTOXICATION IN MR. FERGUSON?
A.     NO. HE WAS VERY CALM WHEN HE WALKED UP TO ME. I DON'T REMEMBER SMELLING ANY ODOR OF ALCOHOL, BUT HE NEVER RAISED HIS VOICE.
Q.     DID YOU TALK TO ANY OF THE WITNESSES ON THE SCENE AT THE MATRIX TO GET STATEMENTS AS TO WHAT OCCURRED BEFORE YOU WALKED OUT?
A.     NO, SIR. MY MAIN CONCERN WAS TO GET THEM SEPARATED, AND I HAD SEEN ENOUGH RIGHT THERE AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED TO GO TO COURT WITH AS DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND I GOT THEM ON OUT OF THERE.
Q.     DID ANYBODY AT THE SCENE APPROACH YOU AND TRY TO TELL YOU ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED?
A.     I THINK THERE WAS A FEMALE THERE, KIND OF A BLOND-HEADED FEMALE. I DON'T KNOW HER NAME. SHE WAS VERY UPSET. SHE WAS CRYING AND EVERYTHING AND I TOLD HER SHE COULD COME DOWN TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER AND I TOLD HER WHAT THE BOND WOULD BE FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Q.     DID YOU KNOW OR RECOGNIZE MR. FERGUSON BEFORE THE INCIDENT?
A.     I HAVE NEVER MET HIM BEFORE.
Q.     WHAT ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED?
A.     I HAVE NEVER MET ANY OF THEM.
Q.     DID YOU ASK THE SECURITY GUARDS WHAT THEY HAD SEEN PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL ON THE SCENE?
A.     WELL, I'M REALLY NOT SURE WHICH ONE I ASKED, AND THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T REALLY SEE ANYTHING AS FAR AS ANYBODY SWINGING, BUT THEY HEARD LIKE A FIGHT WAS FIXING TO START, WHICH EVIDENTLY JUST BY THE SHIRT BEING TORN TOLD ME THAT SOMETHING HAD ALREADY HAPPENED OUT THERE.
Q.     SO YOU ARRESTED MR. JOHNSON AND MR. YOUNG BASED ON WHAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU WALKED OUT? IT APPEARED THEY HAD BEEN FIGHTING AND THEY WERE CURSING AT ONE ANOTHER?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HOW LONG DID YOU STAY AT THE DETENTION CENTER AFTER MR. YOUNG AND MR. JOHNSON HAD BEEN TAKEN DOWN THERE?
A.     I WAS PROBABLY THERE THE WHOLE TIME DOING MY REPORT AND EVERYTHING, PROBABLY AN HOUR.
Q.     THE WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT THAT WE HAVE A COPY OF IN FRONT OF US, THAT IS WHEN YOU MADE THAT OUT?
A.     YES. AS SOON AS I TOOK THEM IN, I WENT AHEAD AND DID MY PAPERWORK AND I LEFT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER AND WENT BACK ON PATROL.
Q.     DID YOU TALK TO MR. YOUNG OR MR. JOHNSON OR ANYBODY ELSE THERE AS TO THEIR VERSION OF THE STORY ONCE YOU GOT TO THE DETENTION CENTER?
A.     NO. I WAS TALKING TO MR. YOUNG ABOUT IT AND HE MENTIONED TO ME SOMETHING ABOUT A CASE THAT MR. FERGUSON HAD HANDLED FOR SOME YOUNG LADY OR SOMETHING AND IT HAPPENED AWHILE BACK, AND EVIDENTLY I FIGURED THAT WAS PROBABLY PART OF THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN MR. YOUNG AND MR. JOHNSON.
Q.     DID YOU EVER TALK TO MR. JOHNSON?
A.     I DON'T THINK I DID.
Q.     DID YOU TALK TO THE MAGISTRATE THAT WAS ON DUTY THAT NIGHT?
A.     I JUST GAVE HER MY TICKETS AS FAR AS DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND THAT IS ALL I REALLY DID. SHE DID ALL THE PAPERWORK AS FAR AS PUTTING THEM IN. I DIDN'T TELL HER ANYTHING BECAUSE ALL I NEEDED TO DO WAS--I DIDN'T HAVE TO GET A WARRANT. I PUT IT ON A TRAFFIC TICKET AND SHE PUT IT ON THE DOCKET.
Q.     DID SHE HAVE A COPY OF YOUR INCIDENT REPORT?
A.     NO. SHE DIDN'T GET A COPY OF MY INCIDENT REPORT. AT THE TIME SHE JUST ENTERED THE INFORMATION ON THE DOCKET AND IT WENT TO MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE MAGISTRATE'S NAME, DO YOU REMEMBER?
A.     YOU MEAN DOWN AT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER?
Q.     YES, SIR.
A.     I THINK IT WAS VERN BUSH. SHE WAS THE MAGISTRATE THAT NIGHT.
Q.     DID YOU TALK WITH MR. FERGUSON AT THE STATION ONCE YOU ARRIVED DOWN THERE?
A.     NOT AS FAR AS I CAN REMEMBER ABOUT THE CASE OR ANYTHING, JUST TO TELL HIM IT WAS $218 AND WHAT HE HAD TO DO TO GET HIM OUT.
Q.     DID THE MAGISTRATE EVER ASK YOU, OR DID YOU TELL HER, ANYTHING ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS AS FAR AS ISSUING WARRANTS FOR ANYBODY ELSE'S ARREST?
A.     NO, NOT AS I CAN REMEMBER.
Q.     MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     OFFICER WARD, DID YOU EVER SEE MR. FERGUSON IN THE MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE ON THE NIGHT OR EARLY MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 10, '88?
A.     NO, SIR. I SAW HIM STANDING WHILE I WAS DOING MY REPORT, I WAS WRITING OUT MY REPORT. HE WAS KIND OF OVER TO MY LEFT STANDING THERE WAITING ON THE MAGISTRATE TO, I GUESS, PAY MR. YOUNG OUT.
Q.     DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER PRIOR TO MR. FERGUSON'S ARRIVAL?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WERE YOU STILL THERE WHEN HE LEFT?
A.     NO, SIR. HE WAS STILL THERE WHEN I LEFT.
Q.     DID YOU EVER IDENTIFY A LADY TO BE A MRS. FREEMAN?
A.     NOT THAT I CAN REMEMBER.
Q.     THE LADY YOU IDENTIFIED AS BEING A BLOND, DO YOU SEE HER IN THE HEARING ROOM TODAY?
A.     I THINK IT IS THE LADY THAT IS SITTING NEXT TO MR. JOHNSON, BUT I CAN'T BE SURE.
Q.     DID SHE EVER TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED?
A.     NO, SIR, NOT REALLY. SHE WAS JUST--ALL I CAN REMEMBER IS SHE WAS CRYING AND SHE WAS UPSET AND WANTED TO KNOW WHY MR. JOHNSON WAS BEING TAKEN TO JAIL.
Q.     I REFERRED TO HER AS MRS. FREEMAN, I'M SORRY, IT'S MS. LAWRENCE. DID SHE IDENTIFY HERSELF TO YOU AS MS. LAWRENCE?
A.     NO, SIR. I DIDN'T GET HER NAME.
Q.     DID SHE TELL YOU HER VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THAT IS ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

Q.     MR. WARD, WOULD YOU LOOK AT YOUR INCIDENT REPORT WITH ME, PLEASE. ON THE FIRST PAGE IN YOUR WRITTEN SUMMARY OF THE INCIDENT BEGINNING WHERE IT SAYS "SUSPECT NUMBER 1," WHO IS SUSPECT NUMBER 1?
A.     I LABELED JUST ABOVE WHERE IT SAYS SUBJECT ON THE SIDE, I LISTED MR. YOUNG AS SUSPECT NUMBER 1 AND MR. JOHNSON AS SUSPECT NUMBER 2, JUST TO CLARIFY THEM, SEPARATING THEM BASICALLY ON THAT TERM.
Q.     NOW THE LANGUAGE IS RIGHT ROUGH THAT YOU QUOTE. I ASSUME YOU CAREFULLY QUOTED WHAT THOSE TWO PEOPLE SAID?
A.     YES, SIR. THAT IS WHAT I HEARD.
Q.     RATHER THAN ME READING IT TO YOU, I AM GOING TO EXERCISE THE PEROGATIVE OF THE CHAIR AND ASK YOU TO READ ME WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN.
A.     YOU WANT ME TO READ THE WHOLE INCIDENT REPORT?
Q.     NO, SIR. I WANT YOU TO BEGIN WHERE IT SAYS SUSPECT NUMBER 1.
A.     "SUSPECT NUMBER 1 IN THE PARKING LOT WITH HIS SHIRT TORE OPEN. HE WAS CUSSING AT SUSPECT NUMBER 2 SAYING COME ON, MOTHERFUCKER, COME ON BACK. SUSPECT NUMBER 2 WAS CUSSING AT SUSPECT NUMBER 1 SAYING FUCK YOU."
Q.     I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT HERE. I WANT TO LET'S LOOK AT THAT PARTICULAR PHRASEOLOGY AND WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED. YOU ARE SAYING THAT MR. YOUNG WAS TALKING TO MR. JOHNSON?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND HE WAS TELLING HIM TO COME ON BACK?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WAS IT YOUR CONCLUSION THAT MR. JOHNSON HAD ALREADY HAD A CONFRONTATION WITH MR. YOUNG?
A.     YES, SIR. I AM ASSUMING BOTH OF THEM HAD ALREADY BEEN IN A FIGHT JUST BY THE LOOKS OF MR. YOUNG'S SHIRT AT THE TIME.
Q.     THIS WAS AN INVITATION TO RENEW THAT COMBAT?
A.     AS FAR AS MR. YOUNG SAYING "COME ON BACK," HE WAS WANTING TO KIND OF GET BACK AT MR. JOHNSON.
Q.     YOU HEARD THE DESCRIPTION A FEW MINUTES AGO OF MS. LAWRENCE AS BEING HYSTERICAL?
A.     YES.
Q.     WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HER CONDITION AS BEING HYSTERICAL AT THE TIME ON THE SCENE?
A.     SHE SEEMED TO BE VERY UPSET AND CRYING AND HER EYES WERE REAL RED. I AM ASSUMING SHE WAS ALSO INSIDE THE MATRIX WITH MR. JOHNSON. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE HAD ANYTHING TO DRINK THAT NIGHT, I DIDN'T TALK TO HER THAT MUCH. SHE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS HE GOING TO JAIL FOR AND I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT I WAS TAKING BOTH OF THEM TO JAIL FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Q.     YOU CHARGED MR. YOUNG AND MR. JOHNSON WITH DISORDERLY CONDUCT BASED UPON WHAT YOU OBSERVED?
A.     OBSERVED AND HEARD, YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOUR CHARGE WAS NOT BASED UPON SOME INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL ON THE SCENE?
A.     NO, SIR. I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT UNTIL AFTER I HAD DONE PLACED THEM UNDER ARREST.
Q.     YOU HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN YOUR OWN JUDGMENT TO CHARGE THEM FOR THE OFFENSE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT THAT YOU HAD OBSERVED OR HEARD?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU DIDN'T SEEK ANY WARRANTS FROM THE MAGISTRATE, DID YOU?
A.     NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q.     YOU HAVE THE POWER TO ISSUE AND ARREST YOURSELF AND TO MAKE THE CHARGE YOURSELF, DON'T YOU?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS INCIDENT OR THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MADE CONCERNING IT?
A.     NO, SIR, NOT AS I KNOW OF.
Q.     FIRST OF ALL, LET ME THANK YOU FOR COMING, MR. WARD. I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE USUAL PLACE WHERE YOU TESTIFY, BUT WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMING. IF THERE ARE ANY INCONVENIENCES THAT WE CAN HELP RESOLVE FOR YOU, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL HEAR ANY RESPONSE THAT MR. FERGUSON WISHES TO MAKE. HE HAS NO RESPONSE. THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES AND THEN WE WILL REOPEN THEM.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE HERE TO CONCLUDE THE SCREENING HEARINGS ON THE HONORABLE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR., THE HONORABLE THOMAS B. BARRINEAU, JR., THE HONORABLE JAMES A. SPRUILL, III, THOMAS C. DILLARD, HONORABLE THOMAS EARL FOSTER, WILLIAM E. WINTER, JR., AND THE HONORABLE JAMES CLEVELAND "TEE" FERGUSON. THE COMMITTEE SINCE WE WENT INTO RECESS THIS MORNING HAS PREPARED A WRITTEN REPORT WHICH WE WILL NOW ISSUE. IT'S THREE PAGES IN LENGTH AND COPIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR YOU. THAT REPORT FINDS ALL OF THESE GENTLEMEN TO BE QUALIFIED TO BE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT, FAMILY COURT OR CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. THERE ARE DETAILED FINDINGS ON MR. FERGUSON INVOLVING ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE AIRED TO THIS COMMITTEE. MR. FERGUSON HAS BEEN SHOWN THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH WE OPERATE AND APPARENTLY HAS NO OBJECTION TO IT. WE WILL SIGN THIS AND IT'S AVAILABLE FOR WHATEVER YOU WISH TO DO WITH IT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT IS THE UNANIMOUS DECISION OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE AS EVIDENCED EITHER BY THE SIGNATURES OR BY THE PROXIES THAT WE HAVE. ANY COMMENTS BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

THESE HEARINGS ARE ADJOURNED.

The Judicial Screening Committee has reviewed and investigated the qualification of the following candidates and makes the following findings of facts:

The Hon. Ernest A. Finney, Jr. is found qualified as a candidate for reelection as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Hon. Thomas B. Barrineau, Jr. is found qualified as a candidate for reelection to Family Court Seat #2, of the Sixth Judicial Circuit.

The Hon. James A. Spruill, III is found qualified as a candidate for reelection to Family Court Seat #3 of the Fourth Judicial Circuit.

Thomas C. Dillard is found qualified as a candidate for election to the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit.

The Hon. Thomas Earl Foster is found qualified as a candidate for election to the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit.

William E. Winter, Jr. is found qualified as a candidate for election to the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit.

In the screening of the Hon. James Cleveland Tee Ferguson, the Screening Committee heard testimony from four witnesses who had submitted affidavits and from four others who were subpoened by the Committee. Mr. Ferguson responded to the allegations made by the witnesses, as well as to questions posed by the Committee regarding past lawsuits in which he had been a party.

Witnesses Paul Earl Jeter and Woodruff City Recorder W. D. Harrison, Jr. made allegations of belligerent and antagonistic conduct stemming from an incident at a Woodruff gas station in August, 1989. A warrant was sworn out by Mr. Jeter and issued by Harrison against Mr. Ferguson for breach of the peace. The warrant, as well as a warrant against Jeter, was subsequently dropped. Mr. Jeter was a former client of Mr. Ferguson who admitted to never having paid a legal fee due Mr. Ferguson, though being requested to do so. Judge Harrison testified that he was upset with newspaper articles quoting Mr. Ferguson about the handling of the case. The Committee finds the testimony of Jeter and Harrison lacking the substance to warrant further inquiry and finds no misconduct on the part of Mr. Ferguson.

Allegations that Mr. Ferguson gave false testimony in a preliminary hearing on charges brought by Ferguson against his wife's first husband for harrassment over the telephone were made by James Arthur Cheek, a Spartanburg attorney who represented the accused. Mr. Cheek also testified that he and Mr. Ferguson were former college roommates and that he had twice run unsuccessfully against Mr. Ferguson for the House of Representatives. The Committee reviewed the transcript of the hearing in question and found no evidence that Mr. Ferguson offered false testimony. The Committee finds Mr. Cheek's accusations unsubstantiated.

Ms. Janet Byars Lawrence testified that Mr. Ferguson was involved in an altercation at the Matrix nightclub in Greenville on September 9, 1988, and had avoided arrest for his actions by use of influence as a legislator. Ferguson had represented one of the defendants in the trial for the murder of Ms. Lawrence's sister. The Committee found Ms. Lawrence's allegations of such significance to subpoena additional witnesses to further develop the evidence.

Ms. Lawrence's testimony that Mr. Ferguson had struck her date, Robert Troy Johnson, without provocation was echoed by Mr. Johnson. No other witnesses offered evidence to substantiate those allegations, however. Both Ferguson and Reginald Thomas, a friend accompanying Ferguson the evening of the incident, testified that Gary Young, another friend of Mr. Ferguson, had initiated the physicial confrontation with Johnson and that Ferguson did not deliver a blow.

Mr. and Mrs. Parker Mims were called to testify as objective witnesses from the scene of the incident after Ms. Lawrence had indicated that they had seen the altercation and would testify that Mr. Ferguson had been the instigator. Mr. and Mrs. Mims testified, however, that they never saw any blows exchanged, only witnessing loud cursing between Johnson and Young.

Officer J. R. Ward of the Greenville Police Department testified that when he arrived on the scene he arrested Young and Johnson, based on his personal observations of the situation. He noted that Ms. Lawrence was very emotional during the incident. Officer Ward also testified that Ms. Lawrence never related to him her accusations of Mr. Ferguson's involvement about which she later testified to this Committee. His only contact with Mr. Ferguson occurred when Mr. Ferguson identified himself as an attorney and calmly inquired as to where Mr. Young was being transported, the charges being pressed, and the amount for bond. An arrest warrant was never issued for Mr. Ferguson. The Committee finds the allegation of misconduct on Mr. Ferguson's part unsubstantiated by independent witnesses in this incident.

Also during the screening hearing, the Committee questioned Mr. Ferguson regarding six civil lawsuits involving financial disputes in which he was a defendant.

A 1978 foreclosure action and a l976 repossession action resulted from debts incurred by Mr. Ferguson's parents. Two lawsuits involving student loan defaults were satisfied upon payment of the outstanding sums.

A 1975 action on a promissory note was dismissed after payment was made, as well as a l988 collection action for the sale of lawbooks. Mr. Ferguson also provided the Committee with proof of payment of each of these debts, including evidence that half of the amount allegedly owed the lawbook company had been paid prior to the filing of the complaint. The Committee finds that the early lawsuits involved family debts incurred by his parents while Mr. Ferguson was a student and helping support his family. In mitigation of his past financial difficulties, it is of note that Mr. Ferguson helped finance the education of two younger siblings. The Committee finds that Mr. Ferguson has satisfied all judgments and past due debts.

Upon the review of the cumulative evidence presented to the Committee in regard to the qualification of Hon. James Cleveland Tee Ferguson, the Judicial Screening Committee finds him to be qualified as a candidate for election to the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,
John I. Rogers, III, Chairman
/s/ Senator Thomas H. Pope, III
/s/ Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Senator John A. Martin
/s/ Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Rep. Larry E. Gentry
/s/ Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/ Rep. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.

Received as information.

The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., Mach 27, 1990

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H. 3659:
H. 3659 -- Reps. Waites, Faber, McBride, Whipper, Farr, Jaskwhich, Manly, Barber, Davenport, Ferguson, McLeod, Taylor, M.O. Alexander, J. Bailey, Rhoad, Washington, McKay, Felder, Neilson, Glover, Moss, T.C. Alexander, Quinn, Burch, Wilder, Vaughn, R. Brown, Elliott, T. Rogers, Cole, Littlejohn, Phillips, Foster, Snow, Altman and J. Rogers: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE TO STUDY HOMELESSNESS IN THIS STATE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TASK FORCE.
Very respectfully,
President

No. 113

The report of the Committee of Conference having been adopted by both Houses, and this Joint Resolution having been read three times in each House, it was ordered that the title thereof be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

Rep. R. BROWN, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4443 -- Rep. L. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 27-37-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SERVICE OF A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A TENANT SHOULD NOT BE EJECTED FROM A RENTED PREMISES, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH A COPY OF THIS RULE IS SERVED UPON THE TENANT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. R. BROWN, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4816 -- Reps. Altman and T.M. Burriss: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-3030, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SECURITY MAY BE PROVIDED IN LIEU OF A PERFORMANCE BOND AND PAYMENT BOND WHEN THE CONTRACT DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. R. BROWN, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 1248 -- Senators Drummond, Williams, Waddell, Lourie, J. Verne Smith and Lee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD FOR BARRIER-FREE DESIGN, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE BOARD FROM REVIEW UNDER CHAPTER 20 OF TITLE 1, POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE SUNSET LAW.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. R. BROWN, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 1249 -- Senators Drummond, Williams, Waddell, Lourie, J. Verne Smith and Lee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF BARRIER-FREE DESIGN FOR SIX YEARS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. R. BROWN, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 1392 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, RELATING TO APPLICATION FEES AND LICENSES AND LICENSE FEES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1191, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4852 -- Reps. Wilkins, D. Martin, Burch, Hodges, Gentry, Huff, Clyborne, Nettles, Hayes, Harwell, Fair, McKay, Kinon, Corning, Keesley, Haskins and Wilder: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 1990"; TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-430, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CRIME OF CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-445, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHIN A CERTAIN PROXIMITY OF A SCHOOL, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT AS PUNISHMENT, RATHER THAN "FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH", AND TO PROVIDE FOR A SEPARATE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PURCHASING UNLAWFULLY A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WHILE WITHIN A RADIUS OF ONE-HALF MILE OF THE GROUNDS OF AN ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, OR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND PROVIDE A PENALTY; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-430, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION BY CERTAIN COURTS OVER JUVENILES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF A CHILD FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IS CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF SECTION 16-23-430(1) OR SECTION 44-53-445, THE COURT MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, BIND OVER THE CHILD FOR PROPER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO A COURT WHICH WOULD HAVE TRIAL JURISDICTION OF THE OFFENSES IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-3300, RELATING TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES AND EXCEPTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT RECORDS AND INFORMATION PROVIDED TO A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL BY THE DEPARTMENT MUST INCLUDE, IN CERTAIN CASES, A COPY OF, AND, IF REQUESTED, INFORMATION ABOUT, THE PERSON'S JUVENILE CRIMINAL RECORD, AND REQUIRE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO DEVELOP A POLICY FOR SCHOOLS TO FOLLOW WITHIN THE DISTRICT REGARDING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE RECORDS AND OTHER INFORMATION; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 63, TITLE 59, RELATING TO EDUCATION AND PUPILS GENERALLY, BY ADDING ARTICLE 4 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SCHOOL CRIME REPORT ACT".

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4805 -- Reps. Wilkins, McAbee, Mappus, T.M. Burriss, Cork, Felder, Hayes, Elliott, J.W. Johnson, Winstead, Carnell, P. Harris, Burch, Hodges, Haskins, J. Williams and Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 15-3-531 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATING TO ASBESTOS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUILDINGS ACCRUING BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION ARE REVIVED, AND MUST BE COMMENCED, IF NOT ALREADY COMMENCED, NO LATER THAN JULY 1, 1991, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR CERTAIN ASBESTOS ACTIONS ACCRUING ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4831 -- Reps. Wilkins, Baxley, Harwell, Hodges, Huff and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1180, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF CRIME VICTIM AWARDS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING SESSIONS FOR THE NUMBER OF SESSIONS WITHIN THE NINETY-DAY-PERIOD OR FIFTEEN SESSIONS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4657 -- Rep. Stoddard: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 23-35-185 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT LICENSED RETAIL DEALERS MAY PURCHASE, POSSESS, AND SELL TO QUALIFIED PERSONS ANY FIREARM OR PISTOL WHICH MAY BE USED OR POSSESSED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THIS STATE, AND TO AUTHORIZE THESE QUALIFIED PERSONS TO USE AND POSSESS THESE FIREARMS OR PISTOLS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4628 -- Rep. Taylor: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-340, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY BY A MINOR, SO AS TO DELETE PROVISIONS, ADD PROVISIONS, INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY FROM A MAXIMUM OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO A MAXIMUM OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND EXPAND THE SCOPE AND COVERAGE OF THIS SECTION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4573 -- Reps. Hayes and Huff: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-490, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AN ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT FOR POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR KNIFE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A VIOLENT CRIME, SO AS TO ADD DRUG-RELATED OFFENSES TO THOSE OFFENSES FOR WHICH THE ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT MAY BE GIVEN AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASED PENALTY IF A MACHINE GUN OR A FIREARM WITH A SILENCER OR MUFFLER IS UTILIZED.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4572 -- Reps. Hayes, Huff, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Alexander, Altman, G. Bailey, K. Bailey, Baker, Barber, Barfield, Baxley, Beasley, Bennett, Blackwell, Boan, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Bruce, Burch, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Carnell, Chamblee, Clyborne, Cole, Cooper, Corbett, Cork, Corning, Davenport, Derrick, Elliott, Faber, Fair, Fant, Farr, Felder, Ferguson, Foster, Gentry, Glover, Gordon, Gregory, Hallman, J. Harris, P. Harris, Harrison, Harvin, Harwell, Haskins, Hendricks, Holt, Jaskwhich, J.C. Johnson, Kay, Keegan, Keyserling, Kinon, Kirsh, Klapman, Kohn, Koon, Lanford, Littlejohn, Manly, Mappus, D. Martin, L. Martin, McAbee, McBride, McCain, McElveen, McGinnis, McKay, McLellan, McLeod, McTeer, Moss, Neilson, Nesbitt, Nettles, Phillips, Quinn, Rama, Rhoad, J. Rogers, Rudnick, Sharpe, Smith, Snow, Stoddard, Sturkie, Taylor, Townsend, Tucker, Vaughn, Waites, Waldrop, Washington, Wells, Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkins, D. Williams, Winstead, Wofford and Wright: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 53, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO POISONS, DRUGS, AND OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY ADDING SECTION 44-53-476 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO BE A "LEADER OF A NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING NETWORK", TO PROVIDE THE ELEMENTS OF THIS OFFENSE, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION, AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-1-10, RELATING TO CRIMES CLASSIFIED AS FELONIES, SO AS TO ADD THIS OFFENSE WHICH IS A FELONY TO THIS LIST.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4574 -- Reps. Hayes, Huff, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Alexander, Altman, G. Bailey, K. Bailey, Baker, Barber, Barfield, Baxley, Beasley, Bennett, Blackwell, Boan, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Bruce, Burch, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Carnell, Chamblee, Clyborne, Cole, Cooper, Corbett, Cork, Corning, Davenport, Derrick, Elliott, Faber, Fair, Fant, Farr, Felder, Ferguson, Foster, Gentry, Glover, Gordon, Gregory, Hallman, J. Harris, P. Harris, Harrison, Harvin, Harwell, Haskins, Hendricks, Holt, Jaskwhich, J.C. Johnson, Kay, Keegan, Keyserling, Kinon, Kirsh, Klapman, Kohn, Koon, Lanford, Littlejohn, Manly, Mappus, D. Martin, L. Martin, McAbee, McBride, McCain, McElveen, McGinnis, McKay, McLellan, McLeod, McTeer, Moss, Neilson, Nesbitt, Nettles, Phillips, Quinn, Rama, Rhoad, J. Rogers, Rudnick, Sharpe, Smith, Snow, Stoddard, Sturkie, Taylor, Townsend, Tucker, Vaughn, Waites, Waldrop, Washington, Wells, Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkins, D. Williams, Winstead, Wofford and Wright: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 53, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO POISONS, DRUGS, AND OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY ADDING SECTION 44-53-577 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO EMPLOY OR USE PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE IN DRUG OPERATIONS OR TO RECEIVE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FROM PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION, AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-1-10, RELATING TO CRIMES CLASSIFIED AS FELONIES, SO AS TO ADD THE ABOVE OFFENSES WHICH ARE MADE FELONIES TO THIS LIST.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4571 -- Reps. Hayes, Huff, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Alexander, Altman, G. Bailey, K. Bailey, Baker, Barber, Barfield, Baxley, Beasley, Bennett, Blackwell, Boan, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Bruce, Burch, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Carnell, Chamblee, Clyborne, Cole, Cooper, Corbett, Cork, Corning, Davenport, Derrick, Elliott, Faber, Fair, Fant, Farr, Felder, Ferguson, Foster, Gentry, Glover, Gordon, Gregory, Hallman, J. Harris, P. Harris, Harrison, Harvin, Harwell, Haskins, Hendricks, Holt, Jaskwhich, J.C. Johnson, Kay, Keegan, Keyserling, Kinon, Kirsh, Klapman, Kohn, Koon, Lanford, Littlejohn, Manly, Mappus, D. Martin, L. Martin, McAbee, McBride, McCain, McElveen, McGinnis, McKay, McLellan, McLeod, McTeer, Moss, Neilson, Nesbitt, Nettles, Phillips, Quinn, Rama, Rhoad, J. Rogers, Rudnick, Sharpe, Smith, Snow, Stoddard, Sturkie, Taylor, Townsend, Tucker, Vaughn, Waites, Waldrop, Washington, Wells, Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkins, D. Williams, Winstead, Wofford and Wright: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 53, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO POISONS, DRUGS, AND OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY ADDING SECTION 44-53-475 SO AS TO MAKE THE LAUNDERING OF CERTAIN MONETARY INSTRUMENTS UNLAWFUL, AND TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-1-10, RELATING TO CRIMES CLASSIFIED AS FELONIES, SO AS TO ADD THE ABOVE OFFENSES WHICH ARE MADE FELONIES TO THIS LIST.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 4606 -- Reps. McLeod, Stoddard, J.C. Johnson, Koon, Keyserling, G. Brown, McElveen, Blanding, Waites, J. Bailey, Smith, Corning, T.M. Burriss, Felder, Whipper, Huff, Barber, Washington, Holt, White, Bruce, Littlejohn, Fant and Glover: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS, SO AS TO REDUCE THE TIME PERIOD REGULATIONS ARE IN COMMITTEE AND UNDER CONSIDERATION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-125, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, AND MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS BY A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, SO AS TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURES UPON RESUBMISSION OF REGULATIONS BY AN AGENCY, AND TO DELETE THE AUTOMATIC APPROVAL PROVISION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 518 -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-23-410, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DETERMINATION AS TO A PERSON'S FITNESS TO STAND TRIAL, SO AS TO INCLUDE CIVIL CONTEMPT IN THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND DELETE THE REFERENCE TO THE COUNTY COURT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

On motion of Rep. JASKWHICH, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4892 -- Reps. Jaskwhich, Keyserling, Snow, Elliott, Altman, Corbett, Bennett, McLeod, Haskins, McElveen, Clyborne, Wilkins and Keegan: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO DECLARE SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 1990, AS "EARTH DAY 1990" IN SUPPORT OF THE DECADE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION IN APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES PROMOTING PRESERVATION OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT.

Whereas, almost twenty years ago, more than twenty million Americans joined together on Earth Day in a demonstration of concern for the environment, and their collective action resulted in the passage of sweeping new laws to protect our air, water, and land; and

Whereas, in the nineteen years since the first Earth Day, despite environmental improvements, the environmental health of the planet is increasingly endangered, threatened by global climate change, ozone depletion, growing world population, tropical deforestation, ocean pollution, toxic wastes, desertification, and nuclear waste requiring action by all sectors of society; and

Whereas, Earth Day 1990 is a national and international call to action for all citizens to join in a global effort to save the planet; and

Whereas, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of acting in an environmentally sensitive fashion by recycling, conserving energy and water, using efficient transportation, and adopting a more ecologically sound lifestyle; and

Whereas, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of buying and using only those products least harmful to the environment; and

Whereas, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of doing business only with those companies that are environmentally sensitive and responsible; and

Whereas, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of voting for those candidates who demonstrate an abiding concern for the environment; and

Whereas, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the importance of supporting the passage of legislation that will help protect the environment.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, declare Sunday, April 22, 1990, as "Earth Day 1990" in support of the decade of the environment and encourage public and individual participation in appropriate activities promoting preservation of the global environment.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

On motion of Rep. WINSTEAD, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4893 -- Reps. J. Bailey, Barber, Hallman, Holt, Kohn, D. Martin, Rama, Washington, Whipper and Winstead: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT JOHN GRAHAM ALTMAN, MEMBER OF THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, TURN OVER THE NAMES OF THE SCHOOLS WHERE THERE HAS BEEN CHEATING TO THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That John Graham Altman, member of the Charleston County School Board, is requested to turn over the names of the schools where there has been cheating to the State Law Enforcement Division for a complete investigation of the charges.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to John Graham Altman and to Robert M. Stewart, Chief, State Law Enforcement Division.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

On motion of Rep. McLELLAN, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4894 -- Reps. McLellan and Farr: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO NAME THE CENTRAL OFFICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION AT 1550 GADSDEN STREET IN COLUMBIA AS THE ROBERT E. DAVID STATE OFFICE BUILDING.

Whereas, Robert E. "Jack" David was born in South Carolina and grew up in Camden, the son of hard-working, God-fearing, and patriotic parents; and

Whereas, he volunteered for military service at an early age, serving with distinction in World War II, Korea, and in the early days of the Vietnam era, retiring as a U.S. Army colonel with a most distinguished record; and

Whereas, he embarked on a second career of public service to his Nation and State as an educator, earning a doctorate degree from the University of South Carolina; and

Whereas, he became a superintendent of education in Union County and was selected by then Governor John Carl West to serve on his executive staff in a variety of capacities directly affecting the education and employability of South Carolinians, resulting in improved technical and vocational education, among other achievements and contributions; and

Whereas, Robert E. "Jack" David was called upon in 1975 to further share his talents and management skills by serving as Executive Director of the South Carolina Employment Security Commission; and

Whereas, he already has achieved national and international recognition as an employment security administrator, as evidenced by the following: President of the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies; Administrator of the Year; and Recipient of the International Award of Merit from the International Association of Personnel in Employment Security, the highest annual award which is given by the forty-nation organization; and

Whereas, under his leadership, the South Carolina Employment Security Commission has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and productivity, leading the nation several times in comparison with other states; and

Whereas, he has shown great initiative in rendering excellent service to the employers and working citizens of South Carolina by initiating automated systems, and improving physical facilities while, at the same time, reducing overhead expenses through a program of building ownership; and

Whereas, he has been an untiring worker and a dynamic spokesman for America's military veterans, serving as the State Commander of the American Legion in 1987-88, and in other capacities at both the local and national levels, testifying many times before Congressional bodies on behalf of veterans; and

Whereas, he established a scholarship fund for the children of South Carolina's Vietnam veterans, contributing twenty-five thousand dollars of his own personal resources to stimulate giving by others; and

Whereas, the Mayor and City of Camden have recognized him as an Outstanding Citizen, an unprecedented award given for his unique and considerable services to his community; and

Whereas, he has been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, serving as a bishop, member of a stake presidency, and as a high counselor in Columbia, South Carolina Stake; and

Whereas, with his wife, the former Mary Caulder of Camden, he has exalted the family unit and reared four outstanding children, having been blessed with thirteen grandchildren. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, designate and name the central office of the South Carolina Employment Security Commission at 1550 Gadsden Street in Columbia, as the Robert E. David State Office Building.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Robert E. "Jack" David.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate by a division vote of 17 to 8.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 4895 -- Reps. Townsend, Kay, P. Harris, Chamblee and Cooper: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 549 OF 1973, RELATING TO THE BROADWAY WATER AND SEWERAGE DISTRICT IN ANDERSON COUNTY, SO AS TO ENLARGE THE SERVICE AREA OF THE DISTRICT.

On motion of Rep. TUCKER, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

H. 4896 -- Reps. Clyborne and Manly: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-961 SO AS TO DESIGNATE THE GREENVILLE TECHNICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS IN GREENVILLE COUNTY AS A BIRD AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 4897 -- Rep. Kohn: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 10-1-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT ANY PERSON DEVELOPING A REAL ESTATE PROJECT ON PUBLIC LANDS OR WITH USE IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF PUBLIC FUNDS IS REQUIRED TO POST A SURETY BOND OR OTHER GUARANTEE INSURING THAT ANY CONTRACTOR WITH WHOM HE ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT WILL BE PAID ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT FOR ANY WORK PROPERLY COMPLETED.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 4898 -- Rep. Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 4899 -- Reps. J. Rogers and Beasley: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 48-19-75 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR MINING ACTIVITIES.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 4900 -- Reps. J. Bailey, Mappus, T. Rogers, Manly, Keyserling, Barber, Littlejohn, Hallman, Wells, Winstead, Holt, Rama, Fair, Koon, Smith, Corning, Waites, Jaskwhich, T.M. Burriss, McGinnis and Washington: A BILL TO ENACT THE "CONSUMER CHOICE IN MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE ACT"; TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-950, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE USE OF THE REINSURANCE FACILITY BY AN INSURER, AND NOTICE TO A POLICYHOLDER THAT HIS POLICY IS IN THE FACILITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION BETWEEN PREMIUMS GENERATED UNDER EACH TORT OPTIONS, ALL INSURERS SHALL APPLY THE CESSION LIMITATION TO EACH OF THE OPTIONS WHOSE RISKS ARE CEDED, AND PROVIDE THAT UNDER EITHER OPTION, RECOUPMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE COVERAGES CEDED TO THE FACILITY UNDER EACH RESPECTIVE OPTION; TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-600, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND THE REINSURANCE FACILITY RECOUPMENT CHARGE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE FACILITY RECOUPMENT CHARGE FORMULA TO RISKS CEDED UNDER THE TORT AND NO-FAULT OPTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 38-77-950, A SEPARATE "NET FACILITY OPERATING LOSS" MUST BE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENTLY FOR RISKS CEDED UNDER EACH OPTION AND THE FORMULA APPLIED INDEPENDENTLY TO EACH OPTION IN ORDER FOR SEPARATE RECOUPMENT CHARGES TO BE DEVELOPED FOR INSUREDS UNDER EACH OPTION, PROVIDE THAT PERSONAL PROTECTION INSUREDS SHALL CONTINUE TO PAY THE APPROPRIATE TORT RECOUPMENT CHARGE UNTIL THE PERSONAL PROTECTION RECOUPMENT CHARGES ARE DETERMINABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT FACILITY OPERATIONS AND ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES, AND PROVIDE THAT, IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT TO SHIFT ONE-HALF OF RECOUPMENT CHARGES OFF ZERO MERIT SURCHARGE RISKS, THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER MAY MODIFY THE FORMULA; TO AMEND SECTION 16-1-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CRIMES CLASSIFIED AS FELONIES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSES PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS ACT APPLIES TO THE USE OR OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN SOUTH CAROLINA ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, AND PROVIDE THAT A POLICY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OBTAINED TO SATISFY THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS OF THIS STATE MUST BE CONSTRUED AS IF THE FULL TORT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THIS ACT WERE EMBODIED IN THE POLICY UNLESS, BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, THE NAMED INSURED HAS EXERCISED A RIGHT OF ELECTION FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION COVERAGE PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

H. 4901 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, RELATING TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING BOARD, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1207, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Without reference.

H. 4904 -- Reps. Moss, Baker, Wells and Wofford: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-7-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET AND THE OFFENSES FOR WHICH IT MAY BE USED, SO AS TO ADD CERTAIN PROSTITUTION OFFENSES WHICH ARE FIRST OFFENSE VIOLATIONS.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1136 -- Senators McLeod, Lourie, Nell W. Smith, Leatherman and Long: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-77-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF "LIFE-SUSTAINING PROCEDURES" AND "TERMINAL CONDITION"; SECTION 44-77-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF A DEATH WITH DIGNITY DECLARATION, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT TO A DECLARATION MUST BE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BY THE TWO WITNESSES IN THE DECLARANT'S PRESENCE; SECTION 44-77-50, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE FORM OF A DECLARATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN AGENT, REVISE THE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE REVOCATION OF A DECLARATION, AND PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS IN A DECLARATION; AND SECTION 44-77-80, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REVOCATION OF A DECLARATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR REVOCATION BY A DECLARANT'S AGENT INSTEAD OF DESIGNEE.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1166 -- Senators Leatherman, Nell W. Smith, J. Verne Smith, Peeler, Long, Matthews and McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 43-1-150, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RULES GOVERNING CUSTODY AND USE OF RECORDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES SHALL PROMULGATE REGULATIONS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ON THE USE OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION CONCERNING APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 43-1-160, RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF PERSONS RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TO BE PUBLIC RECORDS, SO AS TO PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION; TO AMEND SECTION 44-6-190, RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE DEPARTMENT PROMULGATE REGULATIONS COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS TO LIMIT THE USE OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION CONCERNING APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS TO PURPOSES DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICAID.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

S. 1167 -- Senators Bryan, Hayes, Peeler and Fielding: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 20 TO TITLE 44 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MENTAL RETARDATION AND RELATED DISABILITIES ACT BY SETTING FORTH THE ORGANIZATION AND A SYSTEM FOR THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES, REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR MENTAL RETARDATION; TO REPEAL CHAPTER 19, TITLE 44 RELATING TO THE STATE MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT AND CHAPTER 21, TITLE 44 RELATING TO THE CARE AND COMMITMENT OF MENTALLY RETARDED PERSONS.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

S. 1267 -- Senators Giese, Rose, Gilbert, Hinson, Long, Lee, J. Verne Smith, Shealy, Martschink, Helmly, Stilwell and Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-43-230, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RENEWAL OF LICENSES FOR PHARMACISTS, FEES, AND REINSTATEMENT OF LAPSED LICENSES, SO AS TO ALLOW THE STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY TO ISSUE AN INACTIVE STATUS LICENSE TO A LICENSED PHARMACIST NOT ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY IN THE STATE, AND PROVIDE FOR THE REACTIVATION OF THE PHARMACIST'S LICENSE; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 40-43-265 SO AS TO PERMIT THE BOARD TO REFUSE TO GRANT A LICENSE TO PRACTICE PHARMACY TO AN OTHERWISE QUALIFIED PERSON UPON ANY OF THE GROUNDS FOR WHICH A LICENSE CAN BE REVOKED OR SUSPENDED, AND 40-43-270 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ACTS OR OMISSIONS BY A LICENSEE CAUSING THE DENIAL, REVOCATION, SUSPENSION, OR RESTRICTION OF A LICENSE TO PRACTICE PHARMACY IN ANOTHER STATE SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 40-43-260.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

S. 1279 -- Senator Setzler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-1-65, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO APPLICATION FEES FOR APPOINTMENT AS A STATE CONSTABLE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO FEES ARE REQUIRED OF PERSONS FORMERLY EMPLOYED AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO HAVE RETIRED WITH TWENTY-FIVE OR MORE YEARS OF CREDITABLE SERVICE.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

S. 1318 -- Senator Williams: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 33-2-102, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, SO AS TO REVISE WHAT THE ARTICLES MUST SET FORTH; TO AMEND SECTION 33-4-101, RELATING TO CORPORATE NAMES, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE THINGS FROM WHICH A CORPORATE NAME MUST BE DISTINGUISHABLE AND FOR THE EXCEPTIONS TO THESE CORPORATE NAME REQUIREMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 33-8-310, RELATING TO DIRECTOR OR OFFICER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TRANSACTION IS NOT VOIDABLE BY THE CORPORATION; TO AMEND SECTION 33-15-103, RELATING TO AN APPLICATION BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, SO AS TO REVISE WHAT THE APPLICATION MUST SET FORTH; TO AMEND ARTICLE 7, CHAPTER 19 OF TITLE 33, RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS REGULATORY PROVISIONS, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE AND TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ANNUAL QUALIFICATION STATEMENTS MUST BE FILED; TO AMEND SECTION 33-20-105, RELATING TO SAVINGS PROVISIONS IN THE CORPORATE CODE, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE SAVINGS PROVISIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 35-2-104, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF AN "ISSUING PUBLIC CORPORATION" FOR PURPOSES OF CONTROL SHARE ACQUISITION PROVISIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THIS DEFINITION; TO AMEND SECTION 35-2-213, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESIDENT DOMESTIC CORPORATION" FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS COMBINATION PROVISIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THIS DEFINITION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 35-2-224, RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF BUSINESS COMBINATION PROVISIONS TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS APPLICABILITY.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

The following was introduced:

H. 4902 -- Reps. Kohn and Keegan: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA THROUGH ITS APPROPRIATE ATTORNEYS SHOULD DROP ITS APPEAL OF THE CASE OF FRANCIS EDWIN BASS, JR., ET AL. V. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA WHEREIN THE STATE WAS ORDERED TO REFUND INCOME TAXES PAID FOR THE YEARS 1985 THROUGH 1988 TO PERSONS RECEIVING CERTAIN FEDERAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS, AND TO FURTHER EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT THESE REFUNDS DUE SHOULD BE PAID PROMPTLY AND IN A FAIR MANNER DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Five members objecting to immediate consideration the Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

The following was introduced:

H. 4903 -- Reps. Sharpe, Smith, Rudnick, Keesley and Huff: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS OF THE LATE CHARLES L. FREEMAN OF AIKEN IN AIKEN COUNTY.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was taken up for immediate consideration:

S. 1433 -- Senators Pope, Martin, Lourie and McConnell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1990, AT 12:30 P.M., AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING A SUCCESSOR TO THE HONORABLE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JULY 31, 1990, A SUCCESSOR TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN Z. MCKOWN, RESIDENT CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WHO IS RETIRING EFFECTIVE MAY 7, 1990; AND SUCCESSORS TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. SPRUILL, JR., FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, AND THE HONORABLE THOMAS B. BARRINEAU, JR., FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE JUNE 30, 1990.

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:

That the Senate and the House of Representatives meet in joint assembly in the hall of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1990, at 12:30 p.m. for the purpose of electing a successor to the Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, whose term expires July 31, 1990; a successor to fill the remainder of the unexpired term of the Honorable Jonathan Z. McKown, Resident Circuit Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, who is retiring effective May 7, 1990; and successors to the Honorable James A. Spruill, Jr., Family Court Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, and the Honorable Thomas B. Barrineau, Jr., Family Court Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, whose terms expire June 30, 1990.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.

On motion of Rep. STODDARD, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4905 -- Reps. Stoddard, McAbee, Clyborne and D. Martin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1990, AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF VISITORS OF THE CITADEL AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, FRANCIS MARION COLLEGE, LANDER COLLEGE, THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE, THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND WINTHROP COLLEGE, TO SUCCEED THOSE MEMBERS WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE IN 1990 AND TO FILL VACANT SEATS ON THESE BOARDS THE PRESENT TERMS FOR WHICH EXPIRE IN 1990 AND 1992.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the House of Representatives and the Senate meet in joint assembly in the hall of the House of Representatives at 12:00 noon on Wednesday, April 18, 1990, for the purpose of electing members of the Board of Visitors of The Citadel and members of the Boards of Trustees of Clemson University, the College of Charleston, Francis Marion College, Lander College, the Medical University of South Carolina, South Carolina State College, the University of South Carolina, and Winthrop College, to succeed those members whose terms expire in 1990 and to fill vacant seats on these boards the present terms for which expire in 1990, except that a lay, nonhealth related seat from the Third Congressional District on the Board of Trustees of the Medical University of South Carolina and a seat from the Fourth Congressional District on the Board of Trustees of Lander College, both of which seats are currently vacant and the present terms for which expire in 1992, must also be filled.

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.

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Baxley                 Beasley                Bennett
Blackwell              Blanding               Boan
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Brown, R.              Bruce                  Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Carnell                Chamblee
Clyborne               Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Cork                   Davenport
Derrick                Elliott                Faber
Fair                   Fant                   Farr
Ferguson               Foster                 Glover
Gordon                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harrison
Harwell                Haskins                Hayes
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.          Johnson, J.W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kinon                  Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Lanford
Littlejohn             Manly                  Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McAbee                 McBride                McCain
McEachin               McGinnis               McKay
McLellan               McLeod                 McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Phillips               Rama
Rhoad                  Rogers, J.             Rogers, T.
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Stoddard               Sturkie                Taylor
Townsend               Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Washington             Wells
Whipper                White                  Wilder
Wilkes                 Wilkins                Williams, D.
Williams, J.           Winstead               Wofford
Wright

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on March 28, 1990.

John G. Felder                    Robert Sheheen
Dave C. Waldrop                   Rick Quinn
Joseph McElveen                   Thomas E. Huff
Roland S. Corning                 Larry Koon
Larry Gentry                      Paul Burch
Tom Limehouse

Rep. HARVIN signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on Tuesday, March 27.

The following Bill and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.

H. 4801 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO MAKE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM SURPLUS FOR THE EXPENSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT; TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR APPROPRIATIONS; TO DISPOSE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY ACT 189 OF 1989; TO AMEND SECTION 48-47-175, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TAX ON THE DISPOSAL OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE TAX TO BE REMITTED MONTHLY RATHER THAN QUARTERLY AND TO REQUIRE THE TAX FOR THE MONTH TO BE PAID NO LATER THAN TWENTY INSTEAD OF THIRTY DAYS FOLLOWING THE END OF THE MONTH; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE INCOME TAX, SO AS TO UPDATE THE REFERENCE DATE OF THIS STATE'S ADOPTION OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-9-390, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS ON STATE INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING AGENTS, SO AS TO UPDATE THE REFERENCE DATE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 USED FOR PURPOSES OF STATE INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING.

H. 4802 -- Ways and Means Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE MONIES FROM THE CAPITAL RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90.

The following Bills were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

S. 1323 -- Senator Land: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 375 OF 1947, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CLARENDON HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE BOARD WHO IS THE CHIEF OF THE MEDICAL STAFF OF THE CLARENDON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SHALL HAVE VOTING PRIVILEGES.

S. 1215 -- Finance Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-710, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX ON TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX IS IMPOSED ONLY ON REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE RATE CHARGED FOR RENTAL OF SLEEPING ACCOMMODATIONS AND DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY ADDITIONAL GUEST CHARGES, AND TO DEFINE "ADDITIONAL GUEST CHARGE".

Rep. KIRSH explained the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3481 -- Reps. Lanford, Moss, Limehouse, Cole, Davenport, Haskins, Clyborne, H. Brown and Wofford: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-63-40, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VITAL STATISTICS, SO AS TO REQUIRE COUNTY CORONERS TO ISSUE BURIAL-REMOVAL-TRANSIT PERMITS FOR VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL DEATHS OCCURRING OUTSIDE HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS.

Rep. LANFORD, with unanimous consent, proposed the following Amendment No. 4 (Doc. No. 1294X), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, p. 3481-2, by striking lines 18 and 19 and inserting:

/the coroner has not physically examined the body in those cases that are attended by a licensed physician and therefore may not be held liable for actions/

Amend title to conform.

Rep. LANFORD explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the third time and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.

H. 4427 -- Reps. J. Bailey, Rama, T. Rogers, Barber, McBride, Wright, Altman, Snow, Holt, Keegan, Quinn, Bruce, D. Martin, J. Harris, Washington, Whipper, T.M. Burriss, Moss, R. Brown, Burch, Waites, Glover, J. Brown, Fant, Wilkes, Rudnick, Wofford, Haskins, McCain, Wilkins, Manly, Lanford, McGinnis, Simpson, Vaughn, Wells, Davenport, Littlejohn, Farr, Cole, Chamblee, Huff, Keesley, Clyborne, Kohn, Mappus, Smith, Cooper, Sturkie, G. Bailey, M.D. Burriss, Corbett, Sharpe and L. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 4-9-195 AND 5-21-140 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNING BODIES OF COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO GRANT SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS TO "REHABILITATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES" AND "LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RENTAL PROPERTIES".

H. 4713 -- Reps. Hayes, Kinon, Wilkins, McAbee, Harrison, McKay, Felder and McGinnis: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-7-67, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DISABILITY AND MEDICAL BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL GUARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE COORDINATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL BENEFITS; TO AMEND SECTION 42-7-75, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PREMIUMS BY STATE AGENCIES AND THE STATE TREASURER'S DUTIES PERTAINING TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE METHOD OF DETERMINING PREMIUMS FOR THE STATE AND NATIONAL GUARD; TO AMEND SECTION 42-15-40, RELATING TO THE TIME FOR FILING A WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE TIME LIMIT FOR A CLAIM BY A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD; AND TO AMEND SECTION 42-19-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AN EMPLOYEE'S RECORD AND REPORT OF INJURIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECORD AND REPORT OF A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD.

H. 4721 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE INCOME TAX, SO AS TO UPDATE THE REFERENCE DATE OF THIS STATE'S ADOPTION OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-9-390, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS ON STATE INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING AGENTS, SO AS TO UPDATE THE REFERENCE DATE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 USED FOR PURPOSES OF STATE INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING.

H. 4391 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-11-440 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DIVISION OF INSURANCE SERVICES OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD MAY DEVELOP AN OPTIONAL LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES DEPENDING ON THE AVAILABILITY OF A QUALIFIED VENDOR; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 9-1-70 RELATING TO THE OPTIONAL LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM.

H. 4187 -- Rep. Farr: A BILL TO REQUIRE SECONDARY LEVEL PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE CAMPUS AND STUDENT DIRECTORY INFORMATION TO OFFICIAL RECRUITING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE STATE AND THE UNITED STATES IN A MANNER AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE SAME ACCESS PROVIDED TO OTHER PERSONS OR GROUPS WHICH MAKE STUDENTS AWARE OF OCCUPATIONAL OR EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS.

H. 4387 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1960, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FREE PARKING FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PARKING PRIVILEGES TO APPLY FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPLAYING EVIDENCE OF HANDICAP.

H. 4506 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-340, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AN AGREEMENT TO EXCLUDE A PERSON FROM AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE, SO AS TO REQUIRE A LETTER CERTIFYING THAT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OF THE PERSON EXCLUDED HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INSTEAD OF REQUIRING AN AFFIDAVIT.

H. 4788 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, RELATING TO CERTIFICATION OF MINORITY BUSINESSES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1206, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

The following Bills were read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title of each be changed to that of an Act, and that they be enrolled for ratification.

S. 989 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-43-160, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BOND REQUIRED OF LICENSED MANUFACTURERS OF MODULAR BUILDINGS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF MANUFACTURERS OF MODULAR BUILDINGS, SO AS TO ALLOW COLLATERAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE TREASURER TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE BOND.

S. 1198 -- Senators Setzler and Giese: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-25-115 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PERSONS APPLYING FOR INITIAL CERTIFICATION TO BECOME CERTIFIED EDUCATION PERSONNEL SHALL UNDERGO CERTAIN FINGERPRINT REVIEWS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE FEES CHARGED FOR THESE REVIEWS MUST BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT.

Rep. BEASLEY explained the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments.

S. 988 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 11-15-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING THE DEBT OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE TREASURER ANNUALLY SHALL PUBLISH A STATEMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS RATHER THAN FURNISH A STATEMENT TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR INCLUSION IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

Rep. G. BAILEY moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, March 29, which was adopted.

H. 4724 -- Reps. Limehouse, Neilson, Mappus, McLeod, Taylor, Ferguson, G. Bailey, Derrick, T.C. Alexander, Wells, T.M. Burriss, R. Brown, M.O. Alexander, L. Martin, J. Bailey, Koon and Kohn: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-1-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE STATE BOARD OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP FROM NINE TO TEN MEMBERS AND TO SPECIFY THAT ONE MEMBER MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISED LENDERS AND ONE MEMBER MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE LICENSED CONSUMER FINANCE BUSINESS AS A RESTRICTED LENDER UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ASSOCIATION OF RESTRICTED LENDERS.

Rep. BENNETT moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, March 29, which was adopted.

S. 632 -- Senators Drummond, Rose and McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 27-9-20 AND 27-9-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONSERVATION RESTRICTIONS, SO AS TO EMPOWER THE DUCKS UNLIMITED FOUNDATION TO ACQUIRE AND DISPOSE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTIONS OR EASEMENTS IN THE SAME MANNER AND WITH THE SAME PRIVILEGES AS GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY.

Rep. WILKINS moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, March 29, which was adopted.

H. 4729 -- Rep. Gentry: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-21-765, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALARIES OF PROBATE JUDGES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ANNUAL COST OF LIVING INCREASE OF A PROBATE JUDGE OF A COUNTY MUST EITHER BE THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE GIVEN TO STATE EMPLOYEES IN THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR OR THE INCREASE PROVIDED TO EMPLOYEES OF THAT COUNTY DURING THE CURRENT YEAR, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 543 -- Senators Horace C. Smith and Stilwell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-7-1075, SO AS TO ALLOW A SELLER TO CONVEY A SUBDIVISION LOT PURSUANT TO A PLAT UNAPPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE PLANNING COMMISSION AND UNRECORDED IN THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE BY MEANS OF A CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT VOIDABLE BY THE PURCHASER IF THE PLAT IS NOT APPROVED AND RECORDED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT AND IF THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL SALE IS HELD IN ESCROW IN A FEDERALLY INSURED ACCOUNT IN A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION PENDING TIMELY APPROVAL AND RECORDING OF THE PLAT AND SUBJECT TO RETURN OF THE CONSIDERATION TO A PURCHASER WHO VOIDS THE CONTRACT ON THE SELLER'S FAILURE TO MEET THE APPROVAL AND RECORDING TIME LIMIT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 6-7-1080, RELATING TO THE OFFENSE OF SELLING LOTS BY REFERENCE TO AN UNAPPROVED AND UNRECORDED PLAT, SO AS TO EXEMPT FROM THE OFFENSE LOTS SOLD PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT AUTHORIZED IN SECTION 6-7-1075 AS ADDED BY THIS ACT.

The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0901X).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 6-7-1075, as contained in SECTION 1, and inserting:

/     Section 6-7-1075.     Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6-7-1080, a seller may convey a subdivision lot by reference to or as a result of the exhibition or other use of an unapproved and unrecorded plat that has been prepared by a registered land surveyor only by means of a conditional sales contract voidable by the purchaser if the plat is not approved and recorded within one year of the date of execution of the conditional sales contract. The seller or agent of the seller must deposit the consideration for the sale in escrow in a federally insured account in a financial institution from which, if the contract is voided by the purchaser for failure to meet the approval and recording requirements within one year of the date of execution of the conditional sales contract, the consideration and any accrued interest must be returned to the purchaser./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. G. BAILEY explained the amendment and moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill until Thursday, March 29, which was adopted.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3944 -- Reps. T.M. Burriss and Cork: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 61-9-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH SALES AT SPORTING EVENTS OF NONPROFIT ENTITIES UPON THE CONSENT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNING BODIES.

Rep. T.M. BURRISS explained the Bill.

Reps. KLAPMAN, COOPER, KIRSH and CHAMBLEE objected to the Bill.

The SPEAKER Pro Tempore granted Rep. KEESLEY a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3384 -- Reps. Neilson, G. Bailey, Lockemy, Harwell, McKay, Phillips, Farr, Littlejohn, Moss, Glover, Fant, Wells, Cole, McCain and J. Rogers: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-222 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE SELLER TO GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE PURCHASER OF REAL PROPERTY CLASSIFIED AS "AGRICULTURAL REAL PROPERTY" FOR PURPOSES OF AD VALOREM TAXATION THAT THE PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE ROLLBACK TAX; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-45-70, RELATING TO THE DUE DATES FOR THE PAYMENT OF AD VALOREM TAXES, SO AS TO REQUIRE TAX NOTICES SENT TO THE OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL REAL PROPERTY TO CONTAIN A STATEMENT GIVING NOTICE OF THE PROPERTY BEING SUBJECT TO THE ROLLBACK TAX WHEN THE PROPERTY'S USE IS CHANGED AND TO REQUIRE A SELLER TO GIVE NOTICE IN WRITING TO A PURCHASER BEFORE CLOSING THE TRANSACTION OF THE ROLLBACK TAXES.

Rep. BAXLEY objected to the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4276 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIFICATIONS OF LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NEW PLATES MAY BE ISSUED AT TIMES DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INSTEAD OF EVERY FIVE YEARS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY REVALIDATE ALL LICENSE PLATES EXCEPT VEHICLES EXCEEDING TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND POUNDS BY STICKER OR OTHER SUITABLE MEANS UPON PAYMENT OF THE SAME FEE PRESCRIBED FOR THE INITIAL ISSUANCE; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 56-3-1420 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE RETURN OF SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES FOR MEMBERS OF STATE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR TERMS.

Rep. DAVENPORT objected to the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 443 -- Senators Giese, Lourie, Horace C. Smith, Williams, Thomas, Hinson, J. Verne Smith, Rose, Long, Lee and Wilson: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 23 OF TITLE 16 AND CHAPTER 31 OF TITLE 23, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FIREARMS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MILITARY FIREARMS MANUFACTURED BY A FIRM LICENSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY BE LEGALLY MANUFACTURED, TRANSPORTED, POSSESSED AND SOLD WITHIN THE STATE BY THE MANUFACTURER THEREOF, AND TO REPEAL ACT 791 OF 1988.

Rep. FANT objected to the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4283 -- Rep. Sheheen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-390, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE REINSTATEMENT FEE FROM TEN TO ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, TO DELETE THE PROVISION NOT TO REQUIRE THE REINSTATEMENT FEE UNLESS DRIVER IMPROVEMENT INSTRUCTION IS PROVIDED, TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE THE INSTRUCTION, AND TO REFERENCE THE INSTRUCTION AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION PRECEDENT.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0830X).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION     1.     Section 56-1-390 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-1-390.     (1) Whenever the State Highway Department (Department) of Highways and Public Transportation, under any law of this State, suspends or revokes the license of any a person under its lawful authority possessed by the Department, and proof of future financial responsibility is made a prerequisite to reinstatement, such the license shall remain remains suspended or revoked and shall must not at any time thereafter be reinstated or renewed, nor shall any may another license thereafter be issued to that person until he shall also remit remits to the department a reinstatement fee of ten fifty dollars.

Provided, nevertheless, that no such remittance shall be required unless and until the State Highway department shall make available and provide to such person driver improvement instruction and education of not less than two hours. When so provided or made available by the department such instruction and education shall be mandatory and a condition precedent to license reinstatement.

(2)     All fees collected by the department under this provision shall must be placed in the State Highway Fund for use and used by the department for the development of a driver improvement program and other purposes as provided in Chapter 11 of Title 57 maintenance of state highways and bridges."

SECTION 2.     Section 56-25-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-25-20.     When any a South Carolina court or the driver licensing authority of any a compact jurisdiction notifies the department that a resident of South Carolina or person possessing a valid South Carolina driver's license has failed to comply with the terms of a traffic citation issued in this or any compact jurisdiction, the department shall suspend the person's driver's license provided that if any such notice from a South Carolina court is received no more than five months from the date on which the traffic citation was issued. Such The license shall must remain suspended until satisfactory evidence has been furnished to the department of compliance with the terms of the citation and any further order of the court having jurisdiction in the matter and until a reinstatement fee of twenty dollars as provided in Section 56-1-390 is paid to the department. Any A person whose license is suspended under this section shall is not be required to file proof of financial responsibility as required by the Financial Responsibility Act (Chapter 9 of Title 56) as a condition for reinstatement.

Upon notification by a South Carolina court that a nonresident licensed in a compact jurisdiction has failed to comply with the terms of a traffic citation, the department shall notify the licensing authority in the compact jurisdiction for such action as appropriate under the terms of the compacts."

SECTION     3.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. ALTMAN explained the amendment.

Rep. McLELLAN spoke against the amendment.

Further proceedings were interrupted by expiration of time on the uncontested calendar, the pending question being consideration of Amendment No. 1.

Rep. BEASLEY moved that the House recur to the morning hour, which was agreed to.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3605 -- Rep. Huff: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 17-7-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOPSIES, PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS, AND INQUESTS AND THE DUTIES OF A CORONER CONCERNING MOTOR VEHICLE, SWIMMING, OR BOATING ACCIDENT DEATHS, SO AS TO REDEFINE "DRIVER" AND "PEDESTRIAN", TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION TO A "VEHICLE PASSENGER", TO REQUIRE EXAMINATION OF THE BODY IN A TIMELY MANNER AFTER DEATH RATHER THAN WITHIN EIGHT HOURS OF DEATH, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE COUNTING AND RECORDING AS VICTIMS OF ACCIDENTS INVOLVING ALCOHOL OR DRUGS CERTAIN PERSONS WHO DIE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE ACCIDENT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4671 -- Reps. Gregory, Klapman, Kirsh, Short, Fair, Wilkins and J. Brown: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD FOR BARRIER-FREE DESIGN, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE BOARD FROM REVIEW UNDER CHAPTER 20 OF TITLE 1, POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE SUNSET LAW.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4673 -- Reps. Gregory, Kirsh, Short, Fair, McLellan, Wilkins, Klapman and J. Brown: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF BARRIER-FREE DESIGN FOR SIX YEARS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4674 -- Reps. Gregory, Kirsh, Short, Fair, J. Brown, McLellan, Wilkins and Klapman: A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA ATHLETIC TRAINERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR SIX YEARS AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-75-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA ATHLETIC TRAINERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE BOARD FROM EIGHT TO NINE MEMBERS AND TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CERTIFIED ATHLETIC TRAINERS ON THE BOARD FROM THREE TO FOUR MEMBERS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 689 -- Senator McLeod: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE TO STUDY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR THE MEDICALLY INDIGENT IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERS, COMPENSATION, AND DUTIES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 1229 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, RELATING TO BARRIER FREE DESIGN, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1152, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. FOSTER, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4884 -- Rep. McAbee: A BILL TO DESIGNATE A ROAD IN McCORMICK COUNTY AS "GARTRELL ROAD".

On motion of Rep. FOSTER, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was taken up for immediate consideration.

H. 4884 -- Rep. McAbee: A BILL TO DESIGNATE A ROAD IN McCORMICK COUNTY AS "GARTRELL ROAD".

The Bill was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. FOSTER, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4812 -- Reps. Waites, Keyserling, Whipper, White, Manly, Rudnick, Glover, Neilson and Wells: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO REDUCE DEFENSE SPENDING TO FUND VITAL DOMESTIC NEEDS.

On motion of Rep. FOSTER, with unanimous consent, the following Concurrent Resolution was taken up for immediate consideration.

H. 4812 -- Reps. Waites, Keyserling, Whipper, White, Manly, Rudnick, Glover, Neilson and Wells: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO REDUCE DEFENSE SPENDING TO FUND VITAL DOMESTIC NEEDS.

Whereas, state legislatures across the country face an increasing array of critical unmet needs which cannot be met by state revenues; and

Whereas, this budget crisis results in deep cuts in human services which will increase homelessness, hunger, and health risks for our citizens; and

Whereas, the budget crisis results in severe cuts in local aid, public schools, day care, and higher education; and

Whereas, the budget crisis results in deep cuts in public health and hazardous waste cleanup, endangering the health of our citizens; and

Whereas, the budget crisis results in deep cuts that will debilitate safety, corrections, and youth services which will drastically increase prison overcrowding, reduce police protection, close courts, and increase the incidence of repeat offenders; and

Whereas, the budget crisis further results in cuts in infrastructure maintenance and repair, increasing transportation problems, and endangering public safety; and

Whereas, recent events in many parts of the world, especially the U.S.S.R. have greatly reduced the need for certain weapons systems and for United States troops to be stationed abroad; and

Whereas, dependence on defense contracts puts domestic industries at a commercial disadvantage with foreign competition; and

Whereas, diversifying defense industries and defense jobs to consumer goods and services will require planning and leadership from the federal and state governments; and

Whereas, the security of the United States is defined by our economic and social well-being as well as our military strength. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the Congress of the United States be memorialized to pass a budget which reflects our actual defense needs by reducing United States forces abroad, cutting unnecessary weapons systems, and using monies saved to meet domestic needs including housing, health, education, environmental cleanup, public safety, drug education and treatment, day care, the infrastructure, and planning for economic diversification.

Be it further resolved that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and ordered sent to the Senate.

Rep. FOSTER, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4882 -- Reps. Wofford, Baker, Barfield, H. Brown, Bruce, M.D Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Clyborne, Cole, Corbett, Davenport, Derrick, Fair, Hallman, Haskins, Harrison, Hendricks, Huff, Jaskwhich, Keegan, Koon, Lanford, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Mappus, L. Martin, McCain, McGinnis, Quinn, Rama, Sharpe, Simpson, Sturkie, Vaughn, Wells, Wilkins and Wright: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES NECESSARY TO PREVENT INTERSTATE REST AREAS FROM BECOMING PLACES FOR HOMOSEXUAL ACTS AND TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL NOT TO HAVE CONDOM MACHINES PLACED IN THE REST ROOMS AT THESE REST AREAS.

On motion of Rep. FOSTER, with unanimous consent, the following Concurrent Resolution was taken up for immediate consideration.

H. 4882 -- Reps. Wofford, Baker, Barfield, H. Brown, Bruce, M.D Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Clyborne, Cole, Corbett, Davenport, Derrick, Fair, Hallman, Haskins, Harrison, Hendricks, Huff, Jaskwhich, Keegan, Koon, Lanford, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Mappus, L. Martin, McCain, McGinnis, Quinn, Rama, Sharpe, Simpson, Sturkie, Vaughn, Wells, Wilkins and Wright: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES NECESSARY TO PREVENT INTERSTATE REST AREAS FROM BECOMING PLACES FOR HOMOSEXUAL ACTS AND TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL NOT TO HAVE CONDOM MACHINES PLACED IN THE REST ROOMS AT THESE REST AREAS.

Whereas, it has come to the attention of the General Assembly that more than one thousand homosexual acts a month occur at two interstate rest areas near Ladson; and

Whereas, the danger of Aids through this type of activity poses a significant public health threat; and

Whereas, it is the responsibility of the Department of Highways and Public Transportation to ensure that these rest areas are safe for all citizens of this State to use. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the Department of Highways and Public Transportation is requested to take whatever measures necessary to prevent the interstate rest areas from becoming places for homosexual acts and the the Department of Health and Environmental Control is requested not to have condom machines placed in the rest rooms at these rest areas.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Executive Director of the Department of Highways and Public Transportation and the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Environmental Control.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and ordered sent to the Senate.

Rep. FOSTER, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 1431 -- Senators Fielding, Waddell, Matthews, Martschink, Lourie, Passailaigue, Gilbert, Patterson, McLeod, Land, Leventis, Macaulay, Hinds, Long, Mitchell, Pope, Setzler, Bryan, Shealy, Courson and Wilson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION MAY BE NECESSARY TO NAME THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL IN CHARLESTON IN HONOR OF THE LATE RALPH H. JOHNSON OF CHARLESTON COUNTY, A GREAT SOUTH CAROLINIAN AND AMERICAN AND RECIPIENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR WHO GAVE HIS LIFE IN THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM WHILE IN THE SERVICE OF HIS COUNTRY IN VIETNAM.

On motion of Rep. FOSTER, with unanimous consent, the following Concurrent Resolution was taken up for immediate consideration.

S. 1431 -- Senators Fielding, Waddell, Matthews, Martschink, Lourie, Passailaigue, Gilbert, Patterson, McLeod, Land, Leventis, Macaulay, Hinds, Long, Mitchell, Pope, Setzler, Bryan, Shealy, Courson and Wilson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION MAY BE NECESSARY TO NAME THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL IN CHARLESTON IN HONOR OF THE LATE RALPH H. JOHNSON OF CHARLESTON COUNTY, A GREAT SOUTH CAROLINIAN AND AMERICAN AND RECIPIENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR WHO GAVE HIS LIFE IN THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM WHILE IN THE SERVICE OF HIS COUNTRY IN VIETNAM.

Whereas, the late Ralph H. Johnson was Private First Class, United States Marine Corps, Company A, 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division (Rein), FMF; and

Whereas, he was born on January 11, 1949, at Charleston, South Carolina; and

Whereas, he entered the military service of his country at Oakland, California, and he died near the Quan Duc Valley, Republic of Vietnam, on March 5, 1968; and

Whereas, he was cited for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a reconnaissance scout with Company A in action against the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong forces; and

Whereas, his bravery and gallantry saved another life at the cost of his own and inspired valor and selfless devotion to duty among others in keeping with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service; and

Whereas, for his heroism he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor; and

Whereas, it would be a fitting memorial indeed to this great South Carolinian and American, and it would honor the heroism of thousands of young Americans who served the cause of freedom in Vietnam, to name the Veterans Administration Hospital in Charleston for the late Ralph H. Johnson. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:

That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, memorializes Congress to take whatever action may be necessary to name the Veterans Administration Hospital in Charleston, South Carolina in honor of the late Ralph H. Johnson of Charleston County, a great South Carolinian and American and recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor who gave his life in the cause of freedom while in the service of his country in Vietnam.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and all eight members of South Carolina's congressional delegation, all at Washington, D.C.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and ordered returned to the Senate.

The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 4906 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 TO CHAPTER 13, TITLE 24 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND TO REPEAL SECTION 24-21-475 RELATING TO THE SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

H. 4907 -- Reps. Keyserling, T. Rogers, J. Harris, H. Brown and Nesbitt: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 13-3-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE STATE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, SO AS TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER REPRESENTING CULTURAL INTERESTS.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of of Amendment No. 1.

H. 4283 -- Rep. Sheheen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-390, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE REINSTATEMENT FEE FROM TEN TO ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, TO DELETE THE PROVISION NOT TO REQUIRE THE REINSTATEMENT FEE UNLESS DRIVER IMPROVEMENT INSTRUCTION IS PROVIDED, TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE THE INSTRUCTION, AND TO REFERENCE THE INSTRUCTION AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION PRECEDENT.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0830X), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION     1.     Section 56-1-390 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-1-390.     (1) Whenever the State Highway Department (Department) of Highways and Public Transportation, under any law of this State, suspends or revokes the license of any a person under its lawful authority possessed by the Department, and proof of future financial responsibility is made a prerequisite to reinstatement, such the license shall remain remains suspended or revoked and shall must not at any time thereafter be reinstated or renewed, nor shall any may another license thereafter be issued to that person until he shall also remit remits to the department a reinstatement fee of ten thirty dollars.

Provided, nevertheless, that no such remittance shall be required unless and until the State Highway department shall make available and provide to such person driver improvement instruction and education of not less than two hours. When so provided or made available by the department such instruction and education shall be mandatory and a condition precedent to license reinstatement.

(2)     All fees collected by the department under this provision shall must be placed in the State Highway Fund for use and used by the department for the development of a driver improvement program and other purposes as provided in Chapter 11 of Title 57 maintenance of state highways and bridges."

SECTION 2.     Section 56-25-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 56-25-20.     When any a South Carolina court or the driver licensing authority of any a compact jurisdiction notifies the department that a resident of South Carolina or person possessing a valid South Carolina driver's license has failed to comply with the terms of a traffic citation issued in this or any compact jurisdiction, the department shall suspend the person's driver's license provided that if any such notice from a South Carolina court is received no more than five months from the date on which the traffic citation was issued. Such The license shall must remain suspended until satisfactory evidence has been furnished to the department of compliance with the terms of the citation and any further order of the court having jurisdiction in the matter and until a reinstatement fee of twenty dollars as provided in Section 56-1-390 is paid to the department. Any A person whose license is suspended under this section shall is not be required to file proof of financial responsibility as required by the Financial Responsibility Act (Chapter 9 of Title 56) as a condition for reinstatement.

Upon notification by a South Carolina court that a nonresident licensed in a compact jurisdiction has failed to comply with the terms of a traffic citation, the department shall notify the licensing authority in the compact jurisdiction for such action as appropriate under the terms of the compacts."

SECTION     3.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. BEASLEY explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4401 -- Rep. Washington: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SEVERAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF THIS STATE, WHO ARE NOT POPULARLY ELECTED, MUST BE ELECTED IN NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS HELD IN THE MANNER STIPULATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0853o).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION     1.     The members of the board of trustees of the school districts of this State must be elected in nonpartisan elections held in the manner provided in this act.

SECTION 2.     Except as otherwise authorized in this act, the boards of trustees of the school districts must consist of five, seven, or nine members as determined in the manner hereinafter provided. Also, members of the board of trustees of a school district must be elected using one of the following alternatives:

(1)     from single-member election districts;

(2)     from the district at large; or

(3)     from a combination of items (1) and (2).

A referendum must be held in the district before January 1, 1992, to determine the size and manner of election of the board. The referendum must be called by a resolution of the school board and the questions framed by the board. The referendum must be conducted by the county election commission and may be held at a general election, at a special election, or separately as determined by the school board. Once a referendum has been called, two public hearings which must have been advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the school district must be held by the legislative delegation of the county in which the school district lies and the governing school board to explain the alternative forms of size and method of school trustee elections. The three alternative sizes of the board and the three alternative forms of school trustee elections must appear as separate questions on the ballot and unless one receives a favorable vote of a majority of those persons voting in the referendum, a second or run-off referendum must be held two weeks after the initial referendum at which time the two sizes or forms which received the highest number of votes must be submitted again to the qualified electors for final selection of the size or form to be adopted. Upon completion of the referendum the General Assembly by act and based on the results of the referendum shall provide for the size of the board and the manner in which the trustees of the district must be elected. In the event the trustees are to be elected from single member election districts or a combination of single-member election districts and the district at large, the General Assembly by act shall draw these districts, and shall determine the number of at-large seats and single-member seats where a combination plan is chosen.

If a referendum is not held in a school district by January 1, 1992, the General Assembly by act at its 1992 session shall provide for the size of these boards and the manner of election of these school trustees consistent with the provisions of this act.

SECTION     3.     After adoption of the initial size of the board and school trustee method of election, changes in the size or form selected may be initiated by referendum called upon the filing of a petition with the board of not less than ten percent of the registered electors of the district concerned. Petitions must specify the particular change sought by the petitioners, and the district trustees shall frame the referendum question or questions in accordance with the petition. No revision referendum may be called sooner than 1996. Separate questions are also required if both a size and method of election changes are sought by the petition. Upon receipt of such a petition verified by the appropriate election commission, the school board shall provide for a referendum on the question of changing the size of the board or the method of election plan, or both, to one of the other sizes or plans provided for in this act as designated in the petition. The referendum must be conducted not sooner than thirty days and not more than ninety days following receipt of the verified petition. Any change in the existing size or plan, or both, requires a favorable vote by a two-thirds majority of those voting. Notice of the referendum, including a statement of the question or questions to be voted upon, must be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the district at least thirty days before the date of the referendum. After the referendum, whether or not there is a change in size or form, no additional referendum on that question may be held for four years.

SECTION 4.     Members of the board of trustees of the school districts of this State, after the size of the boards and the manner of their election is determined as provided in Section 2, must be elected in nonpartisan elections to be conducted at the same time as the 1992 general election for terms of four years each, except that of those members elected in 1992, one-half plus one of the members elected in 1992 receiving the highest number of votes shall serve terms of four years each and the remainder of the members elected in 1992 receiving the next highest number of votes shall serve terms of two years each. Successors to these members elected in 1992 must be then elected in nonpartisan elections to be conducted every two or four years thereafter as appropriate at the same time as the general election of that year. All members of these school boards shall serve until their successors are selected and qualify. Any vacancy occurring for any reason other than expiration of a term must be filled by the appointment of the Governor upon the recommendation of the county legislative delegation until the next scheduled election at which time a successor must be elected for the remainder of the unexpired term. However, this provision for filling vacancies only applies where there is not another method of filling these vacancies prescribed by local law for this particular board.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7-11-15 of the 1976 Code or any other provision of law, any person desiring to qualify as a candidate shall file written notice of his candidacy with the county election commission at least sixty days before the date set for the election but not earlier than ninety days prior to the election. The notice of candidacy must be a sworn statement and include the candidate's name, age, voting precinct, period of residence in the district, and that other information as the county election commission requires.

The county commissioners of election shall conduct and supervise the elections for members of the board in the manner governed by the election laws of this State mutatis mutandi. The commissioners shall prepare the necessary ballots, appoint managers for the voting precincts, and do all things necessary to carry out the elections, including the counting of ballots and declaring the results of the election. The commissioners shall advertise that date of the election ninety days preceding it in a newspaper of general circulation in the district and shall publish a second notice thirty days before the election. The costs of the election must be borne by the district.

The results of the election must be determined in accordance with the nonpartisan plurality method prescribed by Section 5-15-61 of the 1976 Code.

The members of the board shall take office as provided in Section 59-19-315 of the 1976 Code. The current members of the school boards of this State on the effective date of this act shall continue to serve in office until the members elected in the manner specified in this act shall take office.

SECTION 5.     (A)     The provisions of this act do not apply to: (1) county boards of education; or (2) any school district which on the effective date of this act elects its school trustees in nonpartisan elections, except that any subsequent changes in the size or method of election of these nonpartisan trustees must conform to one of the three alternatives for each authorized by this act.

(B)     If provisions of law applicable to a particular school district on the effective date of this act provide for a size of the board larger than nine members, the board shall remain that size. The General Assembly after the effective date of this act is authorized to decrease the size of this board to one of those authorized by this act but may not increase the size of this board.

SECTION 6.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. BEASLEY explained the amendment.

Rep. R. BROWN objected to the Bill.

Rep. BEASLEY continued speaking.

Rep. R. BROWN spoke against the amendment.

Rep. R. BROWN continued speaking.

Rep. WASHINGTON spoke in favor of the amendment and Reps. HARWELL and KINON objected to the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4505 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-19-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OBSOLETE RECORDS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENT TO DESTROY RECORDS WHICH HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED ON FILE FOR FIVE YEARS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 56-19-490 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT FILE AND MAINTAIN SURRENDERED CERTIFICATES OF TITLE.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0906o), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 1 and inserting:

/SECTION 1. Section 56-19-100 of the 1976 Code is repealed./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. ALTMAN explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4668 -- Rep. T. Rogers: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-7-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET MUST BE USED BY ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN ARRESTS FOR OFFENSES, THE PUNISHMENT FOR WHICH IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE MAGISTRATE'S AND MUNICIPAL COURT.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0881X), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 56-7-15 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 1, line 3, by striking /must/ and inserting /may/ so that when amended Section 56-7-15 reads:

/Section 56-7-15.     The uniform traffic ticket, established under the provisions of Section 56-7-10, may be used by all law enforcement officers in arrests for offenses, the punishment for which is within the jurisdiction of the magistrate's and municipal court./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. T. ROGERS explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. ALTMAN moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Thursday, March 29, which was adopted.

S. 911 -- Senators Moore, Holland, Rose, Hinson and Giese: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROOF OF ITEMS IN APPLYING FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR SPECIAL IDENTIFICATION CARD, SO AS TO ALLOW ANY REASONABLY RELIABLE DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE APPLICANT'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER TO SERVE AS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER MAY BE OBTAINED FROM OTHER SOURCES.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 1169 -- Senator Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-17-1450, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EXAMINATION OF RAILROAD CROSSINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL AND ELIMINATION OF OBSTRUCTIONS WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT, AND TO PROVIDE THIRTY DAYS FOR THE ERECTION OF CROSSBUCKS AFTER NOTIFICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT.

The Education and Public Works Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0825X), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 58-17-1450, as contained in SECTION 1, by striking the second paragraph and inserting:

/Removal and elimination of obstructions must be made by the responsible railroad within thirty sixty days of receipt of notification from the department. Erection of crossbucks and Measures to assure that crossbucks are to properly in place and maintain crossbucks maintained must be performed taken by the responsible railroad within ten thirty days of receipt of notification from the department; however, if crossbucks are not present or have been removed, then the railroad has ten days from the notification to erect new crossbucks. Failure of the railroad company to remove or eliminate the obstruction within the railroad's right-of-way and to erect or properly place and maintain crossbucks within the specified time period subjects the railroad company to a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars. The railroad company is subject to an additional civil penalty of one hundred dollars a day for each day obstructions remain after the specified period and for each day crossbucks are not erected or properly placed and maintained after the specified period./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. ALTMAN explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. ALTMAN explained the Bill.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4439 -- Rep. Winstead: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 16-13-10, 16-13-230, 16-13-240, AND 34-11-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CRIMES OF FORGERY, BREACH OF TRUST WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT, OBTAINING A SIGNATURE OR PROPERTY BY FALSE PRETENSES, AND DRAWING AND UTTERING A FRAUDULENT CHECK, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN ANY PROSECUTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THESE SECTIONS THE STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH AND IT IS NO DEFENSE THAT SOME OF THE ACTS CONSTITUTING THE CRIME DID NOT OCCUR IN THIS STATE OR WITHIN ONE CITY, COUNTY, OR LOCAL JURISDICTION.

The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0940X), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, in the paragraph added to Section 16-13-10 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 1, page 1, line 2, by inserting after /establish/ /that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction./; on line 3, by striking /and it/ and inserting /It/; and on line 3, by striking /no/ and inserting /not a/ so that when amended the paragraph reads:

/"In any prosecution for violation of this section, the State is not required to establish that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction. It is not a defense that some of the acts constituting the crime did not occur in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction."/

Amend further, in the paragraph added to Section 16-13-230 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 2, page 1, line 2, by inserting after /establish/ /that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction./; on line 3, by striking /and it/ and inserting /It/; and on line 3, by striking /no/ and inserting /not a/ so that when amended the paragraph reads:

"In any prosecution for violation of this section, the State is not required to establish that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction. It is not a defense that some of the acts constituting the crime did not occur in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction."/

Amend further in the paragraph added to Section 16-13-240 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 3, page 2, line 2, by inserting after /establish/ /that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction./; on line 3, by striking /and it/ and inserting /It/; and on line 3, by striking /no/ and inserting /not a/ so that when amended the paragraph reads:

"In any prosecution for violation of this section, the State is not required to establish that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction. It is not a defense that some of the acts constituting the crime did not occur in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction."/

Amend further in item (e) as added to Section 34-11-60 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 4, page 2, line 2, by inserting after /establish/ /that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction./; on line 3, by striking /and it/ and inserting /It/; and on line 3, by striking /no/ and inserting /not a/ so that when amended the item reads:

"(e)     In any prosecution for violation of this section, the State is not required to establish that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction. It is not a defense that some of the acts constituting the crime did not occur in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction."/

Amend further by adding a new SECTION 5 to read:

/SECTION     5.     Section 16-40-60(e) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(e)     In any prosecution for violation of Section 16-14-60 this section, the State is not required to establish that all of the acts constituting the offense occurred in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction. and it It is no not a defense that some of the acts constituting the crime did not occur in this State or within one city, county, or local jurisdiction."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 1157 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 9 TO TITLE 45 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REVOCATION OF ANY LICENSE OR PERMIT ISSUED BY THE STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO AN ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS FOUND TO PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN AFTER A HEARING BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES AND REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0928o).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 45-9-20, as contained in SECTION 1, page 3, beginning on line 1, and inserting:

/Section 45-9-20. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the general public. An institution, a club, an organization, or a place of accommodation, as defined in Section 45-9-10, which offers memberships for less than thirty days is not private within the meaning of this section./

Amend the bill further, by striking Section 45-9-40, as contained in SECTION 1, page 3, beginning on line 21, and inserting:

/Section 45-9-40. Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint and has cause to believe that a person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by the provisions of Article 1, and that the pattern or practice is of a nature so as to deny the full exercise of the rights described in the provisions of Article 1, the Attorney General shall notify the State Law Enforcement Division which shall conduct an investigation. The results of this investigation must be reported to the State Human Affairs Commission. A panel of not fewer than three commission members, designated by the chairman, shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that the facts alleged, based upon the results of this investigation, are sufficient to state a violation of Article 1 by a pattern or practice of discrimination or segregation.

If this panel finds reasonable cause, the chairman shall inform the Attorney General, and the Attorney General or his designee shall begin an action by filing a complaint with the commission and serving, by certified mail, return receipt requested, the parties named in the complaint. The commission members which serve on this panel may not serve on the panel conducting a hearing on the allegations contained in the complaint if a license revocation proceeding is initiated. If a person alleged to have violated the provisions of Article 1 by a pattern or practice of discrimination or segregation is an employee or agent of an establishment as defined in Section 45-9-10, the Attorney General shall make a diligent effort to include in the complaint the name of the employer, principal, or a third party who may be the holder of a license or permit under which the establishment or an agent of the establishment operates. The complaint must set forth a description of the charges, including the facts pertaining to the pattern or practice of discrimination or segregation and a listing of those licenses or permits which are sought to be revoked under the provisions of this article and must state clearly the remedy or penalty available pursuant to Sections 45-9-60 and 45-9-80 if the allegations are found to be true./

Amend the bill further, by striking Section 45-9-90, as contained in SECTION 1, page 9, beginning on line 36, and inserting:

/Section 45-9-90. A person violating the provisions of Article 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than three years, or both, in the discretion of the court. Each violation is considered a separate offense./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.

Rep. KEYSERLING moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill until Thursday, March 29, which was adopted.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

S. 1360 -- Senator Williams: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT REVISED CODE VOLUMES 11 AND 20 AND NEW VOLUME 20A OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR CONTENTS, AS THE ONLY GENERAL PERMANENT STATUTORY LAW OF THE STATE AS OF JANUARY 1, 1990.

Rep. HENDRICKS withdrew his objection to the following Bill.

H. 4276 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIFICATIONS OF LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NEW PLATES MAY BE ISSUED AT TIMES DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INSTEAD OF EVERY FIVE YEARS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY REVALIDATE ALL LICENSE PLATES EXCEPT VEHICLES EXCEEDING TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND POUNDS BY STICKER OR OTHER SUITABLE MEANS UPON PAYMENT OF THE SAME FEE PRESCRIBED FOR THE INITIAL ISSUANCE; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 56-3-1420 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE RETURN OF SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES FOR MEMBERS OF STATE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR TERMS.

Rep. FAIR moved that the House stand in recess until the Joint Assembly and upon conclusion of the Joint Assembly, the House stand adjourned, which was agreed to.

At 12:00 Noon the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.

The President of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.

The Reading Clerk of the House read the following Concurrent Resolution:

H. 4556 -- Invitations and Memorial Resolutions Committee: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING THE HONORABLE MILES S. EPLING OF WEST VIRGINIA, NATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1990.

The Honorable Miles S. Epling, National Commander of the American Legion and distinguished party were escorted to the rostrum by Senators Hinson, Fielding, Peeler and Lourie and Representatives J.C. JOHNSON, McGINNIS, KINON and WHITE.

Rep. COOPER introduced Francis Currey, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1944.

Rep. KLAPMAN recognized the Gold Star Mothers who were here with us in the balcony today.

The State Commander of the American Legion, Wayne B. Ritchie, then presented distinguished service awards to Senator Isadore Lourie and Representative Marion Carnell.

The following special guests on the podium were then recognized by Mr. Ritchie:

E. Roy Stone

Carl Pilgrim

Velma Tice

Betty Caller

Lt. Governor Theodore introduced the National Commander of the American Legion as follows:

"The purpose of this session of the Joint Assembly is once again, to recognize an outstanding American. I have had the opportunity to introduce several National Commanders and this year, once again, I have been extended the privilege of introducing to you an outstanding citizen of this country, the National Commander of the American Legion. Miles Epling is an individual who lost the use of both of his legs during the Vietnam conflict while serving in the Marine Infantry in 1969. Since that time, he has devoted his entire life to representing veterans and the veterans' causes throughout our great nation. Upon his return to the United States, he joined and has been an active member of the American Legion. His local post is out of Port Pleasant, West Virginia, where he has been a member now for 20 years. In addition, he dedicated his services and lifetime leadership within this particular great organization. His past positions include Post Commander, Department Commander and National Vice-Commander in 1985-86. In addition to becoming the second Vietnam veteran elected to the National Commandership in September of last year, Miles has had a history of leadership in all civic and various veteran organizations. He is a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, disabled veterans. Of course, the Military Order of the Purple Hearts and finally, the Marine Core Lead. Fellow members of the Joint Assembly and visitors, it gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is my honor to introduce to you at this time, the National Commander of the American Legion, Miles Epling."

The National Commander addressed the Joint Assembly as follows:

"Thank you very much...Thank you Lt. Governor Nick Theodore, Speaker of the House, Bob Sheheen, members of the South Carolina legislature, ladies and gentlemen...It is an honor and a privilege to be invited to speak to you today and I thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule and giving us the chance to make a few remarks here in front of you today. I also wish to thank some of South Carolina's finest citizens for arranging this chance to visit with you and I'm sure you already know them. But, let me introduce to you again, the Department Commander of the great state of South Carolina, Wayne Ritchie, the Department Adjutant of the state of South Carolina, Mr. Bernie Black, and of course, one of the greatest legionnaires of all time, my friend, Mr. E. Roy Stone. These friends are not just friends and fellow legionnaires. They are friends of all veterans and citizens of this great state. And it is because of them, and the many legionnaires of South Carolina, working hand in hand with you who are in charge with the making of law for the benefit and protection of the lives you represent that South Carolina and indeed this great nation, have become a better place to live. There are some others in this chamber that I especially want to recognize. They are members of the American Gold Star Mothers, an organization of women whose sons and daughters served and died in the line of duty in the armed forces during this nation's conflicts. They are noble women dedicated to perpetuating the memory of those who died, while still bearing the pain of their personal loss. But, they go beyond that very private emotion to a much broader dedication, and that is to keep alive the spirit to promote world service, to inspire patriotism and respect for our country, and to promote peace and goodwill for the United States and the world, to assist veterans of all of the wars and their dependents, and to promote individual community service. The Gold Star Mothers give thousands of hours of volunteer work to veterans hospitals and organizations that aid veterans by helping their survivors. They honor the memory of their lost loved ones. Certainly, these are lofty ideals and purposes that are much like that of the American Legion. But, I could not speak about Gold Star Mothers without bringing to your attention a letter from one of the most recent mothers to lose a son in combat. Therefore, she became the newest Gold Star Mother. The letter is from Mrs. Jo Ann Isaak and her husband, Al, of Greenville. Their son, Gary Isaak, a 22-year-old marine, was the first American killed in action during 'Operation Just Cause' in Panama last December. When Gary's body was brought home from Panama for burial, Legion Post #3 from Greenville sent an honor guard and delegation to the funeral. Among the members of the Post #3's delegation, were Mr. E. Roy Stone and Milford Forrester. Their good friend and your Senior Senator Strom Thurmond joined them. If you would, let me read the letter that Mrs. Isaak's wrote back to Greenville Post #3...'Dear friends of the American Legion, we will always be grateful for the tremendous tribute that you gave to our son, Gary. Your presence at Gary's funeral and the honor guard that you provided at the gravesite will never be forgotten. We are grateful to the Lord that Gary had time to draw him near to him before Gary faced his enemy. We have this assurance from the Holy Spirit that Gary is in heaven. We trust that many men will trust Jesus Christ as their savior because of Gary's testimony in his death. Gary was courageous in battle and we are honored to be his parents. We are also grateful to the freedoms that we enjoy each day because many have given the supreme sacrifice. Sincerely, Al and Jo Ann Isaak.' I know that you all in South Carolina are proud of Gary and we at the American Legion are proud to call him a veteran. There are some 286,000 veterans living in South Carolina. And when it comes to veterans programs and facilities, South Carolina stands above many of them because you people here in the legislature have been devoted enough to give the money to make sure that each and every one of the 46 counties that you have in South Carolina has a veterans service officer working there. Ladies and gentlemen, now in this time when unfortunately we are all getting a little older, the World War II's are coming up, and now is the time when we need the hospitals more than ever. Ladies and gentlemen, I have to report to you this morning that in those hospitals, somebody in Washington decided to put us in categories, and they put us as A, B, C, and D veterans and that is not what we are. You know a long time ago when we all stood up and took that oath and we called that oath the soldiers oath, and we all said that we would go to defend America. We defend the Constitution of the United States against all foe, foreign and domestic. Nobody said to us back then that if you go over here, you will be a category A veteran and if you go here, you will be a B or over here, you will be a C. No, they said that if you ever needed a hospital bed, America will have it here for you. I hate to report to you this morning that that is not true because the B and C veterans right now are not getting taken care of in the hospitals. They are getting turned away. So, I want to thank you people from South Carolina, I want to thank you legislators for making sure that in the 46 counties, that you have a veterans service officer to take care of the veterans. But, I need your help, too, to make sure that we look in the long range and I know that you are here in South Carolina because as I told you, how many veterans there are, by the year 2000, there will be 122,000 veterans over the age of 65 in South Carolina. This is a thing that is happening all over the country, but you all have been looking ahead because I know here, already, that you have a 150-bed federal state nursing home and you have a 12-bed V.A. nursing home. I understand now that your new 220-bed nursing home that you are having built down in Anderson, that the first wing will open this fall. Once again, let me thank you for what you are doing for the great state of South Carolina and the veterans. But, we know that we have got to take care of these veterans and I want to thank you for doing that. You know, now I want to talk to you a minute, because alot of people say that veterans are getting too much money. That the veterans receive too much money out of the government. Let me tell you that yes, the 1991 budget for the V.A. is 31 billion dollars. Some people say that that is too much. Right now, I want you to look at this in a different way. At the risk of boring you with numbers, I want to show you how the federal tax dollars with which the good citizens of South Carolina pay are really a smart investment for this state. In the fiscal year of 1988, and those are the latest figures that we have available, the V.A. spent over 122 million dollars for veterans healthcare alone in South Carolina. Construction for new facilities cost almost 2 million dollars. Money spent on medical research right here in this state, 2.5 million dollars. Salaries for V.A. regional officers ran 5.3 million dollars. But, now listen to this figure, the amount of money in compensation and in pension in the state of South Carolina last year was $218,730,000 that was given to the people in the state of South Carolina. Now that is money that comes into South Carolina in checks and goes right into these people's pockets, and then right back out to the local economy because these people take that money and they buy cars and they buy food and they buy clothes and they buy houses. Ladies and gentlemen, the payback on veterans affairs in South Carolina is a big business. And that holds true in every state in the nation. Just think about this for a moment, what if South Carolina did not have two V.A. hospitals. The numerous clinics and the nursing homes, where would the veterans of South Carolina get their healthcare and who would pay for it? I don't think that I need to paint that picture any further because I think that everybody can see what would happen. A few weeks ago in Washington, I had a chance to present the Legion's National Public Relations Award to two men, Richard Severo and Lewis Milford, for their book, The Wages of War. The book traces how this nation's veterans have been treated so poorly following every war since the revolution, with the exception of World War II. But, the author concludes, that our nation's veterans have not been a burden. On the contrary, they have been and absolute bargain. Now is the time to continue to find progress that you have already made and plans for the facilities and the programs for the future years, especially the growing population of aging veterans. The future is not just your responsibility, but that of all citizens. I can assure you that the 3 million members of the American Legion will continue to work with you, the legislators, to guarantee a bright future for the men and women who have served this nation in time of war and deserve its continued gratitude. Working together as veterans and as citizens, is one of the hallmarks of the American Legion and its program. The Legion, together with the Auxiliary and the Sons of American Legion, are involved in countless hours of community volunteer work. During the past five years, the 4.1 million members of the Legion family, have given over 23 million hours of volunteer work to programs for youth like scouting and Boys and Girls State, the National Oratorical contests, and American Legion baseball. Another 37 million volunteered hours were spent in veterans healthcare facilities. Financial assistance to all programs of the American Legion and Auxiliary in a five year period totaled 144 million dollars. While I am talking about kids, let me take off from this for just a minute, something that I believe in very strongly, and I hope you people here in the South Carolina legislature believe in. Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time that we need to take care of the kids of America. Now is the time that the future of America is facing some difficult times. Think back to when we were young, think back when all we had to think about doing is maybe go out behind the barn and smoke a cigarette, that is, unless you lived in West Virginia, and you had to smoke corn silk, because we did not have any money. Think about this, think about the burden that is put upon the kids today. Crack, cocaine, all of the drugs. I am talking about grade school kids, not high school kids. I think now is the time that we better start looking at the kids and take time out to tell them that we care about them and let them know that we do because like I said, if there is ever a future of America, it is in the children. So, I ask you people, the legislators of South Carolina to take time out to help the kids, take time out each day to tell one of the kids that you care about them. Now, I would like to talk to you for just a minute about what happened down here and I know you have heard this alot. But, I will never forget the day when I walked down Folly Beach with Mayor Bob Himble right after Hurricane Hugo. As I walked down that beach, and we looked around, I just stopped and looked, and there were houses and stores just completely gone. I thought about what these people put up. Everything they had worked for all of their life was gone in a matter of minutes and ladies and gentlemen, the American Legion didn't sit back and do nothing. We went to our N.A.C. meeting, and immediately, under the leadership of E. Roy Stone, we started a new committee in the American Legion called the American Legion National Relief Committee. We promised to raise 1 million dollars to take care of the people that had been hit by the disaster in North and South Carolina, Puerto Rico. And right as we were having that meeting, another disaster in California happened. I can report to you today that the American Legion as far as I know, has not turned down one grant from South Carolina that has been applied for from our National Disaster Relief Fund, and I am very proud of that. I saw what the hurricane did to your state's great pine forest and the effects it has had on South Carolina's lumber and pulp industry. Many people outside the state don't realize what an economical blow that was to South Carolina. But, I can tell you that, we, in the American Legion are well aware of it, because each year we buy 5 million dollars worth of South Carolina paper to print the American Legion magazine and I'm proud of that, too. My friends, so much has happened since the man that preceeded me as National Commander, 'Sparky' Gierke, spoke to you, last year, at this time. We are a growing veterans organization, not a dying one. I predict that we will reach 3.1 million members by the time we convene in out headquarters city of Indianapolis in late August. We are the fastest growing veterans organization in the world and we are a mainstream American organization. We reflect a cross-section of mainstream American values and I think we are growing because veterans of Vietnam are at the stage in their life now when they realize that the things American Legion represents are important to them and their families. Gierke was the first Vietnam veteran to serve the American Legion and I am honored to be the second. But, believe me, the Vietnam vet portrayed in the current movie, 'Born on the Fourth of July' is not typical of the Vietnam veterans that I know. And believe me, the Legion has quite a few good men who have suffered at least as much as the one in that movie. And they love the Legion, they love this country. Yes, alot has happened since last year. The entire face of Eastern Europe is changing. The Berlin Wall came down and the people who lived under communist rule for almost 45 years, finally rose up to break the chains of tyranny and throw out their dictatorial governments. In the Soviet Union, major changes are taking place in the face of the people's demands for more freedom and democracy. In Central America, the recent changes have been very significant. In Nicaragua, where only a year ago people were fleeing an oppressive communist government because they could not live freely under Sandanista's rule, they have thrown out the Sandanistas through free and democratic elections by ballots, not bullets. But, don't believe for one minute that the elections would have been held if our national leadership, with the strong support of the American Legion and similar groups opposed to communism in our own background, had not given support and encouragement to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. In Panama, a criminal and cruel dictator was ousted and a truly elected democratic government was restored through the decisive and masterfully conducted 'Operation Just Cause' in December. South Carolina lost two brave men in that operation and South Carolina has lost them before, for the last 200 years, they have been sending their sons and daughters to war. But, just because we have witnessed great changes in the past year, just because we have seen dictators like Noriega and Ortega fall, and communism begin to crumble like the Berlin Wall, we cannot afford to let down our guard. We cannot be lulled into a false sense of security by events which have only begun to run their course, and no one is sure of the outcome. The maintenance of a strong defense establishment for national security is what we all must still believe in and what we must fight to protect. There is one other thing that I would like to talk to you about and its something that is very near and dear to me and I hope that it will be very near and dear to you people here. Ladies and gentlemen, the saddest day that Miles Epling ever had in his life was last June, when the Supreme Court of this great land, said it was alright to burn the living symbol of America. I'll never forget that day. I'll never forget that day because every time I go to Washington, D.C., I always go to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, because I have to go over there and talk to some friends of mine who didn't get to come home when I did. And I'll never forget that night, as I stood there, and tears rolled down my cheeks and I had to stand there and tell my friends that what they had fought and died for in Vietnam meant nothing anymore. I'll never forget thinking about the Gold Star Mothers, that all they have left of a son or daughter is a folded flag. Can we stand and tell them that it is alright to burn the flag of the country? I think not. I think, we the American people, need to go to our people in Washington and we need to tell them that we want to protect the American flag and we want a Constitutional amendment. I want to ask you people, the state legislators here in South Carolina, to ask for a memorializing resolution asking Congress to pass an amendment bill to say that we want a Constitutional amendment to protect the flag of this great country. I hope that you people will have in your hearts to pass a memorializing bill before you quit to ask the Congress to protect that flag and then we will get 37 other states to do it, too, because that is what the American people want and I think that is what the American people deserve. God bless you all and most of all, may God bless America."

Upon the conclusion of his address, Commander Epling and his escort party retired from the Chamber.

The Reading Clerk of the House read the following Concurrent Resolution:

H. 4316 -- Reps. Wilder and Baxley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1990, AS "HANDICAPPED CHILDREN'S DAY", TO ENDORSE THE "B.A.C.-COFFEE DAY FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN" PROJECT AND OTHER OUTSTANDING PROGRAMS OF THE EASTER SEAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A JOINT SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1990, AT WHICH TIME THE STATE EASTER SEAL REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR PARENTS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

The Easter Seal Society Guests and distinguished party were escorted to the rostrum by Senators Hinds, Macaulay, Holland, Lourie and Martschink and Representatives ALTMAN, T.C. ALEXANDER, BURCH, FABER and HALLMAN.

The President of the Senate recognized Rep. WILDER, who introduced the honored guests as follows:

"Ladies and gentlemen, it is a personal privilege for me to represent the Joint Committee studying the problems of the handicapped in welcoming these outstanding individuals in our midst. Today is Handicapped Children's Day in our state and kicks off the beginning of the worthwhile projects to raise funds for citizens with disabilities. I'd like first to introduce the members of the Joint Committee, on the House side, Sarah Manly, Mike Baxley, and on the Senate side, Senator Lourie, Senator Shealy and also, Senator John Matthews and Betty Eastler, is our citizen appointee. Evelyn Evans is our administrator of the Joint Committee. Now I would like to recognize the people here with us today, Heyward E. McDonald, State Easter Seal President, Allen P. Corbett, State Campaign Chairman, Herman L. Shealy, Jr., Executive Director of the Easter Seal Society, Capt. William C. Dees, State President of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers' Association, Lt. Colonel Alton T. Morris, the B.A.C. Project Chairman, John L. Caudle, II, Executive Director of the Officers' Association, J. Ryan Condon, President of the South Carolina Restaurant Association, Harold L. Corley, the B.A.C Project Chairman, and John Riddick, the Executive Director. I would also like to introduce to you the Chairman of the Department of Corrections Inmate Advisory Council, Patricia Cantrell. Last year, the inmates raised $32,816 for this program. Former Representative Fred Day was also here with us today, a former member of our committee. Now the reason we're here today is to kick off the Buck-A-Cup Brace A Child Fundraising effort. Across the nation, millions of people are helped by the Easter Seal Society each year. Here in our state, 850,000 people are rendered service by the Easter Seal Society and a major portion of the funds that are needed is raised by the sale of the buttons. It is such an important program. We have members of the House and Senate to take part in this program and I'd like to start first with Senator Hinds and Rep. Altman."

Rep. ALTMAN introduced the guest as follows:

"On behalf of Senator Hinds and myself, I would like to introduce to you from Georgetown, Joseph Shell Allen, and his grandmother, Ms. Allen, I presume. Shell attends Maryville Primary kindergarten and Easter Seals provided a walker and physical therapy for him and this young man is a particularly friendly young man and he seems to be enjoying himself today. He participates in the Hugs for Horses. He enjoys people and likes to watch television, I think wrestling. His favorite foods are fish, hamburger and pizza. Unfortunately, he couldn't bring his girlfriend since he is between girlfriends at this time. Thank you."

Rep. WILDER recognized Rep. T.C. ALEXANDER and Senator Macaulay to present our next guest.

Senator Macaulay introduced the guest as follows:

"Today we have with us Hollie Bottoms, of West Union. Usually, you see Rep. McLellan and Rep. Alexander and myself on occasions like this, but now you know that there is beauty in Oconee County. Hollie had hip surgery last June and was in a pink cast. Hollie likes playing with play-dough and cooking meals in her very own kitchen. She receives physical therapy with Easter Seals' assistance in Oconee County. We are glad to have her and her family here with Rep. Alexander and myself today. Thank you."

Rep. WILDER recognized Rep. BURCH and Senator Holland to present our next guest.

Rep. BURCH introduced the guest as follows:

"Members of the Joint Assembly, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a very special little girl to you. She is from Senator Holland's and my district. Her name is Ashley Elliott. She attends the first grade at Pine Tree Hill in Kershaw and she is the 6-year-old daughter of Teddy and Diane Elliott. She has an older brother, Chris. We have two grandmothers present in the balcony today, Ms. Lita Leigh Elliott and Ms. Patsy Walters. Ashley is periodically seen by the doctor at the Rose M. Lowe Easter Seal Center for Medical Evaluation. Ashely and her brother do alot of things together. She loves to watch and play nintendo. When Ashley had a loose tooth, her brother wiggled it until it pulled out. Sesame Street and The Cosby Show are her favorite television shows. She likes to listen to tapes and vanilla pudding is her favorite food. Join me in welcoming her."

Rep. WILDER recognized Rep. FABER and Senator Lourie to present our next guest.

Senator Lourie introduced the guest as follows:

"Mr. Chairman, Lt. Governor, members of the Joint Assembly...It is a privilege for me to participate in this program. I have had the privilege of doing it several times and also to be a member of the Joint Committee. Rep. Wilder had big shoes to fill, since Rep. Hearn did an excellent job and he had to continue to pursue outstanding leadership for that committee and all of us thank him. Rep. Faber and I are delighted to have with us today, a young gentlemen from Richland County, Broderick Gibbs, who receives physical therapy and speech therapy from the Easter Seals at the Rose M. Lowe Center in Columbia. Ms. Lowe is here today, too, and we are honored to have her here. He was recently discharged from occupational therapy after reaching the goals established for him. He is a 3-year-old son of Mr. and Mrs. Fred Gibbs. They also have another son, Vincent, who is receiving Easter Seal services. Singing is one of his favorite activities. He sings so loud in church sometimes that he gets everybody's attention. He likes Sesame Street and so do I. Legos are his favorite toys and Broderick enjoys people, as you can tell. Ladies and gentlemen, Rep. Faber is holding our guest, Broderick Gibbs and Mrs. Gibbs."

Rep. WILDER recognized Rep. HALLMAN and Senator Martschink to present our next guest.

Senator Martschink introduced the guest as follows:

"Thank you, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen...He said that this was it when we came up. I'm delighted on behalf on Rep. Hallman and myself to introduce our guest, Bryant Shelly. And to tell you about him, I want to spell his last name for you. B is for bicycle, he loves to ride his bike. R is for recipient, he is the recipient of therapy and educational services at the Charles Webb Center and he is accompanied by his teacher, Salina Sullivan and the director, Kruger Smith. The Y is for yogurt, his favorite food and he also like pizza. A is for Allen and Genny and they are his parents. N is for no, he says no if you try to leave without a seatbelt and he is to be congratulated for that. T is for tremendous stride, he has made tremendous strides at the Charles Webb Center and he may be starting at Whiteside Elementary School next year. We are delighted to have him here today."

Upon the conclusion of the presentation, the honored guests and escort party retired from the Chamber.

The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the President announced that under the terms of the Concurrent Resolution the Joint Assembly would recede from business.

The Senate accordingly retired to its Chamber.

At 1:05 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 4893 -- Reps. J. Bailey, Barber, Hallman, Holt, Kohn, D. Martin, Rama, Washington, Whipper and Winstead: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT JOHN GRAHAM ALTMAN, MEMBER OF THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, TURN OVER THE NAMES OF THE SCHOOLS WHERE THERE HAS BEEN CHEATING TO THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES.

H. 4903 -- Reps. Sharpe, Smith, Rudnick, Keesley and Huff: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS OF THE LATE CHARLES L. FREEMAN OF AIKEN IN AIKEN COUNTY.

At 1:06 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. FAIR adjourned to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:21 P.M.