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 170, Jan. 13 | Printed Page 190, Jan. 13 |
Printed Page 180 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
Q. It was my understanding that when you left the practice of law in 1984, you had AV rating with Martindale-Hubbell; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. We have been asking all of the candidates including incumbent members of the bench or judges on the bench about the Canons of Ethics and in particular ex parte communication. What is your approach to handling ex parte communication?
A. I don't indulge in them and I do not permit them. Now, administratively when I need to get on the phone and call an attorney about his case, I have no problem dealing ex parte on administrative matters. In a small county, that's the only way we can do that.

Other than that, I do not permit them and the attorneys in my circuit and where I preside understand that. I'm just not going to engage in it.
Q. In terms of accepting gifts whether a gift is not necessarily defined as a present, but also lunches and dinner, trips and other things, what are your rules on that?
A. I would not accept a gift or a trip. As an example, however, if I went to Charleston, South Carolina or Lancaster or wherever and some old friends of mine who were lawyers who were then not appearing before me asked me to dinner, I would go with the expectations of their hospitality would be returned by me, but I will not accept even a luncheon engagement during a week when that individual is appearing before me.

I think it gives the appearance of impropriety and that's my -- if a group of lawyers in Charleston and they're very courteous down there asked me to go out for dinner, I would -- as long as they're not appearing before me and I would to the same in Lancaster.
Q. You report that you spent no money on campaigning for reelection and that you've not -- because of that you have not filed any filings with the Senate or House Ethics Committees. Does that continue to be true today?
A. Yes.
Q. You've spent no money?
A. It's absolutely true. I have no opposition, but, no, sir, I adhere to that.
Q. And then finally, judge, in the issue of pledges, the Committee has sought for the past year a oath from each candidate appearing before it that that person has not sought the pledge of any one legislator prior to the completion of the screening process?
A. I assure you that I have complied fully and faithfully with that mandate.

Printed Page 181 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
Q. In addition, the new rule and the new law that came down in July that you have not sought the assistance of any third party to go out and seek consideration by you by any Member of the General Assembly?
A. I assure you that this is so.
Q. And finally, Judge, and I note this only for the record, you had sent in several Bar Resolutions noting for the Committee's benefit that this is an issue for the Committee to consider, there is nothing at this time improper about that.

This Committee is trying to determine, though, if in the future Bar Resolutions would be appropriate or not until after the screening process was over with. And I'll include that for the record. In fact, I think our application said that that was permissible.
A. Am I asked to comment on that?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Well, yes, sir, I think it's appropriate quite candidly that the Bar Associations have input into it for they are more directly effected by what we do than anybody else. In my instance, I called the president of the Marlboro, Dillon and Chesterfield Bar and asked that they get a majority resolution approving my candidacy if they thought it appropriate. In Darlington, I asked Mr. Jack Gardner, Jr. to do that. I fully intended that he just get a majority vote and instead of that, he got some signatures. I trust that Senator Saleeby or Mr. Baxley are not on that list, but --
Q. At least one of those persons is. I'm not going to tell you --
A. Sir?
Q. At least one of those people are on the list.
A. All right. It's not with my knowledge --
Q. I'm not going to tell you.
A. -- or consent, but inadvertence, but again I don't consider that an endorsement or commitment quite frankly.
Q. And, Judge, that's the reason why there is some concern. There are many practicing lawyer-legislators in trying to avoid them making that type of commitment --
A. Had I been taking the list around, I would not have done that, but the individual who did elected -- is Mr. Baxter's name on that?
Q. Some of the handwriting is pretty bad. I don't recognize any legislators.
A. I know specifically not to see Mr. Saleeby or some members of the firm. Mr. Saleeby, I trust you're not on there.
SENATOR SALEEBY: No. Being on this committee --
A. Well, it would be improper and I would not do that.

Printed Page 182 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
MR. SALEEBY: -- would make me more aware of it than probably if I were not on the Committee.
MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, we have three witnesses who sought to appear before the Committee. At this time, I don't know if the Committee had any general questions that they might wish to ask, otherwise Counsel is through questioning Judge Cottingham at this time with the caveat that I would like to have the opportunity to recall him to testify after the witnesses have testified?
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Do any Members of the Committee have any questions at this time? All Members, of course, reserving their right to ask any questions later. None.
A. Would you like me to remain here or return to my seat, sir?
Q. Judge, you may wish to go back to your seat to save room for the witnesses?
A. Mr. Chairman, let me say this to you, I appreciate the opportunity to have participated today in the process. Thank you, sir.
MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, the three witnesses during the luncheon break, I met with two of the witnesses. I offered them the opportunity to chose that person that they wish to come forward initially in hopes that there could be some consolidation of what they wish to testify to and I would like to offer again on the Committee's behalf that opportunity for those persons to chose that one person they'd like to begin the testimony.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. In other words, of the three of them, one of them --
MR. COUICK: To begin.
THE CHAIRMAN: Whoever wishes to begin, if ya'll would --
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: They're all going to be allowed to testify?
MR. COUICK: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, they'll all be allowed to testify. It'll just be the order.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: Come on up to the chair right there. Would you raise your right hand, please, ma'am? Would you identify yourself for the record?
MS. PALMER: Sheri Palmer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could you speak into that microphone, too, because we're recording and the lady up here -- would you say it again because the court reporter didn't get it please.
MS. PALMER: Sheri Palmer.
Printed Page 183 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Palmer, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God.
MS. PALMER: Yes, I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am. Would you please have a seat and please answer the questions that Mr. Couick has for you.
MS. PALMER - EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:
Q. Ms. Palmer, in just a moment I'm going to give you an opportunity --
THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Couick. Please pull that microphone closer up to you and make sure that the switch is on because the court reporter is having trouble hearing.
Q. The switch will be pulled towards you if it's on.
A. Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: Speak down into it, if you can.
A. Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you.
A. Is that better?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, ma'am.
Q. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Palmer, in just a moment I'm going to give you a fairly broad opportunity to explain the gravamen of your complaint, but I would like to do for the record initially is establish where you live, a little bit about you and how you came to be here today, so I'm going to go through some routine questions.
A. Okay.
Q. Would you please state your full name for the record?
A. My full name is Sheryl Ann Palmer. I go by Sheri.
Q. And that Sheryl, please spell that.
A. Sheryl, S-h-e-r-y-l.
Q. And your address is?
A. 233 Manor Circle, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Q. And how long have you been a resident of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina?
A. 13 and a half years.
Q. Would you indicate your occupation, please?
A. Yes, I'm a sales representative for an industrial firm.
Q. You have asked to appear today in the matter of Judge Edward Cottingham as a complainant. I have received a copy of your witness affidavit form. Do you have a copy available for your use?
A. Yes, I do.
Printed Page 184 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
Q. You have a sent of form in which you have answered several questions, in addition, you have attached a petition signed by numerous persons. It looks apparently to be -- mostly to be in the Horry/Georgetown area?
A. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Q. I have not counted the number, but those will be on the record, but will be made a part of the broader record. You have also attached a Sun News account of an article on Judge Cottingham dated November 7th, 1993?
A. Yes, sir. I have several articles. I hope you reviewed them.
Q. Right. You also have a -- and that's why I'm going through and make sure I have everything. I have an article out of the Sun News Regional Section dated April 4th, 1993. I've got a Letter to the Editor. It's not apparent which newspaper it's out of, then apparently handwritten March 25th apparently 1993. Also one dated March 23rd, 1993. One is from a Mr. and Mrs. Jean Lewis and the other is from a Mr. and Mrs. J.M. Leffler, I believe.
A. All these articles did come from it.
Q. The next article has a headline called "Community Reacts," but there is no date or attribution. That is a several page article. Then there is a Sun News article called "Ex-magistrate Will Sort Books." And finally -- we have a 3/9/93 article, March the 9th of 1993,
"Former Judge Admits No Fault." And then an article after March 12th, 1993, "Outraged Women Target Judge for Molester Sentence." And an editorial apparently from the Sun News again of March 27th, 1993. And then March 11th, newspaper article, "Lee Might have been Protected While Serving Time." A transcript of Lee's sentencing supplied out of the Sun News and finally several Letters to the Editor including an inserted bubble dealing with the sentencing and those were dated around April, 1993, I believe. Is that all the articles that were forwarded in?
A. That is all the articles that I sent in, yes.
Q. Ms. Palmer, one thing that I would ask you to do as you go through your testimony in a fairness to you and to Judge Cottingham and to the Committee at least from a Counsel's perspective, it's important to distinguish between things that you have firsthand knowledge of versus things that you have seen reported in newspapers or things that had been told to you and you would be giving to the Committee third hand.

Obviously, anything you have firsthand knowledge of, the Committee wants to hear and values very much your impressions of any facts that you have if you were present at the sentencing whatever. In terms of what would be second or third hand, what would be out of that newspaper or

Printed Page 185 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
from some other person because this is in the nature of a judicial hearing and that person's rights should be protected that would be tantamount to hearsay. I would ask you to -- you wish to get into a matter you're not sure as to whether it should be delved in, let's address it generally rather than getting it specifically and I will ask the Committee for guidance or try to give you guidance on my own if it's a fairly simple question as to whether it would be appropriate or not, but matters of hearsay would not be appropriate for a discussion before the Committee.

That would not say that you could not offer your own personal opinion as to what is correct or incorrect about any activity on the part of Judge Cottingham, but in terms of supporting it with facts or supporting it with statements that you would offer as fact, if those are not of your personal knowledge and those are someone else's, out of the newspaper or whatever, that would be hearsay.
A. Okay.
Q. I would offer you this opportunity that what I promised you awhile ago a chance to broadly go through what -- why you're here today.
A. Okay. I would say that, yes, I am personally involved. I was a victim of Archie Lee. My indictment does say high and aggravated assault and battery along with misconduct in office.

This happened to me July 7th, 1992. That night before midnight I had called the FBI in Columbia. I had called the FBI in Washington, D.C. The next day I called the Rape Crises Center telling them no I was not raped, but I was sexually assaulted. Archie Lee did place his hand on my breast without my consent.

This is my body. I should make the decision who touches it and who does not. I was told by several lawyers in Horry County -- I was told by a lot of different people in Horry County, step back, shut up, this man has been doing this for years, it will make no difference.

Well, I chose not to step back. I chose not to keep my mouth shut. Within two weeks, I wrote a letter to SLED and I wrote a letter to the Governor stating what had happened to me and I indeed wanted to see an investigation being done.
Q. And I take it at that point that you were one of the persons that -- one of the first persons to file a complaint --
A. I was the first person to file a complaint.
Q. -- that resulted in his -- charges being brought up against Judge Lee. He was a magistrate in Horry County?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And that you were that person that started the ball rolling --
A. Yes, sir.

Printed Page 186 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
Q. -- in terms of him subsequently being sentenced. Realizing that you have a very, very personal stake in the situation with Judge Lee, what I would very much like to concentrate on unless you think it has significant bearing on something with Judge Cottingham is Judge Cottingham's activities. What has he done that has effected you personally in the sense that it has brought you here today?
A. Well, as far as I'm concerned what he did with sentencing Judge Lee was basically nothing. That was not a sentence. I listened to Judge Cottingham today. I also listened to him at the trial. Judge Cottingham mentioned today that Lee was a broken down old man. Well, let me tell you when he was touching me, he was not a broken down old man.

He mentioned that Archie Lee's wife was an invalid. Well, the transcript, if you go through that, Judge Cottingham made a point to say, "So your wife is an invalid?" Archie Lee said, "No, she is not an invalid. She gets out of the house. She goes to the beauty shop. Somebody takes her grocery shopping." This woman is not an invalid.

Judge Cottingham sat here today and said who was going to take care of this woman at night if I incarcerated Archie Lee, well, who was taking care of her when he was out doing what he was doing to twenty some women. I don't think that should have been brought into concern at all. No one was concerned what us women, what our emotional state was going to be, why should we be concerned about Archie Lee and his wife.
Q. Ms. Palmer, let me ask you this. Did you have the opportunity to cooperate with the Solicitor's Office at
-- prior to sentencing to offer -- did they offer you any opportunity to become involved in the judicial process? Were you called as a witness? Did they keep you notified of everything that was happening in the trial?
A. No, actually, they did not. We were notified when the bond hearing was going to be. We were notified when the trial was going to be. We were not notified that Archie Lee was even going to plead no contest. We did not know that until it was actually happening. So as far as being put up to date on what was going on, no, we were not.
Q. Are you aware of whose responsibility that is under the law generally to keep you notified?
A. No, I'm really not. I've heard, yes, it should have been the Solicitor's responsibility.
Q. To keep you notified?
A. To let us know what was going on, but I think Judge Cottingham had a responsibility in himself that he should have treated this case the same as he would have treated the case should it have been an ordinary citizen out on the street assaulting women. If an ordinary citizen 65 years old

Printed Page 187 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
would have been doing that, do you think he would have gotten $500 fine and 400 hours of --
Q. Ms. Palmer, that's the question I asked Judge Cottingham essentially awhile ago. If you fall into this third camp where there was no bad calls, if he didn't have any personal relationship with Judge Lee, which he said he didn't and if he -- and if you don't believe in the third camp, which was when he did nothing wrong, he'd have to fall in the second camp where he gave inordinate attention to the person being a public official and I asked him if he could supply me with any comparison or measure that could be made between the sentence that he gave Judge Lee and the sentence he would have given a nonpublic official, a member of the public, and he gave the example of the sentencing guidelines grid which is not law in South Carolina.

It's been developed by an arm of the Supreme Court, but it is not binding. And I have reviewed that and do find that under the facts as I understand them, there is some merit or much merit in what Judge Cottingham says. It falls below the line and on such that parole would be advisable. Are you aware of any other sentence handed down by Judge Cottingham in a similar set of circumstances which was different in terms of the punishment imposed than what was given to Judge Lee?
A. I'm not aware of any man in Horry County being brought forth on charges like this, whether he be a public official or an ordinary citizen other than Archie Lee. I am aware of reports that I read in the Sun News and hopefully that they are true and accurate reports that out of four, there was --
Q. And Ms. Palmer --
A. I cannot say that.
Q. Well, we've got the articles and I intend to make use of those, but in terms of offering that, I have no way to make sure that's accurate and I know that newspaper people do not make mistakes, but this would be the case where they made the first one and I wouldn't be able to prove it was right or not right, so I understand your point as to the newspaper and we'll take that into account, but in terms of using that as empirical data, I just hope that we wouldn't do that right now.
A. Okay. It just appeared that when there is a public official going before a judge, and Judge Cottingham was one of those judges, those public officials did get very lenient time compared to an ordinary citizen citizens.

Also with his own wording, he said that Judge Lee was a magistrate. He was a judge. He had the robe. "I hold Judge Lee to some higher standards, quite frankly, than I would the average person." This is Judge

Printed Page 188 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
Cottingham's wording. I was there and I did hear that, so it just seems to me logical that to hold him to a higher power that he should have had some type of incarceration or some larger fine, sentencing than what he got to show the public that, yes, we're going to do this in a fair and logical way, that we're not going to just brush it aside.
Q. Would it seem to be a fair approach to you that if there would be some investigation of general sentencing patterns, and patterns to the extent that information is available, and take into account the sentencing guidelines grid, taking into account what other judges do for nonpublic officials, if we took the Archie Lee matter, for example, and compared to that which is -- you say you have not done that.

I have to admit, I have not done it beyond going to the sentencing guidelines grid. If we were to do that and we find this were in the range of sentences imposed, would you -- would that sentence then become fair to you in the sense that it fell within the range of what should have been given?
A. All right, are we talking about a range of what should have been given only in the State of South Carolina or are we talking about nationwide?
Q. Well, unfortunately, Ms. Palmer, and fortunately in some cases, we're bound by the law of this state. You know, folks benefit from it and they also lose by it. Judges -- and I'm not sitting here as Judge Cottingham's advocate. I guess I'm the advocate for any judge that has the same frustration. What you would like to do sometimes, you're not able to do because the law binds you and that's the law he had or any judge has to operate from.

I'm saying would it be fair in sentencing patterns and patterns in South Carolina, if this fell within the reasonable range of sentences imposed? And I have no idea. I'm sitting here.
A. I have no idea either. The only thing I can go on is the judge in Tennessee who was charged with assault of three women, he received 25 years and he is doing prison time. He did not get a $500 fine. He did not get 400 hours community service. He got 25 years. He got his pension taken away from him which I think is how it should be.
Q. So Ms. Palmer --
A. So I can only go by what I hear, how I feel, what I see and what I read.
Q. But if I were to say that perhaps that investigation would be possible to check into the range of sentences available under the South Carolina law and range typically imposed whether it be by the guidelines or by a historical pattern and the Archie Lee sentence came back and it was within

Printed Page 189 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
that range, wouldn't it be pretty persuasive that it's a matter of fairness at least under South Carolina law which we have to live with that he got what was coming to him?
A. Right. I will agree with that. I just don't feel that if you see a man out there who has assaulted 18 to 20 women and he is given a sentence, I would bet my bottom dollar, he's not going to get a $500 fine.
Q. Ms. Palmer --
A. But if you can find that, I will go along with it.
Q. Ms. Palmer, that was one reason I asked Judge Cottingham earlier about how these -- this sheer number of crimes came to the attention of the court at one time and I think it would be very frustrating to you in that you were the first person that had the guts to bring forth these charges. But do you understand the legal ramifications of all of those being brought at once, they essentially become part of one overall pattern and they're not -- they're really not able to be considered as a previous conviction because he had never been convicted for any other crime?
A. So are you saying because they all came together as a package deal, the man should not have been sentenced to the same or --
Q. No, ma'am, I --
A. I'm not sure what you're saying to me.
Q. I guess what I'm saying is under sentencing by judges, you can take a previous conviction into account in terms of it being a first, second or third offense. If someone has not been convicted previously for that crime even though they have perpetrated it on several occasions and they're prosecuted all at once for that series of crimes, you're not able to take it as a second offense or a third offense. Just like.

DUIs, there are a lot of folks I would imagine in Horry County that have driven while intoxicated before, but when they show up for trial that first time, even if the judge knows them as a personal social friend, he's only able to charge him with a DUI first and only able to give him that level of sentencing. And I guess what I'm saying that's what I guess is one of the most unfortunate parts of this situation at least from this Counsel's perspective that all of these -- no one had ever had the intestinal fortitude you had to complain and it must have taken a tremendous amount on your part to do it. Ms. Palmer, I didn't mean to cut you off.
A. That's okay.
Q. Please tell the Committee any other investigation you've been able to do that has led you to the conclusion that in some way Judge Cottingham was biased because he had some personal relationship with Judge Lee or there was something nefarious going on that caused him to order this because I'm willing to go look as I said and do more investigation about

| Printed Page 170, Jan. 13 | Printed Page 190, Jan. 13 |
Page Finder Index