Journal of the House of Representatives
of the Second Session of the 110th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 11, 1994

Page Finder Index

| Printed Page 120, Jan. 13 | Printed Page 140, Jan. 13 |

Printed Page 130 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

(e) James H. Rozier, Jr.
Berkeley County Supervisor
223 North Live Oak Drive, Moncks Corner, SC 29461-3707
761-6900

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no Formal Complaints have ever been filed against you.

Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies: Berkeley County Sheriff's Office, a negative; Moncks Corner City Police Department, a negative; SLED and FBI records, a negative.

The Judgment Rolls of Berkeley County are negative. It also indicates that Judgment Rolls of Edgefield County have been checked. And I understand that's a typographical error. Everything is negative.

Federal Court records are negative. No complaints, statements have been received. To my knowledge, there are no witnesses here to testify, so with that, I would ask you to answer any questions that Mr. Couick has, please, sir.
MR. DENNIS: Very well.
MR. DENNIS - EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:
Q. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dennis, if you can't hear me, if you need anything, let me know. I will ask you up front, do you have a copy of your Personal Data Questionnaire with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. We may need to refer to that a couple of times.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Please briefly tell the Committee about your legal experience since graduation from law school.
A. I graduated from law school in 1973 and returned to Moncks Corner to my father and uncle's firm in Moncks Corner, which had been established for a number of years and began to practice in general law in Moncks Corner.

And when I say general, that's really what it amounted to. In a rural area, you deal with a multitude of questions. And I have continued that practice since 1973. I think I've practiced in every court that I can think of and many administrative proceedings as well. So that's --
Q. You do indicate a fairly balanced approached to your practice. You've done some domestic, some criminal and some civil. I do note that you indicate that probably your criminal is the least percentage of the practice that you have.


Printed Page 131 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

Just to satisfy my curiosity, would you mind telling the Committee about a couple of the more complex criminal matters that you perhaps have handled during your practice.
A. Okay. Of course, initially when I first started practicing, we didn't have a Public Defender system in Berkeley County and that was later implemented and certainly that's the reason I think the majority of the sole practitioners like my office and private practice -- it probably subsided for all of us.

I've handled drug cases. I've handled some serious drug cases. Negotiated plea drug cases. I've never tried a drug case. I handled a matter -- probably one of the most complicated criminal matters was case, a murder trial, that I handled that the result --
Q. Was this the Bennett matter?
A. Sir?
Q. The Bennett matter?
A. Yes. And as a result of numerous work on the part of the Solicitor and everyone else involved, we ended up negotiating an "alford plea" to involuntarily manslaughter and resulting in I think a favorable result for my client. And I think justice was served.
Q. Mr. Dennis, one of the things that you mentioned in your Personal Data Questionnaire is on page 10, Item 31 which asks, "Has a tax lien or other collection procedures ever been instituted against you by Federal, State or local authorities?" And you mentioned here as well as in other places throughout your Personal Data Questionnaire of your involvement with the Palmetto Wellness and Fitness Center which was at Moncks Corner and --
A. Yes.
Q. -- which seemed to be not quite as profitable as your law practice?
A. No.
Q. Just some basic questions. I'd appreciate you just generally discussing what went wrong, who lost money, did any -- were any of your clients involved, did you -- what capacities did you serve in this company, where did your -- did you have any fiduciary obligation as an attorney as well as a director or an officer, have you been sued in any of those capacities and how has this matter been resolved and also as it relates to the tax lien, what's happened to any kind of liens or whatever the government, Federal and State, has on the property?
A. Thinking about my financial statement which I've submitted as well, probably hindsight is always 20-20. If I had not gone to lunch with a friend of mine and agreed to be a part of this venture, I'd probably be -- my wife and children will say that, too, that they would be happy that I


Printed Page 132 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

hadn't done it. Unfortunately, I did it. And when you're faced with that situation, you try to work through it and that's what we proceeded to do. It's been a long, arduous task and its not over yet. We're much better than we have been.

With respect to what went wrong, we probably built a facility that was about five years ahead of its time in Moncks Corner in that area. Moncks Corner has now grown. To give you an example, we now are leasing the facility to the YMCA. The YMCA is growing and expanding and I'm delighted that it's being utilized for that purpose. There was some bad things that happened in the sense of having to admit you made a mistake and you close the doors. That's not a very pleasant thing to do.

With respect to the tax liens, those have all been resolved and were filed. I personally met with the IRS representatives. In fact, we discovered that there were -- one of them that was incorrectly filed and we, in fact, were refunded monies that had been paid as a result of that meeting.

To tell you my capacity, I certainly came -- I served as a member. It was a group of people -- citizens, clients I represented from time to time, several of them that I'm involved with --
Q. Let me --
A. That I served as a lawyer to it, no, sir.
Q. Let me ask in this capacity, did you go to any of your clients and raise money for the venture in the sense of going out and getting the --
A. Did I go to any of my clients?
Q. Right.
A. And ask for money? No, sir, I did not.
Q. What role did you play in this? The start up end? The administration of it once it was up?
A. I was a member of a group of people. There were about six or seven of us that met on a regular basis.
Q. Was it organized on a partnership basis or was it a corporation?
A. When it started, a group of people getting together and we had agreed that we probably should incorporate and sold stock, yes, sir. Or issued stock.
Q. Were you perceived as a managing partner or managing officer, vis-a-vis, these other people or -- there seem to be two classes of folks that usually lose money in a venture, folks that are in the inside and folks that are on the outside. How would you characterize yourself, vis-a-vis, everybody else, or was everybody in the area?
A. Everybody was involved in this process. Everybody who was a stockholder was involved with the exception of one person who ultimately


Printed Page 133 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

-- you asked about lawsuits and, yes, it did result in two, one of them by a disgruntled stockholder and the other by a person who we handled -- we hired to manage the business after we chose a different route.

The disgruntled stockholder probably was not as active. He attended all board meetings. He was not involved initially. He was a doctor that some of the doctors knew.
Q. What was the theory of his action against you?
A. That he had been defrauded.
Q. Against you?
A. Well, he named all of us.
Q. Right.
A. I met the gentleman when he came to the first meeting. I didn't know him before and never saw him before that meeting. He had already agreed to buy and he'd met with two of the persons who were physicians.
Q. Did he see you in any special capacity as an attorney for the group?
A. No, sir.
Q. What was the resolution of that case?
A. We settled it. We simply bought his stock back and he also had an interest in the property and he conveyed his interest in the property.
Q. You received very high marks from the Bar in Charleston for your reputation. We did the survey across the state for the At Large judges. I'm going to tell you not too many folks know you in Oconee County. We got a lot of folks, "I do not know this person. Why are you sending this to me?"

One question that I have is one that I asked earlier. You're an attorney and you've certainly benefitted by sitting on this side of the bench and seeing a number of judges. How are you going to approach that? What's going to be your role? Who is going to be your role model as to temperament and what do you hope to accomplish as a judge other than just disposing cases?
A. Now, I think first of all one of the things and I was thinking how -- when you asked the question earlier about that, I've been fortunate to have my practice primarily in the Ninth Judicial Circuit, but also deal with -- dealing with some cases in Dorchester. And I think we've been blessed. I know a couple of years ago that things were -- Judge Richter, but by and large, we've been very blessed and I think very fortunate.

I certainly have had I think good role models. It started with Judge Singletary, but Judge Fields has certainly been a person that I've made the comment to several people, he's sort of like my father to me. He's taken me when he was on the bench in the domestic court. He called me to task one day and we reminisced about that. I appreciated that.


Printed Page 134 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

He noticed something about my demeanor in the courtroom and he asked me after the case was over to step back in chambers and he reprimanded me. He said don't ever do that again. I said yes, sir. But I think he's probably one.

I think Judge Smith, I think he was an incredibly good judge. He was even tempered, evenhanded and fair. And I think that's all anybody can -- I think there has to be a mutual respect in that courtroom. I think we're all in that courtroom officers of the court and there has to be a commonality with -- in that venture and I think to that extent, that's what I would hope to accomplish. I think that there are things -- or things that are being done now that need to be done desperately and I think that type of attitude to promote it such as mediation route, finding alternatives to resolutions of this dispute.
Q. You heard me ask Mr. Armstrong a question about the relationship between a solicitor and particularly a Resident Circuit judge and in this case, you would be At Large as opposed to Resident, but it seems historically some judges have taken a paternalistic approach to solicitors.

They are of that Judge's office, they somehow manage the affairs of the docket. Whether they do it privately or publicly and to some degree how they do it gets to be more of a problem than what's done. How would you approach it and what would be your role if a solicitor was consistently either unprepared or you thought was presenting pleas that were not appropriate? How would you handle that matter?
A. Well, you say unprepared or not handling pleas properly?
Q. Either one.
A. When you say not handling pleas, you mean that I disagree with the Bar -- the plea arrangements or not ready to move?
Q. You think they are either extremely too lenient or that the person has somehow taken advantage of the situation consistently and extracted a plea that is not appropriate for the circumstances?
A. Well, let me share with you, and I would pray this would never happen. I'm a firm believer if you talk to each other and we bring people together when you've got a problem and you sit down and discuss it, I think you can resolve of lot of those problems. I had it happen. It wasn't pleasant as a defense attorney, but I had a Circuit judge refuse the agreement. He heard it and he came before me and he said I'm not going to take it. And I guess ultimately that's where the buck stops and if it has to be done, then it would have to be done. I'd have to refuse --
Q. But -- and I'm not really talking about a single incident where you would certainly be well within your rights to refuse a plea, but if you notice there is a pattern that you disagree with, with particularly someone


Printed Page 135 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

that appears on a regular basis who has another public position such as the Solicitor, would it ever be appropriate to publicly criticize the Solicitor over his performance?
A. No, sir. I don't believe that's the time and place for that sort of thing. I think the time and place for that is in the privacy and again respect for his position as well.
Q. I take it that you're running for this for the long term?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That you're not going to bug out before the six years?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have children. They're not necessarily as young as Mr. Armstrong's, but you do have commitments to them. Would you anticipate that they would in any way interfere with your ability to perform the duties of this office?
A. I know of no reason that it would have any conflict.
Q. Ex parte communication, tell me about your approach to it, how you would handle it.
A. Absolutely, it's just inappropriate. I think there is no question about it. I think like probably most practitioners, I think sometimes we do it to extremes and I must be with you. I think there are times that we bounced too far. But I think you've made a comment and I agree with you, I think that's where we are in the practice of law on both sides that the appearance -- perception is something that we really have to deal with today and I think we have to answer to that and I think to avoid the appearance is necessary and so to do it, it's just to omit it. Conference calls is what's been utilized, what I'm experiencing with doing it and I think that's certainly an effective way of handling it.
Q. So the Rules that Judge Keesley and Judge Johnson talked about are ones that are comfortable and --
A. Absolutely. That's what I've encountered as a practitioner.
Q. In the areas of gifts, and when I use the word gifts folks think of a box that's wrapped up with a bow on it and I don't necessarily mean that. I mean also the lunch or the dinner or the trip. How would you handle that? What's the -- what type of broad line test if you could develop one would you use that you could share with the Committee now.
A. I guess that's one I've thought about a great deal. In fact, it's one I asked Judge Peeples about as well because I like people. People have been my life and certainly I was concerned if I pursued this, I'd have to disassociate myself with that and I don't want to do that.

I'm led to believe that you don't have to do that. I think you have to do it on a case by case situation. I think it has -- again, if I have a person


Printed Page 136 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

that I normally have associations with -- I'll give you one. I played bridge with a fellow attorney in Moncks Corner. Played bridge with him this past Saturday. We were in a group. Probably if a case was coming up that term that he had a case on the docket or potentially, I probably wouldn't have. I couldn't do that. Not that we would ever talk about it but because somebody could say you could have talked about it, so that would have to be one thing that would be done.

If somebody was an ongoing friend, I think you just simply have to do it and if the case came up and they were appearing, then I think you have to -- I'd have to disclose that to counsel and if they felt that that was something that their client perceived as being a problem, then I'd probably have to honor that.
Q. You indicate that you're a member of the Berkeley County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, that you're director of Farmers & Merchants and director of the YMCA. What are your plans for the future in terms of the these positions if you're elected?
A. That's the second thing that's probably been the toughest. I would probably have to -- I'm going to have to give up the majority of those things.
Q. Tell me which of those would you give up?
A. All of them. I don't think the YMCA Board is -- in reading the Canons, I think I could serve on that, but because of potential for some problem originating that could result in some lawsuit, I think I'd have just to to protect the bench.
Q. You mentioned in your Personal Data Questionnaire that you have expended no monies campaigning and you have filed no reports with the Senate or House Ethics Committees. Does that continue to be the case?
A. That is correct.
Q. You have heard the question earlier about pledges and, obviously, reading the two major parts of it, but one is have you sought a pledge from any Member of the General Assembly and, two, have you asked anyone to ask for your consideration by any Member of the General Assembly --
A. No, sir.
Q. -- prior to today's hearing?
A. No, sir. I have not.
Q. Mr. Chairman, that's it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sir. Do members have any questions? No questions. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your coming and you are free to leave if you also wish to get on back down there.
MR. DENNIS: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.


Printed Page 137 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Move to the next one in the At Large Seat, Number 2, John Sinclaire, III. Mr. Sinclaire, good morning, sir.
MR. SINCLAIRE: Good morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't we take about a ten-minute break and give everybody a chance to -- take a ten-minute break before we get started. Thank you, sir.
(A break was taken)

THE CHAIRMAN: We'll resume the hearing at this point. And Mr. Sinclaire, I don't believe I've sworn you in. Have I, sir?
MR. SINCLAIRE: No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. John Sinclaire, III, would you raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. SINCLAIRE: I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. You may have a seat. Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. SINCLAIRE: Yes, sir I have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it correct? Does it need any clarification?
MR. SINCLAIRE: I did send one addendum to Number 14, I believe last week, about my expenditures.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me check and make sure that we have it. I'm advised that we do have it. Nothing else?
MR. SINCLAIRE: No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right, sir, I would ask if you have any objection to us making this summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
MR. SINCLAIRE: No objection, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. At this point it will be done.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. John Sinclaire, III
Home Address: Business Address:
867 Colony Drive #107 P. O. Box 70100
Charleston, SC 29407 2144 Melbourne Avenue
North Charleston, SC 29415

2. He was born in Wurtzburg, Germany on August 19, 1959. He is presently 34 years old.


Printed Page 138 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

4. He was married to Kelly Christine Bodell on June 29, 1991. He has no children.

5. Military Service: N/A

6. He attended the University of Georgia, 1977-1981, Bachelor of Business Administration; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1981-1984, J.D.

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

1988 Solicitor's Conference on Criminal Law, Bench/Bar Conference on Criminal Law
1989 National College of District Attorneys Forensic Evidence Seminar
1990 Fifth Annual Criminal Law Update
1991 Solicitor's Conference on Criminal Law, Forensic and Legal Application of DNA Technology
1992 Solicitor's Conference on Criminal Law, Conference on White Collar Crime

9. Taught or Lectured:

Instructor of "The Rules of Evidence" for the Charleston County Sheriff's Department Basic Law Enforcement Training Program

Guest Lecturer, Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce Leadership Trident 1992-1993 - "The Criminal Justice System"

Guest Lecturer, Hugh O'Brian Youth Foundation Charleston, South Carolina 1990 - "The Criminal Justice System"

Guest Speaker, Charleston County Association of Paralegals - "The Criminal Justice System"

Guest Speaker, College of Charleston Delta Delta Delta Sorority - "The Dangers of Drinking and Driving"

Guest Speaker, R. D. Schroder Middle School - "The Criminal Justice System"


Printed Page 139 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994

Guest Speaker, Courtenay Middle School - "The Criminal Justice System"

Guest Speaker, Consumer Credit Association - "Paper Crimes"

Guest Speaker, Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce Board of Realtors - "Paper Crimes"

Guest Speaker, Rotary Club of Charleston - "Pornography"

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1983-Present, Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office, Charleston, South Carolina

Assistant Solicitor in charge of Magistrate's Appeals: Represented the State of South Carolina in all appeals from convictions in Charleston County Magistrate's Court.

Assistant Solicitor in charge of Bond Estreatments: Revamped the system for estreating bonds, thereby eliminating hundreds of hours of Circuit Court judges' workload; Estreated over $1.16 million in bonds and collected over $214,000.

Career Criminal Prosecutor: Graduated from the National College of District Attorneys Career Prosecutor Course; Organized the targeting of Habitual Offenders and sought maximum incarceration for all identified Career Criminals since 1986.

Obscenity Prosecutor: Organized Circuit Wide Task Force for the uniform prosecution of all obscenity cases; Authored "The Quick Reference Guide to Pornography Prosecution," and secured the only obscenity conviction in the 9th Circuit in the last decade.

Senior Prosecuting Attorney in charge of the preparation, investigation and prosecution of major felony offenders and violent criminals.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell: He is listed but not rated in the government section of Martindale-Hubbell.


| Printed Page 120, Jan. 13 | Printed Page 140, Jan. 13 |

Page Finder Index