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 180, Jan. 13
| Printed Page 200, Jan. 13
|
Printed Page 190 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
where this would fall in a general sentencing pattern, so let's fall back to
this first camp now.
A. Okay.
Q. Let's don't take the judge at his word for a moment. Let's assume there is
something there. What do you know? What can help me and the Committee focus in
on this improper conduct? What kind of relationship might have been there? And
once again please focus in on things that you have personal knowledge of.
A. Okay. I -- I'm going to have to say I don't have personal knowledge of this
because I have not picked up the telephone, I have not knocked on doors, I have
not said is this true. I have only had hearsay that people are telling me, yes,
indeed, this is true. Ralph Wilson, the Solicitor, told me yes, this is true.
Because Mr. Wilson did tell me this, I'm going to have to say, yes, I truly
believe this is true. That Dick Harwell who is the brother of David Harwell,
his daughter is married to Archie Lee's son. My --
Q. And that's the part you would say that was true?
A. Yes, I would say it was true.
Q. Right.
A. I mean I feel like if I was told this --
Q. If I could --
A. -- by the source --
Q. Right. If I confirm to you at this point that was true?
A. Yes.
Q. If I told you that I had done my own investigation and had discovered that to
be true, let's take that as a set of facts, where does that take us next in
terms of an improper conduct?
A. That -- it takes me to believe with David Harwell being the Chief Supreme
Justice that there was probably some orders coming down, that Archie Lee
probably had his sentence given to him and knew what it was and perhaps Judge
Cottingham knew what it was before we even went to trial.
Q. Let me ask you this, why Judge Cottingham? Why not any other Circuit judge
in this state?
A. Sidney Floyd was a personal friend -- and now I'm telling you this from Ralph
Wilson.
Q. Okay.
A. Was a personal friend of Archie Lee, he did not want him --
Q. So they --
A. -- to be the judge.
Printed Page 191 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
Q. So they complied with the Canons of Ethics, they had to disqualify him?
A. That's right. Exactly.
Q. So but why --
A. There is a circuit judge I believe by the name of Marlowe. I understand from
Ralph Wilson that his son or somebody went hunting with Lee's son, he did not
want him there.
Q. So Judge Harwell complied with the Canons of Ethics and recuses him or some
-- or either the judge did himself?
A. What I'm telling you is Ralph Wilson named all these judges to us.
Q. That had a conflict of interest?
A. That had a conflict of interest.
Q. And so they recused themselves?
A. Right.
Q. I don't mean to sound funny, but it seems like a lot of judges are worried
about conflicts of interest. Don't you think if they really wanted to get
somebody that would do the thing right by Judge Lee, they might not worry about
a little conflict of interest like hunting trip and send that person rather than
Judge Cottingham which has no relationship to Judge Lee?
Why pick -- I guess what I'm saying, what do you know that tells me that
Judge Harwell controls Judge Cottingham any more than he would control any of
those other people?
A. There is nothing I can tell you that would make you believe that this is
indeed to be true, but I certainly feel that.
Q. And I understand that. And I'm not -- please understand, I'm not taking
exception with your heartfelt feelings. I'm trying to find something that
brings the attention of this Committee facts that will say, well, Judge
Cottingham had a problem. He had a conflict of interest.
A. Right.
Q. Or that somebody told him what to do, but from what you're telling me,
everybody complied with the law. Everybody that had a conflict of interest got
out of the way and it got down to finding the closest person and it was Judge
Cottingham and that's who they sent?
A. The only thing I see problem with is that during the trial, Judge Cottingham
patronized all of us women. Led us to believe during the trial that just by
chance, a thread of chance, he might be on our side.
He might be seeing what this man did was wrong and he might be able to a
correct conviction by what this man did was wrong, but by the end of the trial
and when he came up with the sentences, it was like listening to a man talk out
of two sides of his mouth. One side, he was saying yes,
Printed Page 192 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
I patronize with you women. I certainly feel sorry for you women. You went
through all of this. You should not have had to have gone through all of this,
but on the other hand because this poor broken down old man is appearing in
front of me, because he has an invalid wife, because of this, because of that,
I'm really going to do nothing to him which is basically what he did. Nothing.
This is where my problem comes.
Q. All right, so I guess we're back then to the second camp that I was talking
about earlier which was Judge Cottingham doesn't have a bad reason for what he
did. He was just light or lenient on this public official and we need to go
back and look and see how it fits in with other sentencing; is that correct?
A. I think he was very lenient on him. What his reasons -- reasoning for being
lenient on him, I do not know. I cannot second guess this man. I have no idea.
I just know he was extremely lenient and if he has such a disregard for right
and wrong, I don't think he belongs on that bench.
If he cannot make a decision and say this man did wrong even though he is a
judge, he did wrong and he should pay for it just like any other man. I don't
believe he walked away --
Q. Let me ask you this, Ms. Palmer. Did he have a problem making a decision as
to what was right or wrong in your opinion or was the problem in handing down a
severe enough sentence? Did he correctly identify the crime that was
committed?
A. As I said before, and I'll repeat myself, this man was talking out of two
sides of his mouth. One minute he would say, yes, this man did very wrong and
the next minute, he was saying because of this and this situation, evidently,
it's okay for this man to do what he did.
Q. And please follow along with me, did he -- it seems like from what you're
telling me that he correctly identified the bad behavior of Judge Lee, that --
and I see you're referring to transcript now perhaps that he went through and
talked about here's what he did wrong and then he got to the point of sentencing
and he talked about mitigating factors. At that point, he's probably talking
about some aggravating factors as well and then he came down with a decision.
If I were to tell you that that happens in courthouses across the state every
day in every sentencing hearing, would you believe me?
A. Yes, I would believe you. I think there is a lot going on especially in
South Carolina that until you're in the situation and you feel it --
Q. But I guess --
A. -- you wouldn't believe it, but, yes, you do want to.
Printed Page 193 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
Q. But you realize that's what's required by law and the reason the law operates
that way is you have to take every criminal defendant as an individual and
consider him on his own terms?
A. And I would be -- I will agree that this man -- this is the first time this
man has had to have come up before. He should have had it come up years before,
but due to brick walls and doors being closed in people's faces, they couldn't
get anything through and I understand that. But, okay, now we're looking at this
man who does have a first time offense, but I don't know of anybody -- now, I
will say I personally know of somebody who had a first time offense of misuse of
a telephone. That man now is sitting on four years probation. He didn't get it
suspended. He didn't get it 400 hours community service. He got four years of
probation for misusing a telephone.
Q. Was Judge Cottingham the sentencing judge in that case?
A. No, he was not.
Q. Was that case -- did the Solicitor choose to charge Judge Lee with misuse of
public facilities?
A. No. He chose to charge him for misconduct in office and high and aggravated
assault and battery, which I think would be a lot worse than telephone
misuse.
Q. Ms. Palmer, is there anything else you'd like to share with the
Committee?
A. Just a few things I have in my notes that I would like to say while I'm up
here. I certainly think Judge Cottingham shows favoritism. You might want to
call it cronyism. You might want to call it the good old boy system. I really
don't care what it's called. All I know is it's not right and it needs to stop.
If he is making this type of judgment on his own, as far as I'm concerned he
lacks integrity. He should not be up there on the bench. If he's taking orders
from somebody else, he needs to look at what's going on, is this right or is
this wrong, not what somebody else is telling him what to do.
The majority of people -- and you can tell by the various articles that I
sent to you, there is a large majority of people in Horry County that have
definitely lost faith in the judicial system. They have definitely lost faith
in how Judge Cottingham is going to deal with a public official.
I don't think we need someone like that in Horry County making decisions.
He stated that he was harsher with public officials, that he incarcerated an
auditor who was 67 years old for three years. I believe he was 55. He didn't
steal money, but he stole something a lot more. He
Printed Page 194 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
didn't get any time at all. I don't think that's right. He stated that there
were several victims
-- or several supporters of Lee, Sheriff Junior Brown, a chief deputy, several
female employees, a niece of the wife was up there. There may have been a total
of eight or nine people that were up there. There was a total of 18 women that
were sitting up there that had been victims.
We far outnumbered those who were in support of Lee, but yet we got nothing
for what we went through. I've already told you how I feel about Lee's wife
being an invalid. I don't feel that she is. I got up one time. Judge
Cottingham did ask us all to speak should we chose to. I chose to and I did ask
for maximum 35 years which is what Ralph Wilson said was the law on a case like
this. 35 year maximum time was a long time, but there ought to be a standard.
There ought to be something said here letting people know that we're not going
to put up with this anymore. It's time this stops. If we have to have someone
to be a scapegoat, Judge Lee should have been it.
Q. Ms. Palmer, you spoke about the Solicitor a couple of times. I take it, this
was a plea rather than an actual trial that resulted in a sentencing; is that
right?
A. This was -- I'm not really sure what you call it. This was a man going up
there pleading no contest --
Q. Right. And I --
A. -- which should be thrown out of court. You shouldn't be allowed to plead no
contest. You're either guilty or you're not.
Q. I take it that the Solicitor was involved in this process of the plea being
entered?
A. There again, myself as a victim was not told that that type of plea was going
to come forward. I knew nothing about that until I heard it. It was very
shocking. I'm afraid I would have had to stand up if I had --
Q. The Solicitor did not brief you on what he intended to do or --
A. No. Not at all.
Q. I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
A. And I just also feel that Judge Cottingham's in his particular hometown and
surrounding area is harsh, then he should not have been quite so lenient with
Judge Lee. That's basically all I have to say. I thank you for your time.
Q. Ms. Palmer, the Members of the Committee may have some questions for you and
I want to say I very much appreciate you coming forward today.
A. Thank you.
Printed Page 195 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Palmer, hold for a second. Let's see if any Members of the
Committee? Representative Hodges.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:
Q. Ms. Palmer, we do appreciate you coming forward today and I -- this may
have -- Mike may have asked you this specifically, but was there any expectation
created by the Solicitor to a specific sentence that was going to be asked for
or that the Solicitor expected would be given in the case?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. So when you went into the courtroom, was there any general discussion like
this is probably the range of time he might get or this may be --
A. No. Basically --
Q. -- the result?
A. -- what I was told by Ralph Wilson when I first came forward with this and
talked to him very -- at length at various times is that he said, please, don't
be disappointed. I expect this man to walk. I expect this man not to receive a
sentence. I'm just telling you up front. This is what it you can expect
because, number one, he is a public official, he will not have anything happen
to him. So as far as a sentencing, I expected nothing. But it's not right.
Q. But there was no -- getting back to my question, there was no specific
statement made by the Solicitor or anyone else that you should expect that he
would get two years or three years or --
A. No, the only thing that was said was during the trial, Ralph Wilson said that
he could receive up to 35 years for this. That was said during trial.
Q. Do you have any specific complaints regarding the judge's sentencing pattern
or regarding the judge's handling of civil matters other than in this area of
public corruption or public officials that we've discussed today?
A. No. The only thing I would have would be against the public figures.
Q. Okay. That was only question I had.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other members have any questions?
I just want to ask on follow-up question and make sure I understood your
answer because I was trying to follow the three points that Counsel had raised.
If I understand correctly that besides that newspaper article, you have no
direct evidence of any relationship between Judge Cottingham and any one of
those public officials or figures in particular, this instance, former Judge
Lee? You have no proof of any formal relationship?
A. Other than what Ralph Wilson himself told me, no, I don't.
Printed Page 196 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to make sure I understood your testimony. Any
other questions? I want to thank you for coming today.
A. Thank you.
MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, just following up on your last question, that what
Mr. Wilson told you was about the Harwell connection, correct?
A. Correct. Correct.
MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, I would offer that if Ms. Palmer has anything, she
would like to share further with the Committee that she was not able to bring
them in because of hearsay that she did not forward in terms of other than
newspapers articles, please leave it and we'll be glad to follow up on it and
this thing can be done on the outside of context of this hearing.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
A. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next witness --
MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, once again, I would ask they be able to chose their
order.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll see who volunteers to come on out. Would you
please state your name into the record into the microphone?
MS. DAIN: My name is Rachael Dain.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. And would you please raise your right hand, please,
ma'am. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
MS. DAIN: I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am. Have a seat and please answer any questions
Mr. Couick may have for you.
MS. DAIN - EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:
Q. Ms. Dain, again as with Ms. Palmer, I thank you for coming forward
today. It's important for citizens to feel like they can participate in this
process. You and I have had the opportunity earlier today to discuss briefly
your testimony.
I would like to go through some of the more perfunctory aspects in terms of
your name, address, et cetera. Would you please state your full name into the
record and your address?
A. My name Rachael Ashley Dain. I reside at 6208B Blynn Drive, Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, Horry County.
Q. And your occupation is?
A. I'm a microsystem integrator and programmer.
Q. Ms. Dain, would you under the same conditions I expressed to Ms. Palmer,
please express in the broadest terms the reasons you're here today to testify
against Judge Cottingham.
Printed Page 197 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
A. I believe based on the information that I've been able to gather that Judge
Cottingham gives preferential treatment to people with political power and I
think that causes harm to the community and the judicial process in general and
I do not believe that he is qualified to continue as a judge.
Q. Ms. Dain, following up on what -- the same questions I've asked Judge
Cottingham and Ms. Palmer, do you have any information that would -- is
firsthand, personal to you that showed he had an improper relationship not only
with Judge Archie Lee, but with any other public official that he
sentenced?
A. I don't think improper would be the correct word, but I do think that there
is an established relationship in the fact that these are all public officials
and maybe cronyism would be the best word to use, but I don't -- when you say
special relationship, I assume that you're meaning person to person
relationship?
Q. Person to person and where there would be some reason for Judge Cottingham to
have recused himself and he didn't. In the sense that he had some conflict of
interest whether it would be a shared business interest, some type of financial
interest, some type of long-standing personal friendship, some type of kinship
by blood or marriage to any of those public officials?
A. No, I'm not aware of any and I don't think that's the case.
Q. So I take that it in terms of having a nefarious purpose going to Horry
County to handle this trial, your basic testimony is there is none unless you
consider the fact that a public official and a judge somehow are bound by a
greater brotherhood together?
A. If there is any other one, I am not aware of it.
Q. Ms. Dain, how would it be possible for any public official to be tried in
this state if it were not to be done by a judge?
A. I suppose that it could not be done.
Q. So I wonder is it a fair criticism in this state that somehow Judge
Cottingham that he should not have participated in the Archie Lee trial because
on one hand Archie Lee was a public official and on the second hand that Judge
Cottingham was a judge?
A. I don't believe that it is a conflict as long as you deliver the same type of
sentence to someone without political power as you would someone with it.
Q. And that falls into the second category that I've been discussing with Judge
Cottingham and Ms. Palmer was the disparity that you allege in the sentence
given to Judge Lee versus what Judge Cottingham would have given to someone else
or should have given to Judge Lee. Do you have
Printed Page 198 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
any information that would indicate this sentence was out of the ordinary or
out of the bounds of what was reasonable?
A. Yes. I think that it is unreasonable for anyone to assume that a man
irregardless of his age who would hold a woman by force and grope her private
parts and be given what this individual was given which was basically
nothing.
Q. Do you have any reference to law or any sentencing patterns that would
indicate that the sentence imposed by Judge Cottingham did not fall within the
realm of what was reasonably imposed by an ordinary, prudent judge?
A. No, sir, I was relying on my common sense.
Q. All right. Ms. Dain, and finally as it relates to what was the appropriate
sentence, are you aware of any study or any other type of information you've
been able to consult that would show sentencing patterns in South Carolina that
Judge Cottingham's sentence was outside that ordinary range?
A. No. The only thing that I am aware of is the study that the Sun News
did on public officials that Judge Cottingham has sentenced, which were all very
lenient.
Q. Ms. Dain, do you have any other testimony you wish to offer the
Committee?
A. Yes. Several things actually. One thing that I have thought about a great
deal and have not been able to find a proper explanation for and maybe you will
enlighten me as to one is something that happened in the courtroom that day.
I went into the courtroom with the expectations that probably nothing would
happen because public officials seem to look out after each other. That happens
time and time again. Sometimes it's real and sometimes it just may be perceived
as such because it does happen so often and I really didn't expect much of
anything to happen.
Judge Cottingham gave the victims the opportunity to speak in front of him
and I took that opportunity and I told him how I felt and he really moved me to
believe that I was actually going to find justice in this place. And I was very
relaxed and I looked at the other individuals that were sitting next to me,
they were victims, and I said, you know what, this isn't going to go away. This
is not going to go away. This is too serious. This man is going to do
something about this. I believe in him.
He said that he had not made a decision because I had mentioned something to
the fact that I thought he probably had already made a decision. One of the
things that he did at the time which impressed me a great deal is after he
listened to both sides of the story, he pushed himself
Printed Page 199 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
back from his seat a little and began to tell us that he was going to go
through the process of making a decision out loud so that we would understand
how he as a judge had to weigh both sides. And I thought that was very fair and
I was glad that he was going to share this process with us.
I was sitting very close to him. Probably about as close as I am to you and
I watched his every move very intensely at this point because I was trying to
read him and understand what he was going to say. As he -- at that time, he was
using a deal of hand language, body language while he was making these -- this
discussion.
He began to delivering the sentence and then Ralph Wilson who is our
Solicitor interrupted him and said, oh, Judge, I would also like for you to
include something along the lines of Judge Lee having to pay for therapy should
any of the victims need that. And right as he started to say that, Judge
Cottingham reached over to the right-hand side of his desk or bench, whatever
you want to call it, and picked up a piece of paper that was about the size of a
small note pad and began to say, "Yes, that's the next thing I have to
comment on." And then he said something about that. And I was there and I
saw that he was clearly referring to this piece of paper and he was reading off
of it and I don't understand how it is that he had not made a decision prior to
entering the courtroom. What is he referencing? Why is he referencing this
information off of a piece of paper that I know he has not written since he
started this decision making process because he has not touched a pen or pencil
and I cannot think of any reason -- logical reason why he would have that
information on a piece of paper if he had not already given some consideration
to what his decision would be prior to hearing what went on in the courtroom
which he told me he did not do.
Q. Well, let's do this, let's ask him that in few minutes.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's move on with your testimony and let's find out the answer to your
question.
A. Also the transcript where he clearly says in here that he holds Judge Lee to
a higher standard, because he was a judge and he committed these offenses, yet
he assaulted 18 women, he got a suspended sentence and then he got his probation
suspended as I understand it and if he was being held to a higher standard then
what would the standard have been if a layperson had done something like this,
and if the standard is that low, then I think we have a problem above and beyond
bias toward political figures.
| Printed Page 180, Jan. 13
| Printed Page 200, Jan. 13
|
Page Finder Index