Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator WILSON.

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE FOR JUDICIAL SCREENING

TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee
DATE: March 26, 1992

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. Maggie W. Glover

Pursuant to Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, this Committee met to consider the qualifications of the candidates seeking election to the positions of Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, and Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.

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. Instead, it is the Committee's role to determine whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge. Under the statute, the Committee's determination in regard to each candidate is not binding on the members of the General Assembly.

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 Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee, held in the Third Floor Conference Room of the State House on March 19, 1992, and the portions of the documents submitted by the 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. These documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in Room 211 of the Gressette Building until the date and time of the election.

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

CHAIRMAN POPE: IF YOU ALL WOULD EXCUSE ME, I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE, FIRST, FOR STARTING A LITTLE LATE, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE'S SCHEDULES TO CONSIDER, AND WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM NOW. FOR YOUR ALL'S INFORMATION, I'LL IDENTIFY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE WITH ME. I'M TOM POPE, FROM NEWBERRY. THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GENTRY; HE'S THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, FROM SALUDA COUNTY. SENATOR ISADORE LOURIE. REPRESENTATIVE B.L. HENDRICKS, AND REPRESENTATIVE JIM HODGES. WE'RE STILL A COUPLE OF OTHER MEMBERS SHORT, BUT WE DO HAVE THE QUORUM WE NEED, SO I'M GOING TO OFFICIALLY CALL THIS COMMITTEE TO ORDER. THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE IS PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975 REQUIRING THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CANDIDATES BUT, RATHER, TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR POSITIONS ON THE BENCH ARE, IN OUR JUDGMENT, QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITIONS. THE INQUIRY WHICH WE UNDERTAKE IS A THOROUGH ONE. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EVERY CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY SLED, INCLUDING COURTROOM RECORDS. A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST IS REQUIRED. WE RECEIVE A CREDIT REPORT. WE RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING, AND FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES. THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS THE PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH, AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING CANDIDATES FOR THE TERM EXPIRATIONS IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, AND SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE HEARING. AND I HATE TO INCONVENIENCE YOU ALL, BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'D LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE LEAVE FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES, AND WE WILL RECONVENE IN A MINUTE.

CHAIRMAN POPE: I'D ALSO LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE AGAIN, AND POINT OUT THAT REPRESENTATIVE GLOVER JUST JOINED US, AND SENATOR MCCONNELL, A LONG-TIME MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS ALSO JOINED US. WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO A FULL COMPLEMENT HERE. OUR FIRST APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE JUDGE SIDNEY FLOYD. IF JUDGE FLOYD COULD COME AROUND TO THE END OF THE TABLE PLEASE?
JUDGE FLOYD: TO THE END? DO I STAND?
CHAIRMAN POPE: NO, SIR, THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A SEAT THERE. I'M SORRY.
JUDGE FLOYD: I APPRECIATE THE SEAT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THIS ROOM'S A LITTLE CRAMPED. I APOLOGIZE TO ALL Y'ALL. IT'S A LITTLE BIT CRAMPED AND WE DO NOT HAVE AN AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM. WE'RE MEETING HERE FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE ARE BOTH IN SESSION TODAY, AND WE MAY -- HOPEFULLY NOT, BUT WE PROBABLY WILL -- HAVE TO RECESS FOR A FEW MINUTES, IF A VOTE COMES UP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL HELP EXPEDITE IT. IF WE WERE IN THE GRESSETTE BUILDING, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE LONGER DELAYS COMING OVER TO CHAMBERS, SO, FOR EVERYONE'S CONVENIENCE, WE'RE IN THIS ROOM, BUT IT DOES HAVE SOME DISADVANTAGES. JUDGE FLOYD, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

WHEREUPON, SIDNEY T. FLOYD, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE LAST SCREENED IN 1986, I BELIEVE. IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q JUDGE, WE HAVE REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY. HAVE YOU REVIEWED IT, TO SEE THAT IT'S CORRECT?
A AS BEST I RECALL, YES.
Q IT DOES NOT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION, THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF?
A NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. IT MAY BE, AS FAR AS Y'ALL ARE CONCERNED. I'LL BE GLAD TO DO THAT.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q ALL RIGHT. IT WILL BE DONE THEN.

1. Sidney T. Floyd

Home Address: Business Address:

1710 Freeman Drive P. O. Box 26

Conway, SC 29526 Conway, SC 29526

2. He was born in Horry County on August 25, 1929. He is presently 62 years old.

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

4. He was married to Anne Skinner on June 4, 1956. He has four children: William T., age 28 (lawyer); Anita Ruth, age 31 (lawyer); Patricia Goldfinch, age 32 (homemaker); and Frances F. Dennis, age 34 (teacher).

5. Military Service: USA; Korean Conflict; 1951-1953; Army - PFC; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, LLB, 1956.

7. He was President of Pi Kappa Phi at the University of South Carolina.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

He has attended Judicial College two weeks in Reno and has attended Judicial CLE's offered in South Carolina.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Private law practice 1956-1977

City Recorder 1958-1963

U. S. Commissioner 1964-1967

Circuit Court Judge 1977-present

20. Judicial Office:

1977-present; Court of Common Pleas and Court of General Sessions; elected by the Legislature

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Carl J. Ward and William E. Ward v. Daniel L. Patrick, et al., 90-CP-26-2391, on file Horry County Clerk of Court's office

(b) State v. Lee, 393 S.C. 536

(c) State v. Howard, 296 S.C. 481

(d) State v. Gary Butler, Horry County Clerk of Court's Office, January, 1992

(e) Wagner v. Graham, 296 S.C. 1 (1988)

22. Public Office:

Member, South Carolina House of Representatives, elected 1969-1976

23. Unsuccessful Candidate:

South Carolina House of Representatives, 1976, lost to Lois Eargle in Democratic Primary

31. Sued: In about 1958 or 1959, he signed as guarantee on a note to the bank in Timmonsville for his brother-in-law. The bank started an action, and he paid off the note immediate after service. It ended the action.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in 1989 by Dr. Charles Sasser, Conway, South Carolina.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

Horry County Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; American Bar Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:

First Baptist Church

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Willis J. Duncan, Chairman of the Board

The Conway National Bank

P. O. Box 320, Conway, SC 29526

(b) O. A. Rankin, Esquire

P. O. Box 851, Conway, SC 29526

(c) W. T. Johnson, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 1667, Conway, SC 29526-1667

(d) Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Esquire

1208 Third Avenue, Conway, SC 29526

(e) Travis Faulk

1201 Elm Street, Conway, SC 29526

Q JUDGE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE REPORTED THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. WE HAVE CHECKED NUMEROUS COURT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS, INCLUDING THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE HORRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CONWAY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I., AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF HORRY COUNTY, AND ALL OF THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS WERE CHECKED IN OUR BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, AND THEY REFLECT NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU. IT SHOWS YOU WERE SUED IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A JUDGE, I THINK, ONE TIME. AND THAT WAS DISMISSED, I BELIEVE, WAS IT NOT?
A I WASN'T EVEN AWARE OF THAT. YOU KNOW, IT WAS INTERESTING TO FIND OUT THAT I HAD BEEN SUED. I REMEMBER THE DOCTOR, THOUGH, THAT SUED ME, BUT I WASN'T AWARE I HAD BEEN SUED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TOOK PLACE, BUT IT WAS NICE TO KNOW THAT, FROM THAT REPORT.
Q QUITE HONESTLY, IT'S UNUSUAL WHEN JUDGES HAVEN'T BEEN SUED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND POLITICIANS, AS WELL. YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH TO BE GOOD, JUDGE. IS THAT STILL CORRECT?
A I CERTAINLY HOPE SO.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND THE CREDIT REPORTS YOU SUBMITTED. AND, JUDGE, NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, AND NO WITNESSES HAVE DESIRED TO BE PRESENT TODAY. JUDGE, ONE THING THAT WE TYPICALLY ASK, AND WE'RE NOT PICKING ON YOU BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO ASK EVERYONE WE SCREEN THIS YEAR, AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR SERVICE ON THE BENCH. HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU FEEL THAT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS, JUDGE, AS FAR AS YOUR ROLE ON THE BENCH?
A YOU'RE REFERRING TO YOUR DEMEANOR ON THE COURT? IS THAT SORT OF WHAT YOU MEAN?
Q YES, SIR.
A WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IT IS IMPORTANT, IN ORDER TO SEE THAT THE CASE MOVES ALONG SMOOTHLY. YEAH, IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT -- WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. I WOULD SAY, THE COURT CAN'T RUN WITHOUT A JUDGE WHO IS ABLE TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS.
Q AS I'M SURE YOU'RE WELL AWARE, HAVING BEEN ON THE BENCH A GOOD WHILE NOW, YOU DEAL WITH A LOT OF LITIGANTS WHO ARE PERHAPS AGITATED, LAWYERS WHO ARE SOMETIMES SCHEDULED HEAVILY; YOU DEAL WITH WITNESSES THAT ARE SOMETIMES LATE TO COURT, AND JURORS, AND COURT OFFICIALS. AND YOU HAVE AN AWFUL LOT ON YOUR MIND, AND I'M SURE THAT, AT TIMES, IT'S PROBABLY TRYING ON YOUR PATIENCE TO DEAL WITH THESE SOMETIMES COMPETING INTERESTS IN A COURT SETTING, AND I'M SURE YOU'VE HANDLED THAT JUDICIOUSLY IN THE PAST.
A WELL, I HOPE SO. I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M ALWAYS THE VERY BEST, BUT I DO THE BEST I CAN, THERE.
Q JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS, OR A STATEMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TODAY? I'LL ASK THE COMMITTEE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
A SENATOR, I DO NOT HAVE ANY STATEMENTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. I SORT OF FELT LIKE THAT YOU SHOULD BE ASKING ME QUESTIONS, RATHER THAN ME MAKING STATEMENTS. I ENJOY THE WORK. IT IS FUN SOMETIMES; IT'S A DELIGHT, REALLY, OFTENTIMES. PARTICULARLY, WHEN YOU HAVE EXTREMELY GOOD LAWYERS. THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU HAVE ONE GOOD LAWYER ON ONE SIDE, AND ONE NOT SO COMPETENT ON THE OTHER; SO IT GETS FRUSTRATING SOMETIMES. BUT I THINK, EXCEPT FOR CRIMINAL COURT, THAT SOMETIMES I'D PAY TO BE A JUDGE, JUST TO WATCH SOME OF THE LAWYERS AS THEY REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS IN THE COURTROOM. WE HAVE EXCELLENT LAWYERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA. SOME MAYBE NOT QUITE AS GOOD AS OTHERS, BUT IT'S A DELIGHT WHEN YOU HAVE GOOD LAWYERS LIKE WHAT WE HAVE IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WOULD THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US, AND WE APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE GOOD SERVICE YOU'VE GIVEN OVER THE YEARS. I KNOW YOU'RE GLAD THAT YOU'RE HERE IN A VERY NON-CONTROVERSIAL SETTING, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU WITH US TODAY.
WITNESS: ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO THANK SENATOR LOURIE FOR NOT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS.

SENATOR MARTIN: WE'VE GOT A TIME LIMIT, JUDGE.
WITNESS: I SEE. DOES THAT MEAN I'M EXCUSED?
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES, SIR, JUDGE. YOU SURE ARE.
WITNESS: OKAY. THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH, AND I'LL SLIP OUT WITH MY HAT.
SENATOR LOURIE: GOOD TO SEE YOU, JUDGE.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE HAYES IS NEXT. JOHN HAYES, SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. JUDGE, WILL YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

WHEREUPON, JOHN C. HAYES, III, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED JUST LESS THAN A YEAR AGO, IN 1991. YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A IT IS.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT PART OF THE RECORD?
A NONE.
Q OKAY. IT WILL BE DONE.

1. John Calvin Hayes, III

Home Address: Business Address:

1118 Candlelight Road 452-34 Lakeshore Parkway

Rock Hill, SC 29732 Suite 115

Rock Hill, SC 29730

2. He was born in York County, South Carolina on October 18, 1945. He is presently 46 years old.

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

4. He was married to Sarah Lynn Hayes on September 28, 1991. He has three children: John C., IV, age 21 (student - University of South Carolina); Mary Scott, age 18 (student - 11th grade); and Frances Green, age 16 (student - 9th grade).

5. Military Service: U. S. Army Reserve; E-6; 1968-1974; Honorably Discharged; NCO of the Year (1973)

6. He attended the University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, 1963-1964, transferred to the University of South Carolina; the University of South Carolina, B.A. (English), 1964-1967; the University of South Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1967-1971.

7. At the University of the South, he participated in varsity football and the Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity (pledge); at the University of South Carolina, Kappa Sigma Fraternity; and at the University of South Carolina School of Law, Law Review.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

He has met the annual requirements. He has attended seminars on a wide variety of topics.
9. Courses taught or lectures given:

Moderator - CLE - Proof of Damages

Rock Hill School District No. 3 - Young Lawyers Program - Law Classes in High School

10. Published Books or Articles:

Mail Fraud - 22 SCLR 434 (1970)

Torts - IntraFamily Immunity - 21 SCLR 813 (1969)

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1971 - 1972 Law Clerk for Chief Justice Joseph R. Moss

1972 - 1991 Hayes, Brunson and Gatlin

General Practice, 1972-1991

Prior to approximately 1980, his practice had been primarily civil litigation. He also, throughout his practice, has handled worker's compensation cases, social security disability cases, simple wills, and some estates. He has also handled real estate transactions including title searches and loan closings.

September, 1991 - Resident Judge, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit

present

20. Judicial Office:

Sixteenth Judicial Circuit; term September 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992; Court of General Jurisdiction

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Keenan v. Union County School District (91-CP-44-0330)

This case involved the cessation of a vocational program. Plaintiff had taught the course and felt the action of the School District was inappropriate. He ruled in favor of the School District.

(b) Chestnut v. Boozer (91-CP-44-111)

The issue in this case was the intention with the testators to a joint will. He ruled the survivor of the testators inherited a fee simple title to real estate under the joint will.

(c) McCall v. York County (91-CP-46-050)

This involved a motion to intervene, which he denied.

(d) Clover Corporation v. Jenkins (91-CP-46-1699)

This action involved a covenant not to compete. He has ruled on a motion by Plaintiff for a temporary injunction. He denied the motion.

(e) Robbins v. Bower (91-CP-46-1920)

This is an action for foreclosure of a Mechanic's lien. He has ruled on a motion to enjoin a sheriff's sale of certain real property. He denied the motion.

22. Public Office:

Solicitor - City of Rock Hill - appointed (approximately one year)

South Carolina House of Representatives - 1980-1984 - Elected

South Carolina Senate - 1984-1991 - Elected

South Carolina Coastal Council (Fifth Congressional District) - 1980 - Elected

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:

His former law partners are buying his interest in the partnership on a set installment payment plan. His former law partner, with whom he owned two buildings, is buying same from him pursuant to a note and mortgage.

30. Tax Lien: The IRS levied on their law firm, in error, based on their employer's quarterly return which had been paid in full for months prior to the levy. This was reported on his personal information sheet that was submitted in 1991.

31. Sued: He has been named in one or more lawsuits in his capacity as Chairman of the South Carolina Coastal Council.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in January of 1985. The examining doctor was Dr. Gaines Entrekin, 1251 Ebenezer Road, Rock Hill, SC 29730 (328-0181).

35. He wears contact lens.

36. Current Treatment for Illness or Physical Condition: He is not under active treatment. He does have prescriptions for medication for a small ulcer and urinary infection.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Bar - 1971 to present

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:

Episcopal Church of Our Savior, Rock Hill; South Carolina Humanities Council Board; South Carolina Chapter, Leukemia Society of America, Board of Trustees, Fund Raiser of the Year 1988, Special Fund Raiser Recognition; Rock Hill Arts Council; Friends of South Carolina State Museum; Museum of York County; Rotary Club; Elk's Club; Rock Hill Chamber of Commerce; Fort Mill Chamber of Commerce; Tega Cay Chamber of Commerce, Charter Member; Winthrop College Board of Trustees; York County Humane Society; 1984, Co-Legislator of the Year (with Rep. Lloyd Hendricks), Greenville News Piedmont

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Dennis J. Stuber, Regional Vice President

First Federal Savings Bank

P. O. Box 2971, Rock Hill, SC 29732-2971

(b) Honorable Joseph R. Moss

207 E. Liberty Street, York, SC 29745

(c) W. E. Gregory, Jr., M.D.

Rock Hill Orthopaedic Clinic

124 Glenwood Drive, Rock Hill, SC 29732

(d) Vicki Huggins Cook, Executive Director

Rock Hill Arts Council

P. O. Box 3635, Rock Hill, SC 29731

(e) James D. Leitner, Jr.

Leitner Construction Co., Inc.

P. O. Drawer 12190, Rock Hill, SC 29731-2190

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. WE HAVE CHECKED VARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS, INCLUDING HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, YORK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ROCK HILL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS. ALL OF THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF YORK COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW YOU WERE SUED IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, TWO OR THREE TIMES. IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q HAVE THERE EVER BEEN ANY OTHER --
A I BELIEVE I'VE BEEN DISMISSED AS A PARTY FROM EACH OF THOSE. I'M NOT 100 PERCENT POSITIVE OF THAT, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING I'M NOT EVEN A NOMINAL PARTY, AT THIS POINT.
Q AND IN NONE OF THOSE CASES WERE YOU SUED IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH AS EXCELLENT. IT STILL IS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, AND NO WITNESSES HAVE ASKED TO BE PRESENT TODAY. JUDGE, HOW DO YOU FIND THE FIRST SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS ON THE BENCH?
A WELL, I THANK YOU FOR PASSING ME THE LAST YEAR AND LETTING ME SERVE. I'M ENJOYING IT TREMENDOUSLY. AFTER 20 YEARS OF PRACTICING LAW AND TEN YEARS OF BEING IN THE LEGISLATURE, IT'S A DIFFERENT ARENA, OR AT LEAST THE SAME ARENA FROM A DIFFERENT STANDPOINT. I FIND IT A VERY REWARDING PROFESSION. I ENJOY WORKING WITH THE ATTORNEYS, JUST LIKE JUDGE FLOYD HAS SAID, AND WITH THE CLERK OF COURT AND THE OTHER STAFF PERSONNEL AND THE COURT ADMINISTRATION I WORK WITH. SO I'VE BEEN VERY PLEASED.
Q HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED MANY FRUSTRATIONS, HAVING BEEN ON THE BENCH A SHORT WHILE?
A NOT REALLY. THE ONES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT TRYING TO GET CASES -- TRYING TO MAKE SURE ATTORNEYS AND WITNESSES AND JURORS ARE ALL WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. I LEARNED VERY EARLY THAT ONE OF THE RULES OF COURT IS TO EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED, AND WE HAVE HAD QUITE A FEW OF THOSE, BUT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO WORK AROUND THEM. NOTHING THAT I WOULD REALLY CONSIDER FRUSTRATING, BUT THERE HAS BEEN SOME ADAPTING. I'VE NOT EVER BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE PERSON, OTHER THAN IN MY LAW PRACTICE AND IN MY HOME, SO TO LEARN TO BE AN ADMINISTRATOR OF A CIRCUIT WITH A RATHER LARGE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL BACKLOG HAS BEEN INTERESTING, BUT NOT FRUSTRATING.
Q DO YOU SEE THAT BACKLOG CHANGING, AT ALL, JUST FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE?
A WELL, I THINK I DO --
Q WE'VE GOT NINE NEW JUDGES.
A -- BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE NEW JUDGES, AND SIMPLY HAVING -- WE HAVE RUN, IN YORK COUNTY -- UNION IS NOT IN REAL BAD SHAPE AT ALL, JUST BECAUSE OF THE POPULATION DIFFERENCE; BUT, YORK COUNTY, WE DO HAVE A BACKLOG IN BOTH. BUT WE ARE RUNNING, AT LEAST IN GENERAL SESSIONS, USUALLY TWO TERMS, TWO WEEKS OF COURT. WHEN WE RUN GENERAL SESSIONS, WE USUALLY HAVE TWO COURTROOMS FUNCTIONING. SO WE'RE MOVING THROUGH IT WITH SOME DISPATCH. BUT THE LAST TIME GRAND JURY MET, THEY CAME BACK WITH 708 NEW INDICTMENTS. IT'S JUST HARD TO KEEP AHEAD OF. IT'S LIKE TRYING TO HOLD BACK THE WATERS, SO TO SPEAK, BUT I THINK WE ARE MAKING SOME PROGRESS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF THEY'D LIKE TO ASK ANYTHING.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS --

Q JUDGE, YOU MISS THE SENATE?
A YES, I DO, AS A MATTER OF FACT. WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY, SENATOR?

YEAH, THERE'S A LITTLE NOSTALGIA TO COME DOWN TODAY. AND I'VE BEEN BACK SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH, BUT TO SEE THE STAFF PEOPLE I WORKED WITH, AND MY FRIENDS IN THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES -- I DO MISS WORKING WITH Y'ALL. SOMEBODY ASKED ME THIS MORNING ABOUT NOT BEING HERE DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE BUDGET AND REAPPORTIONMENT, AND I SAID I DON'T REALLY MISS THE BUDGET, BECAUSE THAT WASN'T ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS, BUT I KIND OF DO MISS WORKING ON THE REAPPORTIONMENT SINCE I WAS ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
Q YOU SENT US A QUALITY SUCCESSOR.
A WELL, THANK YOU. I THINK WE DID.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I THINK THEY NEED SOME HELP ON THAT BUDGET.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: SO IF YOU HAVE A FEW MINUTES --
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU'RE FREE TO LEAVE AT ANY TIME YOU LIKE.
WITNESS: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE WILL NEXT CALL -- THIS IS THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. JUDGE THOMAS L. HUGHSTON.

WHEREUPON, THOMAS L. HUGHSTON, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED ABOUT SIX YEARS AGO, IN 1986, I BELIEVE WAS THE LAST TIME?
A (NODS HEAD.)
Q YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES.
Q IS IT CORRECT, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A YES, IT IS CORRECT.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT PART OF THE RECORD, THEN?
A NO.
Q THEN WE WILL.

1. Thomas L. Hughston, Jr.

Home Address: Business Address:

Mountain Shore Drive P. O. Box 683

Greenwood, SC 29646 Greenwood, SC 29648

2. He was born in Spartanburg, South Carolina on July 25, 1943. He is presently 48 years old.

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

4. He was divorced in December of 1990; Jeanne G. Hughston; Family Court, Richland County; Continuous Separation. He has three children: Karen Elizabeth, age 19; Jeanne Greer, age 16; and Mary Leslie, age 11.

5. Military Service: He was in the Army Reserve while at The Citadel, 1961; honorable discharge before graduation in 1965 due to injury to knee; Rank E-1; Serial Number ER 14893169.

6. He attended The Citadel, 1961-1965, B. A. Degree; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1965-1968, J. D. Degree.

7. He was a Company Executive Officer, The Citadel; Honor Committee; Summerall Guards; and National Political Science Honor Society.
8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

He has been in attendance at all J.C.L.E. Seminars in South Carolina. He is accepted as a student in the program at The National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada, leading to a Masters Degree in Judicial Studies. He has completed 10 hours of the 32 hours required and plans to complete this degree within the next 3 to 4 years.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented: He taught Business Law at Lander College for one year.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

He was an associate with W. H. Nicholson, Jr., in the practice of law in Greenwood, South Carolina from 1968-1972; a partner with Thurmond Bishop in law practice from 1972-1982 with offices in Greenwood and Abbeville, South Carolina; a partner with Thurmond Bishop and Mary G. Daniel from 1982 to 1985 with offices in Greenwood and Abbeville, South Carolina. He served as Municipal Court Judge for the City of Greenwood, South Carolina from 1973-1975 and served as Public Defender for Greenwood and Abbeville Counties from 1975 through 1976. Also, on occasion he has filled in for Judge of the Greenwood County Civil and Domestic Relations Court when there was a need. He is Resident Judge; Eighth Judicial Circuit; April, 1985 to present.

20. Judicial Office:

He was City Recorder for Greenwood, South Carolina, 1973-1975. He was appointed by the City Council. He also filled in for Judge of the Greenwood County Civil and Domestic Relations Court when there was a need. He is Resident Judge; Eighth Judicial Circuit; April, 1985 to present.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) State of South Carolina v. Robert Murrell - This Order and the trial were appealed and affirmed at 393 S.E.2d 919 (1990).

(b) Singleton v. State of South Carolina - This Order and subsequent Order granting PCR Application based on this standard are presently on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

(c) Timms v. Security Finance, etc. - Interesting case dealing with "at will employment," "retaliatory discharge," and tort of "outrageous conduct." No appeal. Case settled.

(d) Sheppard v. City of Laurens - Interesting question of interpretation of South Carolina Constitution Art. III, Sec. 34(X), the prohibition on enacting special laws. Appealed and dismissed.

(e) William v. Allen, et al. - Interesting and rather complicated case involving deed vs. mortgage. No appeal.

22. Public Office:

He was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives, District No. 13, from 1977 to April, 1985.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

He was a high school and college football official for 20 years.

27. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships:

He owns listed stocks and bonds. He would disqualify himself from handling matters involving these companies or funds.

29. Federal, State or Local Investigation:

To his knowledge he has not. However, it was reported in newspapers that the Greenwood County Grand Jury was in October-November, 1991, investigating an incident in which he was stopped on June 21, 1991, by a policeman, but was not charged with any violation. The Grand Jury was reported by the newspapers to have reached the conclusion that there was no evidence of any crime having been committed.

31. Sued:

A few years ago a Defendant in an action brought to challenge a Will. He was a Defendant since he was named Executor under the Will being challenged. This was while he was practicing law, not while he has been a Judge.

Richard Pennington, etc. v. William Townes Jones, II, et al. - This was a suit in Federal Court brought by two Defendants in a criminal case in Laurens County, General Sessions Court, alleging that the Solicitor and several Judges, including Judge Hughston, had violated their constitutional rights by the method of scheduling their cases. This suit was dismissed by a Federal Judge.

Tyrone Cooper v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al. - This was a suit in Federal Court by an inmate against the Department of Corrections and Judge Hughston. Previously, Mr. Cooper had filed suit against the Department of Corrections in the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville County alleging that the Department had done certain things to him and to his property. He claimed the Department owed him $205.40, and the Department agreed to pay him $175.00. He accepted this settlement in open court, then tried to appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court and finally filed suit in Federal Court. This case was dismissed by the District Court, and his appeal was dismissed by the Fourth Circuit Court.

Donald J. Strable v. State of South Carolina, et al. - In this case the Plaintiff sued the State, the Clerk of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and eight present or former Circuit Judges. He alleged that the Defendants abused their discretion and sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. This case was dismissed.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in June of 1991, by Dr. George Cone, Spring Street, Greenwood, South Carolina.

35. He has a bad knee from an old football injury.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

Greenwood County Bar, South Carolina Bar, and American Bar Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:

Kiwanis Club; Alston Wilkes Society; Lander College Senators Club; The Citadel Development Foundation; USC Educational Foundation; First Baptist Church, Greenwood, South Carolina; TPA

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Leland P. Vaughan, Vice President

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Drawer 608, Greenwood, SC 29648

(b) Marvin R. Watson, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 799, Greenwood, SC 29648-0799

(c) C. Rauch Wise, Esquire

408 Main Street, Greenwood, SC 29646

(d) Wyatt Saunders, Esquire

P. O. Box 731, Laurens, SC 29360

(e) Thomas E. Hite, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 805, Abbeville, SC 29620

Q JUDGE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE REPORTED THAT NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. WE HAVE CHECKED WITH VARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES -- INCLUDING THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, GREENWOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, GREENWOOD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. -- AND ALL OF THOSE RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS IN YOUR HOME COUNTY OF GREENWOOD ARE ALSO NEGATIVE. AS FAR AS THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS, YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A JUDGE, A FEW TIMES, I BELIEVE?
A YES. AND I FORGOT TO MENTION -- I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT, OVER THERE. I FORGOT TO MENTION TO LIST ONE CASE THAT I WAS SUED ON. SENATOR MARTIN WILL REMEMBER THAT CASE ALSO. I FORGOT TO LIST THAT ONE. IT WAS STATE EX REL. RILEY, AGAINST MARTIN AND OTHERS. I WAS A PARTY TO THAT SUIT ALSO.
Q HOW WERE --
A THAT INVOLVED -- FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW -- THAT INVOLVED THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS.
SENATOR MARTIN: IT WASN'T MORAL TURPITUDE INVOLVED.
WITNESS: NO. IT INVOLVED THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS.
Q BUT THE RESOLUTION OF THOSE CASES WAS WHAT?
A WELL, ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE LISTED THERE, AND SO FORTH, OF COURSE, WERE DISMISSED. I WAS DISMISSED AS A PARTY IN THOSE CASES.
Q THESE WERE BASICALLY DISGRUNTLED LITIGANTS --
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q -- THAT HAD A CIVIL ACTION FILED, OR CASES, OR SO FORTH?
A THAT'S CORRECT. ONE OF THEM WAS A PRISONER WHO SUED THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OVER $200 THAT HE SAID THE DEPARTMENT OWED HIM FOR SOME STUFF THEY HAD TAKEN FROM HIS CELL, WRONGFULLY. THE CIVIL CASE CAME TO COURT, AND IT WAS SETTLED FOR $175; AND HE LATER SUED ME, SAYING THAT I FORCED THE SETTLEMENT -- THAT SORT OF THING.
Q JUDGE, YOUR HEALTH IS STILL GOOD, I ASSUME?
A YES.
Q AND YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENTS AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. THERE IS ONE PERSON, CHARLES RAY KNIGHT, WHO HAS FILED A COMPLAINT. AND YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN A COPY OF THAT?
A YES.
Q THE PROCEDURE, WHEN WE HAVE A COMPLAINT IN A SCREENING IS NOT TO ADDRESS IT NOW, BUT TO LET THE COMPLAINANT EXPRESS WHAT THE COMPLAINT IS -- BECAUSE ALL WE HAVE NOW IS A WRITTEN COMPLAINT -- AND THEN TO GIVE YOU THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS IN REBUTTAL ANYTHING THAT IS BROUGHT OUT IN THE COMPLAINT, BECAUSE IF YOU WERE TO ADDRESS IT NOW, IT WOULD BE MORE OR LESS AWKWARD. SO WE WILL KEEP IT GENERAL AT THIS POINT. JUDGE, THERE WAS ONE REFERENCE SOMEWHERE IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY -- YOU SAID IT WAS REPORTED IN NEWSPAPERS IN GREENWOOD ABOUT A TRAFFIC INCIDENT, OR SOMETHING, ABOUT SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS AGO?
A YES.
Q COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THAT INVOLVED?
A A CITY OF GREENWOOD POLICE OFFICER STOPPED ME ONE EVENING FOR MAKING A WIDE TURN OFF OF ONE STREET ONTO ANOTHER STREET, AND DID NOT GIVE ME A TICKET, AND SO FORTH. AND THEN, THEREAFTER, THE NEWSPAPERS GOT AHOLD OF IT, SO TO SPEAK, AND SOMEBODY -- ONE PERSON, APPARENTLY -- WENT TO GREENWOOD COUNTY GRAND JURY ABOUT IT. AS I SAID, I NEVER WAS INFORMED OF IT BY THE GRAND JURY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ALL I LEARNED WAS FROM THE NEWSPAPERS. AND IT WAS REPORTED THAT THEY ASKED FOR IT TO BE INVESTIGATED, AND THEN IT WAS REPORTED THAT THEY DECIDED THERE WASN'T ANYTHING THAT WAS DONE WRONG.
Q THE GRAND JURY REACHED THE CONCLUSION OF CERTAINLY NO WRONGDOING, THEN?
A YES, AS FAR AS I KNOW.
Q AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY OTHER INFORMATION CONTRARY TO THAT, THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY A GRAND JURY, OR OTHERWISE?
A NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE, ON THE GENERAL SCREENING, NOT RELATED TO THE COMPLAINT OF MR. KNIGHT? ANYONE?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I'VE GOT ONE.

Q WHEN WE FIRST GOT AHEAD OF OURSELVES AND ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WEREN'T YOU ELECTED --
A THAT WAS THE CASE I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
CHAIRMAN POPE: SURE.

Q LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AGAIN. WHAT WAS THE -- WAS ALLEGATION THAT YOU HAD --
A I DON'T KNOW. NOBODY EVER SAID ANYTHING; NOBODY EVER SAID WHAT THE ALLEGATION WAS, IF THERE WAS AN ALLEGATION. I DON'T KNOW.
Q LET ME ASK YOU JUST DIRECTLY: IS THERE ANY MERIT TO ANY ALLEGATION OF SOME WRONGDOING ON YOUR PART --
A NO.
Q -- OR ON THE OFFICER'S PART?
A NO.
Q SO NO LAWS WERE VIOLATED BY YOU?
A NO.
SENATOR LOURIE: FRENZY OF THE PRESS.

Q AS I RECALL, THE PAPERS KIND OF TRIED TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF IT.
SENATOR LOURIE: THEY ALWAYS DO.
Q AND THOUGH INFORMATION WAS DISSEMINATED, IT DIDN'T IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO OPERATE AS A JUDGE IN THAT AREA.
A NO, IT HASN'T AFFECTED ME AT ALL.

Q NOTHING HAS COME UP OF THIS, SINCE THE INCIDENT, A FEW WEEKS AFTER?
A NO.
Q JUDGE, THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME -- UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING --
A THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR QUESTION IS, YOU ASKED ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. I THINK THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY OF A JUDGE -- THAT A PERSON NEEDS TO HAVE IN ORDER TO BE A JUDGE. I THINK A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW HOW TO TREAT PEOPLE. I THINK THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY. OF COURSE, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW; I THINK IT HELPS TO HAVE BEEN IN THE COURTROOM A GOOD WHILE, AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, IN MY OPINION, IS TO KNOW HOW TO TREAT PEOPLE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE A QUESTION, NOW?

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, WE WILL CALL YOU BACK IN JUST A MOMENT.

CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. CHARLES RAY KNIGHT. MR. KNIGHT, COME UP TO THE TABLE, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
MR. KNIGHT: OKAY, SURE.

WHEREUPON, CHARLES RAY KNIGHT, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q WOULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD?
A CHARLES RAY KNIGHT.
Q YOUR ADDRESS?
A 1700 CIRCLE ROAD, EASLEY, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q MR. KNIGHT, ALL OF US HERE AT THE TABLE ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN GIVEN COPIES OF YOUR COMPLAINT, THE WITNESS FORM, AND EVERYTHING YOU ATTACH WITH IT, SO WE'RE GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPLAINT. BUT I WANT YOU TO TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT -- NOW, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS INQUIRY REALLY ONLY RELATES TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPLICANT, AND IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS JUDGE TOMMY HUGHSTON. SO WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS YOUR COMPLAINT IN THOSE TERMS, IF YOU WOULD. GO AHEAD.
A FIRST OF ALL, I THINK I'D LIKE TO SHOW THAT JUSTICE WAS NOT DONE, AND I THINK THAT I CAN DO THAT WITH THESE FOLDERS -- NOT FOLDERS, BUT THINGS THAT I HAVE FIXED, SHOWING THE CONDITION AND SITUATION AS IT WAS, ABOUT THE CASE AND EVERYTHING, WHICH WAS A DRAINAGE PROBLEM WHERE MY NEIGHBOR CHANGED THE FLOW OF WATER DRAINAGE FROM HIM TO AROUND MY HOUSE, DESTROYING MY HOUSE. I MEAN, THAT'S THE THING. AND HE SUED ME FOR A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS. AND WITH THIS, AND ALSO WITH A VIDEO TAPE THAT I SENT DOWN, I CAN PROVE OR I CAN SHOW -- I NEED TO SHOW -- WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE CASE AND EVERYTHING. AND I HAVE A FEW OF THESE LEFT (INDICATING). INCIDENTALLY, I FIXED THESE UP FOR THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, AND THEY WERE SORT OF -- I DON'T KNOW -- HESITANT ABOUT EVEN LOOKING AT IT OR TAKING ONE OF THEM.
Q MR. KNIGHT, COULD I ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS? I'LL LET YOU CONTINUE, BUT IT MIGHT FOCUS IT A LITTLE BIT.
A OKAY.
Q THE NEIGHBOR YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A MR. IVESTER?
A RIGHT. YEAH.
Q AND YOU LIVE IN ANDERSON COUNTY, AND THAT'S OUT IN A RURAL AREA, DON'T YOU?
A YEAH. POWDERSVILLE IS THE COMMUNITY.
Q BUT MR. IVESTER AND HIS WIFE SUED YOU, SERVED YOU WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, AND THEN YOU GOT A LAWYER AND YOU COUNTERCLAIMED.
A RIGHT.
Q AND THE JURY MADE A DETERMINATION IN YOUR FAVOR, BUT NOT ON THE COUNTERCLAIM. THEY DIDN'T GIVE YOU ANY VERDICT. THE VERDICT WAS FOR THE DEFENDANT, CHARLES RAY KNIGHT, CORRECT?
A YEAH, BUT THERE WAS NO -- THERE WAS NO VERDICT, OR -- THE WAY I READ IT, THAT THERE'S NO VERDICT ON THE COUNTERCLAIM.
Q WELL, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE JUDGE DID, IN THAT CONNECTION, THAT WAS WRONG?
A WELL, IF WE CAN ASSUME THAT I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, THAT I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE FLOW OF WATER, THAT HE DONE IT ALL, AND ANY DAMAGES THAT HE RECEIVED, HE DONE IT ON HIS OWN, THAT HE DID THAT TO HISSELF BY BUILDING A CONCRETE WALL AND ALSO A TERRACE UP ABOVE TO DIVERT WATER -- FIRST OF ALL, THE TERRACE WOULD HAVE PUT WATER OVER ON MY PROPERTY; THEN HE BUILT A THREE-CAR GARAGE IN A LOW SPOT WHERE ALL THE WATER DRAINS FROM EVERYWHERE, AND THEN HE CAME OVER ON ME AND BUILT -- FILLED UP UNDER A CHAIN-LINK FENCE. HE BUILT THAT UP. AND THEN, BUILT A DAM ON MY PROPERTY, TO DIVERT THE WATER DOWN TO MY HOUSE.
Q ALL OF THAT IS WHAT MR. IVESTER DID.
A ALL THAT WAS WHAT MR. IVESTER DID.
Q JUDGE HUGHSTON PRESIDED AT THE TRIAL?
A YES.
Q AND YOU HAD TWO LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU, MR. LOWERY AND MR. HOOD?
A MR. HOOD. MR. HOOD WAS -- MR. LOWERY DIDN'T SHOW UP. BUT ANYWAY -- AND --
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: WAS THE TRIAL BY JURY?
CHAIRMAN POPE: BY JURY.
A AND IF WE CAN ASSUME -- IF Y'ALL GENTLEMEN WILL ASSUME -- THAT THIS IS NOT -- THIS (INDICATING) IS A PLAT, AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE PLAT, WITH ELEVATIONS, THAT I HAD MY LAWYER -- NOT LAWYER, BUT SURVEYOR PUT ON THIS THING. AND THIS IS A MARKER SHOWING THE DRAINAGE OF THE PROPERTY, HOW THE WATER RUN. THIS IS IVESTER'S PROPERTY, AND EVERYTHING. AND THIS -- THEN, THIS WITH THIS FOLD-DOWN SHOWS THE PROPERTY LINE THERE (INDICATING). AND THIS (INDICATING) IS THE CHANGE OF THE FLOW OF WATER; THE ONE THAT HE HAD UP ON THE TERRACE THAT HE HAD PUT, TO DIVERT WATER TO ME. THEN WHEN HE PUT THAT CHAIN-LINK FENCE AND EVERYTHING IN, AND THE WALL, THE WATER COULDN'T GO OUT ON MY PROPERTY ANYMORE.
Q THAT'S THE SAME THING YOU SHOWED US ON THAT VIDEO YOU SENT IN --
A YES, THIS IS THE SAME --
Q -- WHEN YOU OVERLAYED THE TWO? YOU HAD THE OVERLAY SHOWING BEFORE AND AFTER?
A YEAH. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY, THIS IS --
Q BUT DIDN'T THE JURY HAVE ALL THAT EVIDENCE?
A YES, THEY HAD -- THE JURY HAD MOVIES, SNAPSHOTS, AND THE WHOLE THING. ALL EXCEPT THIS (INDICATING); THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I MADE UP AFTERWARD, TRYING TO GET THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION FROM ANDERSON, AND, WELL, WE HAVE SOME FROM PICKENS COUNTY, AND --
Q AND YOU TESTIFIED IN THAT CASE, I'M SURE?
A YES.
Q DID YOUR WIFE TESTIFY?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE A SURVEYOR TESTIFY, OR SOME EXPERT?
A NO, I DIDN'T HAVE A -- I HAD THE PERSON TO CERTIFY -- NOT CERTIFY, HE SWORE THAT THE DAMAGE WAS -- TO MY HOUSE AND EVERYTHING, HOW MUCH DAMAGE WAS DONE TO MY HOUSE.
Q BUT AFTER ALL THAT TESTIMONY, THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT IN YOUR FAVOR ON THE COMPLAINT.
A OKAY. OKAY, YEAH. NOW, THEN, LET'S -- THE THING THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT OUT IS: MR. HUGHSTON WAS THE JUDGE, FROM THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. HE CAME UP INTO THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. AND I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS TOO FAMILIAR WITH THE IVESTERS, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHERE THEY WERE FROM. AND ONE OF THEM -- ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY -- WEARS A PRESTIGE TAG FROM THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; SO THEREFORE, MR. HUGHSTON -- REPRESENTATIVE HUGHSTON -- HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH GETTING THAT PERSON ONTO A COMMITTEE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT COMMITTEE -- NO, I DO. IT WAS THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE. AND ACCORDING TO THE WAY I READ THE LAW, A JUDGE, WHEN HE COMES OUT AND HE RECOGNIZES THAT HE MIGHT KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTIES THAT MIGHT BE PREJUDICIAL, HE'S SUPPOSED TO BRING THAT POINT OUT TO THE JUDGE -- I MEAN, TO THE JURY, AND TO ALL PARTICIPANTS. AND THEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THAT JUDGE IS TO PRESIDE ON THAT CASE.
Q DID YOU COMPLAIN AT THE TRIAL ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU SAID HE WAS TOO FAMILIAR WITH THE IVESTERS?
A NO, I DIDN'T, BUT I --
Q WELL, TELL US HOW THAT'S RELEVANT. HOW FAMILIAR WAS HE, AND WHAT DID IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE VERDICT?
A WELL, OKAY. BACK TO THE PRESTIGE TAG. HE HAD TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE IVESTERS OR PART OF THE IVESTER FAMILY.
Q WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR, AS YOU SAY, WITH THE IVESTER FAMILY?
A YEAH.
Q WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE?
A WELL, THE FACT THAT ONE OF THEM WEARS A PRESTIGE TAG.
Q WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND.
A YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A -- HE HAD TO KNOW THAT PARTICULAR FAMILY FOR -- HE DIDN'T GO OUT AND GET AN UNKNOWN AND GIVE HIM A SEAT ON THE COMMISSION, TO GET A PRESTIGE TAG.
Q YOU SAY THAT SOME IVESTER -- YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE OF THESE LICENSE PLATES FOR A STATE BOARD OR COMMISSION?
A YEAH, UH-HUH.
Q WHAT IVESTER HAS ONE OF THOSE TAGS, AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS?
A OKAY. LET ME PROCEED ON. ONE OF THE PERSONS THAT WEARS THAT PRESTIGE TAG ON HIS CAR, HE CAME UP TO ANDERSON COUNTY FOR THAT TRIAL, AND HE WENT BACK TO THE CHAMBERS -- EITHER TO THE JUDGE'S CHAMBERS OR THE JURY ROOM. AND THAT -- THAT SHOWS THAT HE KNOWS HIM PRETTY WELL. AND THE WAY I --
Q WHAT'S THE NAME OF THIS PERSON?
A THIS OTHER THING THAT I THINK I SHOWED Y'ALL -- I BROUGHT Y'ALL A COPY OF THIS?
Q YES, SIR, WE'VE GOT A COPY.
A THIS IS AN OBITUARY OF WHERE MS. IVESTER'S MOTHER HAD DIED DOWN AT CALHOUN FALLS. AND IF YOU'LL NOTICE, ONE OF THE SURVIVORS, WHICH IS MS. IVESTER'S SISTER, HER NAME WAS BARNETT. HESTER -- HER MAIDEN NAME WAS HESTER BARNETT. AND IF YOU'LL LOOK OVER IN YOUR MANUAL --
Q YES, SIR, WE GOT A COPY OF THAT, TOO. MARTHA BARNETT FROM THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SERVES ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF --
A OF THE EDUCATION BOARD.
Q -- OF THE COLLEGE -- THE FRANCIS MARION BOARD, I GUESS IT IS.
A THEREFORE -- I MEAN, THAT'S MY POINT, THAT HE KNEW THE IVESTERS SO GOOD THAT HE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THE -- HE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN THE JUDGE THERE.
Q BUT THAT'S NOT --
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: WHAT DID -- EXCUSE ME. WHAT DID JUDGE HUGHSTON DO WRONG, THOUGH? WHAT DID JUDGE HUGHSTON DO WRONG AT THE TRIAL?
WITNESS: WELL, OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE GOT TO SAY THAT THIS WAS NOT JUSTICE DONE, BECAUSE I HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, HAD DONE NO DAMAGE TO IVESTER; THEY HAD DONE ALL THE DAMAGE TO ME. AND JUDGE HUGHSTON CHARGED THE JURY FOUR WAYS: EQUAL DAMAGES, FIND FOR THE PLAINTIFF, FIND FOR THE DEFENDANT, AND BACK TO EQUAL DAMAGES AGAIN. IN OTHER WORDS, HE'S SWAYING THE JURY TO GO WITH EQUAL DAMAGES, AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT. I MEAN, HE COULD HAVE SAID "EQUAL DAMAGES" ONE TIME AND LET IT GO AT THAT -- BUT EVEN THAT WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN FAIR, BECAUSE --
Q DID YOU APPEAL THE CASE, THE VERDICT?
A NO, I DIDN'T. I FIGURED THAT MY ATTORNEY HAD ENOUGH COMMON SENSE TO DO THAT. HE KNOWS THAT I WAS --
Q DID YOU ASK HIM TO APPEAL IT, AND HE REFUSED, OR DECLINED TO DO THAT?
A I DIDN'T ASK HIM SPECIFICALLY TO, BUT I TOLD HIM I WAS DISSATISFIED WITH IT. AND I'M STILL DISSATISFIED WITH IT, BECAUSE I'M IN THE PROCESS OF PURSUING THAT FURTHER, NOW.
Q MR. KNIGHT, THE ONLY THING IS, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF A JUDGE HAD TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF BECAUSE HE KNEW SOMEBODY, YOU'D RARELY HAVE A CASE HEARD. IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY OR KNOW OF THEM, THAT'S NOT DISQUALIFYING. I FAIL TO SEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SOMEONE NAMED IVESTER AND SOMEONE NAMED BARNETT THAT YOU REALLY HAVEN'T TIED IN.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: LET ME JUST ASK --
CHAIRMAN POPE: GO AHEAD.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THIS MS. BARNETT, JUST TO CLARIFY.

Q JUDGE HUGHSTON WAS APPOINTED, LOOKING AT OUR RECORDS, IN 1985. WHEN WAS THIS MS. BARNETT APPOINTED TO THE FRANCIS MARION BOARD? WAS IT BEFORE 1985 OR --
A THIS IS THE '87 -- I JUST HAPPENED TO PICK UP -- THIS IS THE '87 LEGISLATURE MANUAL.
Q WELL, ISN'T IT A POSSIBILITY, MR. KNIGHT, THAT JUDGE HUGHSTON WAS ALREADY A JUDGE AND NOT INVOLVED IN HER SELECTION? YOU KNOW, HE WAS A JUDGE IN '85, IF SHE WAS APPOINTED IN --
A NO.
JUDGE HUGHSTON: I'D ASK THAT LATER ON, TOO.
A THE THING OF IT IS, JUDGE HUGHSTON WAS APPOINTED IN '86, I BELIEVE -- WASN'T HE?
Q '85, I BELIEVE.
A '85. WHENEVER IT WAS. AND THIS PRESTIGE TAG APPEARED ON THIS BARNETT'S CAR BEFORE -- BEFORE -- THIS TRIAL. SO THERE -- AND THIS CAR WITH THE PRESTIGE TAG HAS BEEN UP AT THE IVESTERS ALL THE TIME. AND THE OBITUARY, IF YOU REMEMBER, IN THE OBITUARY IT SHOWS THE BARNETT IS MS. IVESTER'S SISTER. CLARICE IVESTER'S SISTER. THAT'S THE CONNECTION.
SENATOR LOURIE: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE POINT HE'S TRYING TO MAKE. I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE JUDGE HUGHSTON --
CHAIRMAN POPE: YEAH, I THINK SO. MR. KNIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US?
WITNESS: NO, I GUESS THAT'S IT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: FINE. THANK YOU, SIR, FOR BEING WITH US. WE'LL ASK JUDGE HUGHSTON TO COME BACK.

WHEREUPON, THOMAS L. HUGHSTON, JR., HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, THIS IS INFORMAL, SO --
A I DIDN'T KNOW THE IVESTERS; NEVER KNEW THEM, BEFORE THAT; HAVEN'T SEEN THEM SINCE THEN. THE BARNETT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IN GREENWOOD IS MARTHA BARNETT, WIFE OF HENNISON BARNETT, WHO IS HEAD OF THE STATE TECH BOARD, AND SHE WAS -- WE APPOINTED HER TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES THAT OVERSAW LANDER, FRANCIS MARION, AND THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, BACK YEARS AGO. DON'T EVEN REMEMBER IF SHE WAS ON IT BEFORE I WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE, OR AFTERWARDS, OR WHATEVER. BUT THAT'S THE BARNETT I ASSUME HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
Q IT'S A DIFFERENT BARNETT THAN THE ONE IN THAT OBITUARY?
A YEAH, AS FAR AS I KNOW. BUT I NEVER MET THE IVESTERS BEFORE, NEVER HAVE SEEN THEM SINCE, NEVER ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT TIME IN COURT. NOBODY CAME BACK TO MY CHAMBERS. ANYBODY WHO CAME BACK THERE -- IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE OLD ANDERSON COURTHOUSE, THE JUDGE'S CHAMBERS, AS IN MANY OF THE COURTHOUSES, IS PRACTICALLY A LAWYER'S LOUNGE ALSO AND PEOPLE ARE COMING AND GOING BACK THERE ALL THE TIME, SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT. BUT ANYWAY, ANYTIME, ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE, I ASSURE YOU THAT I HAD BOTH LAWYERS IN THERE; THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING IMPROPER SAID OR DONE ABOUT THIS CASE.
Q DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF THIS CASE?
A OTHER THAN -- OF COURSE, I REALLY DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION, OTHER THAN JUST THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE CASE AND THE FACT THAT, OF COURSE, AFTERWARDS, MR. KNIGHT ALSO FILED A GRIEVANCE AGAINST ME, WHICH WAS INVESTIGATED AND DISMISSED AT THAT TIME. AND THAT'S ALL I KNOW.

Q NOBODY EVER CONTACTED YOU, JUDGE, ON BEHALF OF THIS MATTER, DURING THE TRIAL OR BEFORE THE TRIAL OR ANYTHING?
A NO. NO.

Q AND HIS LAWYER DIDN'T FILE ANY POST-TRIAL MOTIONS COMPLAINING ABOUT ANY OF THE THINGS MR. KNIGHT IS COMPLAINING ABOUT?
A NO.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER IF ANY EXCEPTIONS WERE TAKEN TO YOUR CHARGE? APPARENTLY, HE MADE A REFERENCE TO YOUR CHARGE.
A I DON'T RECALL.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO ASK OF JUDGE HUGHSTON?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.
SENATOR LOURIE: NO.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I HAVE ONE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. HENDRICKS?

Q AS FAR AS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, NO ONE APPOINTED THOSE PEOPLE; THEY WERE ELECTED TO THE STATE BOARD, AND OF COURSE, FRANCIS MARION -- THEY'RE ALL ELECTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
SENATOR LOURIE: I MOVE WE PROCEED.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY, JUDGE. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT JUDGESHIP. I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A SHORT REST ROOM BREAK, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH Y'ALL. WE'LL TAKE FIVE OR TEN MINUTES. WHEN EVERYBODY GETS BACK, WE'LL RESUME.

CHAIRMAN POPE: OUR NEXT SCREENING IS FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT JUDGE, RODNEY PEEPLES. JUDGE PEEPLES, IF YOU WOULD, COME AROUND, PLEASE.

WHEREUPON, RODNEY A. PEEPLES, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED LAST IN 1986, AND YOU WERE ALSO SCREENED IN DECEMBER OF '87. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY THAT HAS BEEN FURNISHED?
A I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION OR AMENDMENT, JUDGE?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A CERTAINLY NOT.
Q THAT WILL BE DONE.

1. Rodney A. Peeples

Home Address: Business Address:

116 Fairway Lane P. O. Box 426

Barnwell, SC 29812 Barnwell County Courthouse

Barnwell, SC 29812

2. He was born in Hampton County, South Carolina on January 8, 1940. He is presently 52 years old.

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

4. He was married to Claudia Glenn Waites in Columbia, South Carolina on August 12, 1962. He has two children: Janie Glenn, age 26 (employed by Collins and Aikman of Charlotte, North Carolina Department of Human Resources); and Katie Waites, age 22 (attending graduate school at the University of South Carolina, obtaining a master's degree in speech pathology).

5. Military Service: N/A

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1958-1961, received Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration in 3 years; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, September 1961 - January 1964, conferred Juris Doctorate Degree in 2 1/2 years.

7. In college and law school he was a member of the Kappa Alpha Order and Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity. Because he had to work full time to pay his way through undergraduate and law school, he had very little time except to study. He was a Page for the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1959-1964, and his duties included proofreading the entire Legislative Manual annually. He was Assistant Chief Page from 1962-1964.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

He has been very active on the local, state and national levels in continuing legal/judicial education. He served for three years as a member of the South Carolina Judicial Continuing Legal Education Commission, 1986-1989. The Commission planned and presented the judicial education programs for the Judges of South Carolina. He has complied with the Appellate Court Rule 504 for Judicial Continuing Legal Education and attended these courses annually. In September, 1991, he completed the one-week program of The National Judicial College on Personal Computers and the Automation of the Court. In October, 1991, he graduated from the one-week National Judicial College course on Judicial Productivity and Stress.

Additionally, he has attended National Legal and Judicial Conferences during the past five years on Presiding in Criminal Court; Court Technology; Aids and the Court; The Future of the Courts in America; Bio-Ethics; and Courts and the Needs of the Elderly and Disabled.

Furthermore, as the Judicial Member of the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association from 1988-1991, he participated in the funding and planning of numerous programs at the annual and mid-year meetings of the American Bar Association during the past five years.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:

He lectured at the Bridge-the-Gap Program for the newly admitted lawyers to the South Carolina Bar. He has lectured at the school for new South Carolina Circuit Judges, seminars for law clerks and staff attorneys, Clinics Program at the University of South Carolina Law School, and South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Programs. He was a faculty advisor at the four-week General Jurisdiction Session at the National Judicial College at the University of Nevada, Reno in 1978 and 1980. He was a faculty member for the General Jurisdiction Session at The National Judicial College in 1979 and lectured on Judicial Ethics for Judges, Courts and the News Media, and Courts and the Community. He was on a panel at the South Carolina Defense Attorneys Meeting in November, 1991, which was approved for CLE credits for attorneys. On several occasions he has lectured and been on panels for the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association as well as the South Carolina Bar Association at the South Carolina Bar mid-year and annual meetings.

10. Published Books or Articles: He co-authored the textbook, Ethics for Judges - National Judicial College Publication, 1982 - currently used in General Jurisdiction Courses for all new judges at The National Judicial College.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

April 17, 1964 Became associated with the firm of Blatt and Fales in Barnwell, South Carolina

May 1, 1966 Became a partner in law firm of Blatt, Fales and Peeples, December 4, 1974

December 5, 1974 - Resident Circuit Judge of the Second

present Judicial Circuit

He was an active trial attorney in local, state and federal courts in civil litigation, criminal defense and appellate work.

20. Judicial Office:

Elected Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit on February 13, 1974

Qualified December 5, 1974

Re-elected without opposition in 1976, 1980 and 1986

General Jurisdiction Trial Judge handling civil, criminal and equity cases, appeals from Probate and Magistrate's Court, appeals from state agencies under Administrative Procedures Act, including utility rate hikes, workers' compensation, employment security, etc.

As of December 31, 1991, he is the senior Circuit Court Judge in South Carolina in his 18th year of service.

He has presided as Circuit Judge in each of the 46 counties and all 16 judicial circuits of South Carolina. He has presided in the trial of thousands of criminal and civil cases and heard numerous appeals.

He was appointed as an Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court - June, 1984; December, 1986; and February, 1987 terms.

He would call attention to the criminal and civil work load reports for the Second Circuit, where he has been Chief Administrative Judge for 18 of the last 24 months.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

Since he has been on the bench for over 17 years, it is difficult to single out 5 cases, even among the most significant. He lists the following because they involve civil, criminal matters, appellate cases and novel issues:

(a) Joseph Carl Shaw v. State of South Carolina, 276 S.C. 190, 277 S.E.2d 140 (1981).

This was a high profile death penalty case in Richland Court in which he presided in the nonjury trial for Post Conviction Relief. He issued a 28-page order that was affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court, United States District Federal Court, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. As a result, Shaw was the first criminal defendant electrocuted in South Carolina since the reinstatement of the death penalty in South Carolina in 1977.

(b) Nichols v. State Farm, 279 S.C. 336, 306 S.E.2d 616 (1983).

This was a case brought by the insured against the insurer for bad-faith refusal to pay first-party benefits, and this novel issue was presented at trial in Aiken County. The South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously affirmed his ruling which recognized for the first time in South Carolina a cause of action for bad-faith refusal to pay first-party benefits under an insurance policy.

(c) Casey v. Richland County Council, 282 S.C. 387, 320 S.E.2d 443 (1984).

As Acting Associate Justice, he wrote this unanimous Supreme Court opinion. The case, heard in June of 1984, held that a surcharge levied by Richland County violated the Equal Protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions, and also concluded the proposed surcharge was a tax rather than an assessment.

(d) Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984).

He was the trial judge in this negligence action in Horry County which recognized for the first time in South Carolina the granting of a new trial nisi additur for damages or in the alternative, for a new trial. The South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously affirmed his ruling.

(e) State Farm v. Wannamaker, 291 S.C. 518, 354 S.E.2d 555 (1987).

In this declaratory judgment action in Greenville County to determine if underinsured motorist coverage was available to insured for the death of his daughter, as Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, he authored a unanimous opinion which set forth the standard insurers must meet in offering underinsured coverage to its policyholders. The case further held that under the particular facts the insured was entitled to coverage but could not stack his underinsured coverage.

23. He was a candidate for Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1987, and withdrew prior to the election.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships: He is not an active participant in the stock market and has neither purchased nor sold any stock since 1983. If a case is before him involving a company in which he owns stock, then he discloses this information on the record and recuses himself in the case. He can only recall several instances in 18 years as a Judge in which it has been necessary for him to step down from hearing a case.

31. Sued: About 12 years ago, a woman named Hiers had pro se sued Judge Peeples and his former law partner, Judge Sol Blatt, Jr., alleging they had certified the number of acres in a tract of land to be more than it actually was. They had only certified the title, not acreage, and the case was dismissed.

In 1985, he and the other partners in PPS Partners, which own a shopping center in Sumter, South Carolina, were sued. At issue was the legal interpretation as to option language "subject to sale of shopping center as a whole." The lease with the option language was entered into in 1963 between prior owners of the shopping center as they purchased the property in 1982. There were no damages sought, nor any allegation of wrongdoing and summary judgment was granted as a matter of law for the defendants.

Subsequent to the death of Pauline Knight on June 11, 1986, in the capacity as the executor of her estate, he was substituted as a party defendant in a declaratory judgment action which was on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

From 1977 to 1986, he was named as a defendant in four cases which were filed in the United States District Court:

Bobby Ray Arthurs v. Judge Rodney Peeples, CA 77-2205.

Earl T. Moultrie, et al. v. State of South Carolina, et al., CA 78-1618.

Penne W. White v. Judge Rodney Peeples, et al., CA 85-3159.

Steven Wayne Kellett and Dennis G. Mitchell v. Rodney A. Peeples, CA 86-2708.

The cases were brought pro se by defendants in criminal cases who were at the time incarcerated. Each was dismissed without service of process, and he was not served and did not receive notice of the cases having been filed.

Also, in 1980, he was named a defendant in a foreclosure action, McPhaul v. Felder, et al., in Barnwell County. The complaint alleged he owned a mortgage that had been paid which was correct. The Master's Report held that he had never been served and was therefore not a proper party because the mortgage had been satisfied of record.

32. Disciplined: He received a public reprimand from the Supreme Court on December 9, 1988. [In the Matter of Rodney A. Peeples, 297 S.C. 36, 374 S.E.2d 674 (1988)].

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was October 2, 1991, by Dr. Allen H. Johnson, Department of Medicine, MUSC, 171 Ashley Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29425.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

Barnwell County Bar Association, 1964-present; South Carolina Bar Association, 1964-present; American Bar Association, 1964-present; American Bar Association, Judicial Member of Board of Governors, 1988-1991; American Bar Association, Member of House of Delegates, 1988-1993; Chairman, National Conference of State Trial Judges in United States, 1985-1986; Member, The National Judicial College Board of Directors, 1989-1994, presently Vice Chairman; American Judicature Society, 1981-present, Member of Board of Directors, 1986-1989; State Justice Institute Board of Directors, 1985-1989, Vice Chair, 1985-1987

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:

First Baptist Church of Barnwell; Mason Harmony Lodge No. 17, A.F.M.; Member of Board of Visitors of Clemson University, 1987-1989; Member of Columbia College Parents Advisory Council, 1987-1991

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) John J. Sanders, Vice-President

First Citizens Bank

P. O. Box 1347, Barnwell, SC 29812

(b) Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge

P. O. Box 835, Charleston, SC 29402

(c) William Clyburn, Sr.

Commissioner, Workers' Compensation

P. O. Box 1715, Columbia, SC 29202-1715

(d) I. S. Leevy Johnson, Esquire

P. O. Box 1431, Columbia, SC 29202

(e) Thomas E. McCutchen, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 11209, Columbia, SC 29211-1209

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE REPORTED THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS REPORTED A PUBLIC REPRIMAND FILED BY THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST YOU ON DECEMBER 9, 1988. WE'VE CHECKED THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, BARNWELL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE BARNWELL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I., AND ALL OF THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF BARNWELL COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS WERE CHECKED, AND I BELIEVE YOU'VE BEEN SUED ON APPROXIMATELY FOUR OCCASIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS, IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A JUDGE, I BELIEVE.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q COULD YOU SUMMARIZE THOSE ACTIONS, FOR US?
A THESE WERE BY PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED IN CRIMINAL COURT. I, FRANKLY, WAS NEVER SERVED WITH ANY OF THOSE SUITS. ALL OF THEM WERE SUMMARILY DISMISSED AS BEING UNFOUNDED. I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS IN THE CASE, BECAUSE WE NEVER WERE SERVED, AND MANY OF THEM INCLUDED SUING THE SOLICITOR, GOVERNOR, THE WARDEN.
Q ALL OF THEM WERE RESOLVED FAVORABLY?
A YES, SIR.
Q THEY WERE ALL MULTI-DEFENDANT TYPE ACTIONS BY PRISONERS OR OTHER DISGRUNTLED LITIGANTS?
A TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YES.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS REPORTED TO BE EXCELLENT. THAT IS STILL THE CASE, I'M SURE?
A I HOPE. YES.
Q YES, SIR. I THINK AT ONE TIME YOU HAD HAD A LITTLE BIT OF BACK PROBLEM?
A FIVE YEARS AGO.
Q THAT'S RESOLVED ITSELF FAVORABLY?
A YES, SIR.
Q GOOD. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATION. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. WE'VE HAD TWO PERSONS FILE COMPLAINTS, AND I DON'T THINK BUT ONE OF THEM IS PRESENT. BUT WE'LL FIND OUT, I GUESS, IN A MINUTE, WHETHER THAT'S ACCURATE OR NOT. JUDGE, CONCERNING THE PUBLIC REPRIMAND, THAT WAS FILED BY THE SUPREME COURT AFTER THE LAST SCREENING YOU WERE IN. COULD YOU TELL US WHAT, IF ANY, EFFECT THAT HAS HAD ON YOUR PERFORMANCE ON THE BENCH?
A MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO NOT FEEL THAT IT HAS HAD ANY EFFECT ON MY PERFORMANCE ON THE BENCH. I ACKNOWLEDGE THE PUBLIC REPRIMAND, AND I HAVE ACCEPTED THAT; AND I HAVE PUT THAT BEHIND ME, AND I BELIEVE THE PUBLIC AND ATTORNEYS HAVE ALSO PUT IT BEHIND THEM. IN THE FOUR-PLUS YEARS SINCE THAT OCCURRED, I'VE NOT HAD A LITIGANT, NOR AN ATTORNEY, MOVE TO RECUSE ME FROM HEARING ANY CASE, AND I DO NOT SEE THAT IT HAS IMPEDED MY ABILITY TO SERVE AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND I DO NOT SEE THAT IT WOULD IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH MY ABILITY TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE.
Q HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMMUNITY REACTION? YOU MENTIONED THAT NO LITIGANT HAS ASKED YOU TO RECUSE YOURSELF BECAUSE OF IT, IN ANY WAY. HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMMUNITY REACTION, ADVERSE, IN ANY WAY, TO YOUR RECEIVING THAT?
A SYMPATHETIC. EMPATHETIC. NO, SIR.
Q MORE POSITIVE THAN NEGATIVE?
A YES, SIR.
Q HAS ANYTHING -- HAVE YOU FELT YOU NEEDED TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE WAY YOU CONDUCT COURT AS A RESULT OF THAT REPRIMAND?
A NO, SIR.
Q AND YOU FURNISHED US WITH STATISTICS IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT, AND THEY ARE CERTAINLY IMPRESSIVE IN TERMS OF MOVEMENT OF CASES. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE SECOND CIRCUIT IS MORE CURRENT IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL AREAS THAN THE OTHER CIRCUITS ARE.
A YES, SIR. AS I STATED IN MY LETTER, I, OF COURSE, ATTRIBUTE THAT ALSO TO THE COMPLETE COOPERATION OF THE CLERKS OF COURT, THEIR STAFFS, THE ATTORNEYS, AND MANY OTHERS BESIDES MYSELF; BUT I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT LENDS ITSELF TO THE APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION OF CASES IN A TIMELY FASHION, BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL.
Q JUDGE, WE'VE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF IT. COULD YOU TELL US YOUR PHILOSOPHY AND YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT THAT SUBJECT OF TEMPERAMENT?
A CERTAINLY. MR. CHAIRMAN, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT EVERY JUDGE HAVE APPROPRIATE TEMPERAMENT. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. TO ME, TEMPERAMENT IS CONDUCT; YOUR DEMEANOR, YOUR BEHAVIOR; HOW YOU ACT. AND EVERY JUDGE MUST BE POLITE, PATIENT, COURTEOUS TO THE LITIGANTS, TO THE ATTORNEYS, TO THE PUBLIC, TO THE JURORS, THOSE THAT ARE THERE TO OBSERVE THE COURT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE JUDGE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT THE PROPER DIGNITY AND DECORUM OF THE COURT IS INDEED MAINTAINED, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PROPER FORUM IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE A FAIR TRIAL FOR ALL PARTIES, FOR ALL LITIGANTS. AS YOU WELL KNOW, OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS AN ADVERSARIAL ONE. THE ADVOCATES FOR EACH SIDE WILL REPRESENT THEIR CLIENT, AND HOPEFULLY, THE ADVOCATES WILL PROMOTE THEIR CLIENT'S CAUSE WITH ZEAL. IT'S A NATURAL RESULT, FROM TIME TO TIME, FOR FRICTION TO ARISE BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BECAUSE THEY ARE ADVOCATING DIFFERENT POSITIONS. AND THE JUDGE IS IN A POSTURE THAT HE OR SHE MUST MAINTAIN A PROPER BALANCE, TO SEE THAT THAT DOES NOT GET OUT OF HAND, AND THAT THERE IS PROPER DECORUM IN THE COURT, BECAUSE IF THE JUDGE DOESN'T MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE TEMPERAMENT, THEN OBVIOUSLY, THOSE WHO APPEAR IN THE COURT WILL NOT RESPECT EITHER THE COURT OR THE LEGAL SYSTEM. SO OBVIOUSLY, TEMPERAMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT'S AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT THAT EVERY JUDGE SHOULD POSSESS.
Q AND IN SPEAKING WITH A FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE, HE ALSO EXPRESSED INTEREST IN THE IDEA OF THE WORK ETHIC; AND I NOTICE, FROM LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CANDIDACY, IN SUPPORT OF YOU, THAT THEY COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT YOU ARE NOT AVERSE TO WORKING LONG HOURS. HAS THAT BEEN A PROBLEM AT ALL, AS FAR AS WORKING TOO MANY LONG HOURS, FOR THE LITIGANTS OR THE COURT SYSTEM, OR IS THAT -- IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WORKING LONG HOURS. YOU DON'T FEEL THAT OVERBURDENS THE COURT SYSTEM, AT ALL, IN TERMS OF FATIGUE ON THE JURORS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
A WELL, I TRY TO BE VERY CONSIDERATE OF THE JURORS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN A FIVE-DAY CASE THAT WE HAD LAST WEEK, WE STOPPED COURT AT 5:30 OR A QUARTER TO 6:00 IN THE AFTERNOON. BUT THERE WERE EXPERT WITNESSES WHO HAD TO CATCH A PLANE TO GET BACK TO CHICAGO, AND YOU HAVE TO BE CONSIDERATE OF PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE THAT HAVE APPOINTMENTS, AND TAKE THEM OUT OF ORDER; AND I DID STAY WITH THE ATTORNEYS AFTER THE JURY LEFT, TO REVIEW THE CHARGES AND FORMS OF VERDICT, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT MYSELF, SENATOR, BUT WE FRANKLY NEED SOME MORE CIRCUIT JUDGES. WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH JUDGES TO KEEP UP WITH THE CASE LOAD AND THE INCREASE OF IT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT MYSELF, AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE, BUT I --
Q DO YOU SEE ANY RELIEF FROM THE NINE NEW JUDGES? OF COURSE, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE BENCH LONG, BUT DO YOU SEE PROGRESS BEING MADE, SO TO SPEAK, IN THE BACKLOG?
A FRANKLY, THE BACKLOG IS NOT DECREASING, BUT RATHER IT IS INCREASING. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE JULY 1 OF LAST YEAR, WE'VE HAD, I BELIEVE -- WITH JUDGE STEPHEN'S REPLACEMENT, AND THEN JUDGE FIELDS RETIRING IN AUGUST -- THERE WILL BE 21 JUDGES WITH LESS THAN ONE YEAR'S EXPERIENCE; AND IT JUST TAKES TIME TO LEARN TO BE A JUDGE AND TO MOVE CASES AND TO LEARN TO ADMINISTER A DOCKET. PUTTING THE ROBE ON DOESN'T MAKE YOU KNOW A LOT OF THINGS, AND YOU KNOW, AFTER 18 YEARS, I'M STILL LEARNING, MYSELF. AND I THINK IT WILL HELP, BUT I STILL THINK, SENATOR, THAT WE ARE AT LEAST 15 TO 20 JUDGES SHORT, ON THE CIRCUIT BENCH, WITH THE INCREASE IN THE CRIMINAL SIDE OF COURT AND THE CIVIL SIDE OF COURT. AND THE SUPREME COURT RULED JUST LAST WEEK THAT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON AN OPEN ACCOUNT OR COLLECTION CASE. AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO DO A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. IN MAGISTRATE'S COURT, YOU GET A $2,100 COLLECTION CASE UP THERE, AND YOU BRING IN 100 JURORS AT $25 A DAY, IN BARNWELL -- IT'S COST-PROHIBITIVE. AND THEY'VE RULED CLAIM ON DELIVERY -- I DON'T MEAN THAT AS A CRITICISM, JUST AS AN OBSERVATION. BUT WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE A JURY TRIAL TO A CLAIM ON DELIVERY OF A MOBILE HOME, OR A PICKUP TRUCK, HOW MANY MORE TERMS OF COURT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE? HOW MANY MORE JURORS ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO BRING IN? WHEN, ECONOMICALLY, CAN WE DRAW THE LINE THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE DOING? BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: THE NEW JUDGES, I'VE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH THEM, AND I THINK THEY WILL HELP SOMEWHAT, BUT I THINK WE SORELY NEED ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGES. I DON'T THINK IT'LL GET CAUGHT UP ANYTIME SOON.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. ANYONE? REPRESENTATIVE HODGES?

Q JUDGE, YOU KNOW, I'M ONE OF THE LAWYERS WHO DOESN'T PRACTICE IN COURT ANYMORE, SO I'M NOT IN THE LINE OF FIRE AND DON'T GET A CHANCE TO OBSERVE SOME OF THE OTHER JUDGES, LIKE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE. I DID WANT TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PUBLIC REPRIMAND.
A SURE.
Q ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME, IN LOOKING AT IT, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I'VE GOT, IS: I'M NOT REAL SURE, IN READING THE INFORMATION, WHAT YOUR POSITION IS, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU FELT THERE WAS ANY WRONGDOING ON YOUR PART. DID YOU FEEL YOU DID ANYTHING WRONG IN THE HANDLING OF THE KNIGHT MATTER?
A REPRESENTATIVE HODGES, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO SECOND-GUESS THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME COURT; AND AS I HAVE STATED, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE RESULT OF THAT, AND I DON'T SEE -- I'VE TRIED TO PUT THAT BEHIND ME. AND I DON'T -- I WOULDN'T ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN IT OR RE-TRY IT, HERE. I WELCOME YOUR QUESTION, BUT I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I WAS PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED.
Q OKAY. I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT YOUR PERSONAL FEELING IS. YOU DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ABOUT THAT? ABOUT WHETHER YOU FEEL YOU DID ANYTHING WRONG?
A YOU KNOW, HAVING PRESIDED IN SO MANY CRIMINAL CASES THROUGH THE YEARS -- AND I KNOW, FROM HAVING HAD YOU IN MY COURT IN LANCASTER, THAT YOU USED TO PRACTICE SOME CRIMINAL LAW -- I DON'T KNOW OF MANY DEFENDANTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED, WHO FEEL OTHER THAN THAT WHICH THEY HAD PLED, WHICH WAS "NOT GUILTY." AND I'M NOT PLEADING NOT GUILTY, HERE, TODAY; DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME.
Q OKAY. THE LAST QUESTION I'VE GOT IS, SO I CAN FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE, TO THE SUPREME COURT. THEIR OPTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN: TO FIND NO WRONGDOING; TO GIVE A PRIVATE REPRIMAND; OR, A PUBLIC REPRIMAND. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT THEIR OPTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN?
A I THINK THEY COULD HAVE DISMISSED IT, THEY COULD HAVE RETURNED A PUBLIC REPRIMAND, OR A PRIVATE REPRIMAND.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL.

Q JUDGE, HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE ENDORSEMENTS OF ANY BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN YOUR DISTRICT?
A YES, SIR.
Q COULD YOU TELL US WHICH ONES?
A BARNWELL, BAMBERG, ALLENDALE, JASPER, HAMPTON.
Q ALL THOSE COUNTIES' BAR ASSOCIATIONS HAVE ENDORSED YOU?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THIS TOOK PLACE SINCE THE PUBLIC REPRIMAND?
A TOOK PLACE IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, YES, SIR. SINCE I APPLIED FOR RE-ELECTION.
Q ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
A YES, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. HENDRICKS?

Q YOU SAY YOU DIDN'T FEEL LIKE YOUR ABILITY TO CONDUCT CIRCUIT COURT HAS BEEN IMPAIRED IN ANY WAY, BUT THERE'S BEEN NO DEMONSTRATION -- NO CATCALLS, OR ANYTHING ELSE?
A NO, SIR. NO, SIR. MATTER OF FACT, I HELD COURT IN PICKENS, JULY 30 OF LAST YEAR, SO I'VE BEEN UP THERE.
Q PRETTY SCENERY UP THERE.
A IT IS NICE. MY WIFE'S FAMILY WAS FROM LIBERTY, SIX MILE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: SENATOR MCCONNELL, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO DOWN TO THE FLOOR FOR A FEW MINUTES ON A MATTER THAT THE HOUSE SENT OVER.
SENATOR LOURIE: YOU THINK I NEED TO COME DOWN TO ADD ANY ENLIGHTENMENT?
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY? WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE COMPLAINANTS -- SINGULAR, PLURAL, WHATEVER THAT IS -- IN A MINUTE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, AT THIS POINT?
WITNESS: NO, SIR. OTHER THAN, I COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IN LISTENING TO MR. KNIGHT. PRO SE PEOPLE -- IT'S DIFFICULT. YOU HAVE TO JUST LET THEM HAVE THEIR SAY. TOO MANY TIMES, WE HAVE PRO SE PEOPLE; THAT MAKES IT REALLY DIFFICULT. YOU'D MAKE A GOOD JUDGE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION. IN TERMS OF THE COMPLAINTS, THE ONE WHERE THE WITNESS IS NOT HERE, ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT NOW WITH JUDGE PEEPLES, OR ARE WE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER WE --
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE GOING TO SEE IF SHE'S HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE HERE.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: OKAY.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE FIRST WITNESS COMPLAINT FORM THAT WE GOT WAS SIGNED BY CLAIRE AHRENS, AND I ASSUME SHE'S NOT HERE BECAUSE MS. SATTERWHITE DIDN'T KNOW HER. IS SHE HERE?

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE SCREENING COMMITTEE HAS TRADITIONALLY NOT CONSIDERED COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE THAT DID NOT COME, BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO CROSS-EXAMINE. HER COMPLAINT RELATES TO TEMPERAMENT ON THE BENCH, BUT IT DOES NOT STATE A DATE; IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY A CASE, OR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED. IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS, AND MS. AHRENS IS NOT HERE. I WOULD SUGGEST, IF IT SUITS THE COMMITTEE --
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: JUST RECEIVE IT AS INFORMATION.
CHAIRMAN POPE: -- WE WILL PASS OVER THIS COMPLAINT, IN CASE MS. AHRENS COMES IN LATE AND THEN CAN TELL US WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. WE HAVE ANOTHER COMPLAINT -- DOES THAT SUIT THE COMMITTEE?
SENATOR LOURIE: YES, SIR.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: YES, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: -- MS. BARBARA SHULER HAS FURNISHED US WITH A COMPLAINT AND A GOOD MANY PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT ALL OF Y'ALL HAVE IN YOUR FOLDERS. MS. SHULER, ARE YOU WITH US TODAY?
MS. SHULER: YES, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WOULD YOU COME TO THE END OF THE TABLE, PLEASE?

WHEREUPON, BARBARA B. SHULER, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
A BARBARA B. SHULER. P.O. BOX 574, ELLOREE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29047.
Q ELLOREE IS IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY, I BELIEVE?
A YES, SIR.
Q MS. SHULER, WE HAVE YOUR PACKET, AND I THINK WE HAVE REVIEWED IT. AND WE WANT YOU, IF YOU WOULD, TO TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT YOUR COMPLAINT IS. NOW, YOU REALIZE THE SCOPE OF THIS HEARING IS TO DETERMINE THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE -- IN THIS CASE, THE JUDGESHIP CANDIDACY OF JUDGE RODNEY PEEPLES. WE WANT YOU TO FOCUS, IF YOU WOULD, ON THAT ISSUE.
A YES, SIR.
Q GO AHEAD.
A COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WE'RE A FAMILY HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND WERE PURSUING A CASE IN COURT. WE WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LEGAL PROCEDURES, AND HAD, OF COURSE, TO RELY ON OUR ATTORNEYS. WE WENT THROUGH WHAT WE PERCEIVED TO BE THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, AND ENDED UP INTO A VERY GRAVE SITUATION INVOLVING THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN SOUTH CAROLINA. IT ALSO INVOLVED THE FACT THAT IT WENT DOWN INTO THE THIRD JUDGE OF JUDGE RODNEY PEEPLES. WE WERE NEVER INFORMED BY OUR THEN-ATTORNEY WHAT WAS BEING DONE TO US, AT ALL. WE DID NOT KNOW AND HAD NOT SEEN ANY OF THE PAPERWORK ON THIS MATTER UNTIL MAY 28, 1985. BUT PRIOR TO THAT, AND PRIOR TO KNOWING WHAT TRANSPIRED IN JUDGE PEEPLES' COURT, WE CONTACTED, PERSONALLY, JUDGE PEEPLES, WHEN A HEARING AGAIN WAS POSTPONED. AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME AND IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT JUDGE PEEPLES TOLD ME THAT HE FELT WE HAD BEEN DEALT WITH UNFAIRLY AND UNJUSTLY, BUT THAT THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD DO ABOUT IT. CONSIDERING THE OUTCOME AND WHAT WE KNOW NOW ABOUT THE CASE, I DO FEEL LIKE THAT JUDGE PEEPLES COULD AND SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO THIS MATTER WHICH HAS BECOME EVEN MORE GRAVE THAN WHAT IT ORIGINALLY STARTED OUT.
Q NOW, MS. SHULER, YOUR COMPLAINT -- YOUR LEGAL PROBLEM -- WAS WITH A CONTRACTOR THAT BUILT YOUR HOME?
A RENOVATED THE HOME, SIR.
Q RENOVATED YOUR HOME?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU ORIGINALLY HAD AN ATTORNEY FILE SUIT AGAINST THAT CONTRACTOR?
A YES, SIR. WE HAD TWO. ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS --
Q YOU HAD TOM BOLAND --
A TOM BOLAND --
Q -- AND JERRI MEALING?
A -- AND JERRI MEALING. AND, WELL, MR. BOLAND BROUGHT IN MS. MEALING BECAUSE HE SAID SHE WAS A CONTRACT SPECIALIST.
Q AND LATER, YOU HAD MR. CHANDLER -- WAS IT?
A YES, SIR.
Q HE HANDLED IT?
A AND HE HANDLED THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE, SIR, UNDER JUDGE PEEPLES.
Q BUT THEN YOU HAD AN EILEEN BARRY, WHO TOOK IT OVER?
A THAT WAS ATTORNEY NUMBER FOUR, SIR. YES, SIR.
Q BUT THE APPEAL -- YOU FINALLY HAD AN APPEAL, AND THAT WAS BY ALBERT HINKLE, A LAWYER IN COLUMBIA?
A YES, SIR. THAT WAS ATTORNEY NUMBER FIVE, AND TO DATE, WE, THE SHULERS, HAVE STILL NOT HAD THE RIGHT TO A COURT -- DAY IN COURT.
Q NOW, THE APPEAL MR. HINKLE TOOK UP FOR YOU WAS ONE THAT WAS FROM AN ORDER PASSED BY A JUDGE NAMED JUDGE WILLIAM HOWELL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q IN OTHER WORDS, YOU NEVER APPEALED AN ORDER OF JUDGE PEEPLES. YOU APPEALED AN ORDER FROM JUDGE HOWELL.
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU WON, IN THE SENSE THAT JUDGE HOWELL DISMISSED THE CASE AGAINST YOU, OR BY YOU, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU COULD RESTORE IT IN THE FUTURE ONLY IF YOU PAID COSTS OF ABOUT 2,000-AND-SOME DOLLARS --
A WE WERE PENALIZED -- MY HUSBAND AND I WERE PENALIZED -- $2,187, SENATOR POPE, BECAUSE THEY SAID WE HAD CAUSED THE PROBLEMS.
Q -- AND THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULED THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SAID THAT WAS EXCESSIVE AND YOU SHOULD ONLY HAVE TO PAY $100-AND-WHAT?
A IT WAS $187, SIR, AND THAT WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET, OR SO TO SPEAK, OUT OF HIS OWN PERSONAL CHECK. IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CHECK OUT FROM THE OFFICE FROM WHERE HE WAS. IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN PERSONAL MONEY. HE COULD HAVE PULLED IT OUT OF HIS WALLET OR POCKET, AS THE JUDGE SAID IN COURT -- THIS WAS JUDGE STUCKEY -- OR HE COULD HAVE WRITTEN A CHECK ON HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT.
Q BUT AFTER THE SUPREME COURT ORDER, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO REINSTITUTE OR REOPEN YOUR LAWSUIT, YOU HAD TO BASICALLY PAY $180-SOMETHING.
A $187. BUT, THE CHECK CAME FROM THE LAW FIRM ITSELF, AND JUDGE STUCKEY, IN THAT HEARING AND MOTION, SAID THAT THE CHECK COULD NOT BE PAID OUT FROM THE LAW FIRM; IT HAD TO HAVE COME OUT OF HIS POCKET OR A PERSONAL CHECK OF HIS OWN.
Q BUT AFTER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, DID YOU, IN FACT, EVER REOPEN YOUR LAWSUIT, OR RESTORE THAT LAWSUIT?
A NO, SIR. WE HAVE NEVER HAD OUR DAY IN COURT. NEVER. IN FACT, WE ARE STILL FIGHTING FOR THAT RIGHT.
Q DIDN'T -- ATTORNEY HINKLE GOT THE SUCCESSFUL APPEAL FOR YOU, BUT HE'S NOT REPRESENTING YOU ANYMORE?
A NO, SIR, HE IS NOT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT ON THE APPEAL, SIR, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THAT WAS NOT AN APPEAL, THROUGH THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT.
Q I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE POSTURE YOUR CASE IS IN, BUT YOUR MATERIAL -- WHICH IS QUITE THICK -- THEY RECITE YOUR DISSATISFACTION WITH SOMETHING LIKE TEN JUDGES, AND WE'VE REVIEWED THE FILE. WHAT WE SEE IS THAT JUDGE PEEPLES SIGNED ONE OR TWO CONSENT ORDERS, NONE OF WHICH RELATED TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF YOUR CASE.
A I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA -- WE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT OUR ATTORNEY DID. ALL WE WERE TOLD IS THAT WE WERE GOING INTO COURT. WE NEVER GOT INTO COURT, AND WE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY. MY HUSBAND, AT THE TIME, WAS AT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY, AND COULD ONLY BE RELEASED THROUGH A SUBPOENA OR A DEATH. NO SUBPOENA WAS EVER SUBMITTED. AT THAT POINT IS WHEN I CONTACTED JUDGE PEEPLES TO FIND OUT WHY HE HAD POSTPONED THE CASE.
Q YES, YOU SAID EARLIER THAT JUDGE PEEPLES SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO IT. BUT JUDGES -- THAT'S WHAT LAWYERS DO, MS. SHULER. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT A JUDGE, WHO CANNOT GET INVOLVED ON ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER OF A CONTROVERSY, EITHER TO HELP A DEFENDANT OR A PLAINTIFF -- WHAT DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD HAVE DONE OR COULD HAVE DONE?
A I FEEL LIKE THAT THE CASE WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE INTO COURT -- WE HAD NEVER GONE TO COURT. WE WERE NEVER ALLOWED OUR DAY IN COURT. AND THE FACT THAT WE DID SUBMIT A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ATTORNEYS -- WE WERE TOLD THE ATTORNEYS DID NOTHING WRONG. IF THE ATTORNEYS DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, AND WE NEVER GOT INTO COURT; THEN THAT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, LEAVES THE JUDGE.
Q CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY THAT JUDGE PEEPLES DID WRONG, THAT WAS ANY WORSE, SAY, THAN THE THINGS YOU SAID THAT JUDGE SMITH OR JUDGE COTTINGHAM OR JUDGE HOWELL OR JUDGE STUCKEY DID WRONG?
A SENATOR POPE, I FEEL LIKE THAT THE BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE -- AND WITH US TALKING TO HIM PERSONALLY -- THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING VERY WRONG IN THIS MATTER; THAT HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO IT, TO SEE JUST WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. HERE WAS A FAMILY THAT WAS TRYING TO GET INTO COURT, HAD THEIR CASES READY AND HAD, AT THIS POINT, TWO ATTORNEYS PRIOR TO THE THIRD ONE; AND YET, THEY NEVER KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. THEY WERE NEVER INFORMED, AND NEVER TOLD.
Q MS. SHULER, IS THERE ANYTHING PROHIBITING YOU FROM REOPENING THE CASE NOW, IF YOU PAY $187?
A SIR, YOU CANNOT PAY THAT $187 BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE'S ORDER, THAT $187 COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN PAID IF IT CAME OUT OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S POCKET OR PERSONAL CHECKING ACCOUNT, AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THAT CHECK CAME FROM THE LAW FIRM ITSELF. AND THIS WAS THE VERY POINT THAT HE BROUGHT OUT IN COURT, THAT IT COULD NOT --
Q HE, WHO?
A JUDGE STUCKEY. -- THAT IT COULD NOT COME FROM THE LAW FIRM.
Q I DON'T FOLLOW YOU THERE, EXACTLY. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE --
A JUDGE STUCKEY SAID I HAD TO REPAY THE $187 ONLY BECAUSE ONE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HAD TAKEN THE MONEY OUT OF HIS POCKET. AND BY THAT, WHAT HE MEANT WAS THAT HE HAD TAKEN IT OUT OF HIS WALLET OR HAD WRITTEN A CHECK ON HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT; AND THIS IS WHY WE WERE BEING FORCED TO PAY $187.
Q WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT WAS COSTS THAT YOU HAD TO PAY, THAT HAD BEEN ADVANCED. I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT --
A $187, SIR, WAS THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK THAT WAS GIVEN TO A COURT REPORTER THAT WE WERE DEPOSITIONED IN ON 1 DECEMBER 1982. THAT WAS WHAT THE $187 WAS PAID FOR, SIR.
Q WAS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE TWO ORDERS THAT JUDGE PEEPLES SIGNED, OR THE ORDER THAT HE SIGNED CONTINUING -- I MEAN, THE NON-SUIT IN YOUR CASE?
A DURING THE TIME THAT OUR THIRD ATTORNEY DID THE WORK THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING ON OUR BEHALF, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THERE WERE TWO ORDERS BY JUDGE PEEPLES. THEN, APPARENTLY, THE ATTORNEY GOT SCARED AT THAT POINT, AND TRIED TO PUT THE CASE BACK ON THE COURT DOCKET AS A NEW CASE. AND OF COURSE, SENATOR POPE, YOU AND THE OTHERS MAY ALREADY KNOW THAT WE HAVE JUST LEARNED, IN '86 AND '87, IN WORKING WITH THE F.B.I., THAT THE CASE HAD ALREADY BEEN SETTLED. THERE WAS A MONETARY AWARD, AND THE SHULERS KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. SHULER?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.
SENATOR LOURIE: NO, SIR.
Q MS. SHULER, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'VE LEFT OUT, OR YOU WANT TO TELL US?
A NO, SIR. THAT ANSWERS TO THE TIME THAT JUDGE PEEPLES WAS ON THE BENCH, AND IT WAS TO THE THIRD ATTORNEY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, YOU CAN COME BACK AND RESPOND, IF YOU LIKE.
WHEREUPON, RODNEY A. PEEPLES, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE BUT THREE COPIES, BUT HERE IS THE KNOWLEDGE I HAVE GLEANED. I HOPE Y'ALL WILL SHARE WITH EACH OTHER. I'VE TRIED TO MAKE INQUIRY INTO THIS SITUATION, BECAUSE FRANKLY I HAVE NEVER MET MS. SHULER, AND HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF ANY CONVERSATION WITH HER, AND I STILL AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HER COMPLAINT AGAINST ME WOULD BE. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THIS LADY HAS A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LEGAL SYSTEM, BUT AS YOU WILL NOTE FROM THIS CHRONOLOGY, APPARENTLY THE LAWSUIT WAS COMMENCED JUNE 23, 1982; AND IN THE 144-PAGE DOCUMENT THAT SHE SUBMITTED TO YOUR COMMITTEE, I NOTED THERE WAS A JURY DRAWN IN THE DECEMBER 1982 TERM, AT WHICH TERM JUDGE FINNEY WAS PRESIDING. IN THAT CASE, THE JURY WAS EXCUSED AND IT WAS NOT TRIED AT THAT TIME. THEN, JUDGE SMITH SIGNED AN ORDER, MARCH 21, 1983, REFERRING IT TO A MASTER TO BE HEARD. I WAS ASSIGNED THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF 1983 TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT OF DORCHESTER, CALHOUN, AND ORANGEBURG; AND IN SUCH CAPACITY, I SIGNED A FORM ORDER OF REFERENCE, REFERRING IT TO THE MASTER, BECAUSE JUDGE SMITH HAD TRANSFERRED IT TO THE NON-JURY CALENDAR. THEN, IN JULY, I SIGNED AN ORDER EXCUSING HER FIRST TWO ATTORNEYS, AT HER REQUEST, AND WITH A NOTATION IN THE ORDER, THAT THE LAWYER PREPARED, THAT SHE HAD GOTTEN THE FILE AND AGREED -- SHE CONSENTED TO THAT CHANGE. SO THERE WAS NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE; IT WAS A MATTER OF FORM, WHAT I DID. THEN, I ASKED THEM TO PLEASE HEAR THE CASE, BACK IN JUNE, SO THAT IT COULD BE COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER, BECAUSE THE CASE WAS OVER A YEAR OLD. IT WAS A JUNE OF '82 CASE. THEN, IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, HER LAWYER, OR EITHER THE LAWYER -- MR. PRICKETT OR MR. HORGER FOR THE DEFENDANT, CROOK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, WHOEVER IT IS, SAID THE PLAINTIFF WANTED TO TAKE A VOLUNTARY NON-SUIT, AND THEY AGREED TO THAT, SO I SIGNED THE FORM ORDER DOING WHAT ALL PARTIES ASKED ME TO DO. THEN ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER, I SIGNED THE FORMAL ORDER THAT RATIFIED WHAT THEY HAD ASKED ME TO DO, TO WHICH EACH OF THOSE HAD CONSENTED.

Q NOW, AT THAT POINT, JUDGE, YOUR INVOLVEMENT ENDED IN THE CASE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A COMPLETELY. AND SHE WAS, AT ALL TIMES, MR. CHAIRMAN --
Q AND AT THE TIME YOU SIGNED THE LAST ORDER, SHE WAS NOT PREJUDICED IN HER LAWSUIT. SHE COULD HAVE RESTORED IT AT ANY TIME?
A I SPECIFICALLY HAD IN THAT ORDER "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" TO HER TO REFILE THE SUIT. IN THE FORM ORDER I SIGNED, I HANDWROTE ON THERE THAT THE DEPOSITIONS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN COULD BE USED IN A FUTURE CASE, TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE COST TO HER. SENATOR POPE, SHE WAS AT ALL TIMES REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. NUMEROUS COUNSEL. SHE'S HAD SIX LAWYERS, OVER SIX YEARS, AND THERE'S BEEN SOME EIGHT JUDGES WHO HAVE SIGNED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS IN THIS CASE. AND I DO NOT TALK TO INDIVIDUAL LITIGANTS WHEN THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEYS. SHE STATED THAT I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HER, IN WHICH I TOLD HER SHE HAD BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY. I DO NOT HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF THAT. SOMETIMES YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN PHONE, AND YOU GET CAUGHT IN A LITIGANT BEING ON THE LINE; BUT CERTAINLY, EVERY JUDGE KNOWS AND CERTAINLY I KNOW THAT WHEN A PARTY LITIGANT IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY, YOU DON'T HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE PARTY LITIGANTS. I CAN'T DENY THAT I MAY HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HER, BUT I CERTAINLY, BACK IN 1983, DON'T REMEMBER IT; AND I LEFT THE FIRST CIRCUIT, YOU KNOW, IN 1983. NINE YEARS AGO, EIGHT AND A HALF YEARS AGO. I HAVE NOT PRESIDED THERE SINCE. I THINK THE CASE DIED ON THE VINE, SO TO SPEAK, IN MARCH OF '87. JUDGE STUCKEY SIGNED AN ORDER RELIEVING MR. HINKLE AS COUNSEL, AND THE APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT HAD NO ISSUE INVOLVING ANYTHING THAT I DID, BECAUSE ALL I DID WAS SIGN A COUPLE OF CONSENT ORDERS AT THE REQUEST OF HER LAWYER. SO I APOLOGIZE. I'M NOT ABLE TO GIVE YOU A BETTER ANSWER THAN THAT, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: I THINK WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE WOULD HAVE OF JUDGE PEEPLES?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO.
SENATOR LOURIE: I HAVE NONE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY, THEN, JUDGE. THANK YOU.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: I DON'T BELIEVE MS. AHRENS HAS BEEN IN HERE. SHE DIDN'T CALL YOU RECENTLY?
MS. SATTERWHITE: NO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'VE HEARD NOTHING FROM HER. SHE DID SAY SHE PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE HERE, I THINK, IN SPEAKING WITH MS. SATTERWHITE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. SHE INDICATED SHE MIGHT SEND TWO PEOPLE IN HER PLACE; THEY ARE NOT HERE EITHER.
SENATOR LOURIE: YOU WANT TO RECEIVE IT AS INFORMATION?
CHAIRMAN POPE: SO, I THINK WE'LL RECEIVE IT AS INFORMATION -- WE'LL DO THAT, ON SENATOR LOURIE'S MOTION. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO BRING UP AT THIS TIME?
SENATOR LOURIE: NO, SIR.
MS. SHULER: SENATOR POPE --
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES?
MS. SHULER: -- COULD I MAKE JUST ONE MORE STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE, PLEASE?
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES.
WHEREUPON, BARBARA B. SHULER, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: I'M STILL UNDER OATH?
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES, YOU ARE.
WITNESS: ONE THING THAT I JUST RESENT IN JUDGE PEEPLES' TONE -- AND HE'S BROUGHT OUT THE NUMEROUS ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES THAT HAVE BEEN ON THIS CASE -- I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO EACH OF THE COMMITTEE THAT IT WAS THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE SHULERS; THAT WE DID WHAT WE WERE ADVISED TO DO, AND WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS BEING DONE TO US BY OUR ATTORNEY UNDER THE TIME JUDGE PEEPLES WAS ON THE BENCH. I WANT THIS COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE GRAVENESS OF THIS CASE INVOLVED POSSIBLE BANK FRAUD, AND THAT IS PRESENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION; AND IT IS STILL GOING ON.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MS. SHULER. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING?

JUDGE PEEPLES: I KNOW THIS HAS TO COME TO AN END, BUT I HOPE I DIDN'T IMPLY THAT MS. SHULER DID ANYTHING WRONG. I'M SORRY IF I SO INDICATED.
CHAIRMAN POPE: NO, THE INDICATION IS THAT SHE DID HAVE FOUR OR FIVE ATTORNEYS.
JUDGE PEEPLES: I WAS MAKING THE POINT THAT SHE WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT ALL TIMES. THAT WAS MY POINT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES, SIR. I DON'T SEE ANY LAPSES IN ALL THESE ORDERS. EACH TIME SHE RELIEVED COUNSEL, SHE HAD ANOTHER ONE MADE OF RECORD.
JUDGE PEEPLES: YES, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. I THINK, THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER, WE'LL STAND ADJOURNED, THEN.
(WHEREUPON, AT 11:30 A.M., THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED.)

The Judicial Screening Committee has reviewed and investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and makes certain findings of fact.

The following persons were unanimously found by the Committee to be qualified to serve:

The Honorable Sidney Thomas Floyd, candidate for Judge of the

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; and

The Honorable John C. Hayes, III, candidate for Judge of the

Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.

In the screening of The Honorable Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., candidate for reelection for Circuit Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Mr. Charles Ray Knight of Easley, South Carolina, testified against Judge Hughston. Mr. Knight testified as to his dissatisfaction with Judge Hughston's handling of the trial of the case of Edgar Ivester and Clarice Ivester v. Charles Ray Knight (Case No. 83-CP-04-951 in the Court of Common Pleas of Anderson County), in which Mr. Knight was a named Defendant. The action was against him for allegedly causing water damage to the Plaintiffs' property. Mr. Knight was represented in the action by counsel, and he brought a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs for alleged water damage to his property. The case was tried before a jury in Anderson County with Judge Hughston presiding. The jury returned a verdict on August 8, 1985, for the Defendant, Mr. Knight. Even though Mr. Knight was at least partially successful in the action, he did not agree with this verdict, as he believed it not to be favorable as to his counterclaim. He did not appeal the action. The Committee questioned Mr. Knight about any misconduct by Judge Hughston, and he alleged that the judge had talked to the other party during the trial. He believed that the Plaintiffs were somehow related to a person from Judge Hughston's home county of Greenwood. He believed that the judge may have been close friends with this individual. Based upon all the evidence presented, this Committee finds and concludes that Judge Hughston acted appropriately in all respects in this matter and that he did not know Mr. Knight's adversary, nor did he talk to the other party during the trial or at any other time, nor did he show any favoritism toward the Plaintiffs or against Mr. Knight.

It is the finding of this Committee that the unfavorable testimony of this single witness regarding Judge Hughston was the result of Mr. Knight's dissatisfaction with the outcome of the trial. The Committee unanimously finds The Honorable Thomas L. Hughston, Jr. qualified as a candidate for reelection as Circuit Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit.

In the screening of The Honorable Rodney A. Peeples, candidate for reelection as Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, two affidavits were filed in opposition to his candidacy. The first was signed by Claire Ahrens and the second by Mrs. Barbara Shuler. Ms. Ahrens was advised by letter of the date and time of the screening hearing, but she did not appear. The Committee received her affidavit as information. The affidavit alleged that sometime in 1983, Judge Peeples was late to court and that he allegedly was intemperate with certain persons in the courtroom. Ms. Ahrens' affidavit and the attached documents do not specify dates or persons, and this Committee has disregarded the complaints of Ms. Ahrens for that reason and for the reason that she did not appear at the hearing. The committee finds and concludes that there is no factual basis for Ms. Ahrens' complaints.

Mrs. Barbara Shuler testified that she was dissatisfied with Judge Peeples' handling of the case of A. Dewey Shuler and Barbara Shuler v. Charles C. Crook, individually and doing business as Charles Crook Construction Company, Inc. and Smoak Building Specialists (Case No. 82-CP-09-93 in the Court of Common Pleas for Calhoun County). Mrs. Shuler brought this action against the Defendants for their alleged negligence in the renovation work to her and her husband's home. During the course of this action, she was represented by at least five attorneys. Judge Peeples' role in the case was very minor inasmuch as he made no substantive rulings whatsoever. Mrs. Shuler's complaints appear to relate to her disappointment with the outcome of the case; however, through counsel she took an appeal to the Supreme Court from a ruling by another Circuit Judge, and the Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of that Circuit Judge. The ultimate result of the Supreme Court ruling in 1986 was that Mrs. Shuler and her husband were free to restore their case to the active trial roster, subject to a further court hearing on what costs she should be required to bear. Mr. and Mrs. Shuler did not restore their action. Having considered all of the testimony and evidence presented on this complaint, it is the finding of this Committee that the only role that Judge Peeples played in the case of Shuler v. Crook, et al. was to sign consent orders. Nothing he did in this action prejudiced Mr. or Mrs. Shuler. We find that Judge Peeples' conduct in connection with Shuler v. Crook, et al. was appropriate at all times.

This Committee has also considered the public reprimand which was filed by the South Carolina Supreme Court on December 9, 1988, in THE MATTER OF RODNEY A. PEEPLES (Opinion No. 22934, filed December 9, 1988). The Supreme Court in that action found that Judge Peeples had engaged in three acts of misconduct: (1) While an attorney, he prepared a will naming his daughters as beneficiary without making a full disclosure of the potential conflicts of interest; (2) In attempting to collect $300.00 payments from another individual, he lent the prestige of his office to advance the interest of another; and (3) He engaged in the practice of law. For these actions, the Supreme Court found the appropriate sanction to be a public reprimand. This Committee finds and concludes that this public reprimand is a serious matter. Upon questioning Judge Peeples, the Committee has learned that in the period of time of over three years since this public reprimand, no attorney or party has asked that Judge Peeples recuse himself from consideration of any case because of same. No evidence has been presented that Judge Peeples' ability to hold judicial office has been impaired by this reprimand. His performance on the bench has not been detrimentally affected by this reprimand. Judge Peeples has been remorseful and contrite, and no evidence has been presented that his performance has in any way been impaired or compromised as a result of the sanction by the Supreme Court. It appears that statistically speaking, in the Second Judicial Circuit where Judge Peeples presides, the caseload in both the Common Pleas Court and the General Sessions Court is one of the most, if not the most, current circuit in South Carolina.

Based upon the evidence presented, this Committee finds that The Honorable Rodney A. Peeples is qualified as a candidate for reelection as Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. Maggie W. Glover

I disagree with the majority's finding that Judge Rodney A. Peeples be favorably screened by the Screening Committee to the General Assembly.

Judge Peeples is an intelligent and talented jurist. He has served with distinction during his judicial career.

The Screening Committee cannot overlook the fact, however, that Judge Peeples was publicly reprimanded by our Supreme Court for judicial misconduct. To my memory, we have not favorably screened a candidate who received such a judicial sanction.

Members of the judiciary pass judgment on the most critical issues of our citizens' lives. The Code of Judicial Conduct establishes a high standard of behavior for those who sit in judgment. Based upon the Supreme Court's finding, I believe that favorable screening would be improper.

/s/Rep. James H. Hodges

(On motion on Senator POPE, ordered printed in the Journal of Friday, April 10, 1992)

The following Bill was severally read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 1432 -- Senator Russell: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 345 OF 1965, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM, SO AS TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FROM THE RESIDENCY AND ELECTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICANTS FOR ENTRY-LEVEL POSITIONS.

(By prior motion of Senator RUSSELL)

The following Bill having been read the second time was passed and ordered to a third reading:

S. 1464 -- Senators Rose and Reese: A BILL TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AWARD TO BE PRESENTED ANNUALLY TO A PERSON EXEMPLIFYING EXTRAORDINARY DEDICATION TO THE CONSERVATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY A COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, THE STATE COMMISSION OF FORESTRY, THE SEA GRANTS CONSORTIUM, THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION, THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION, AND THE STATE LAND RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION.

(By prior motion of Senator MACAULAY, with unanimous consent)

At 11:17 A.M., on motion of Senator COURSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, April 14, 1992, at 12:00 Noon.

This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 8:55 A.M.