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 190, Jan. 13
| Printed Page 210, Jan. 13
|
Printed Page 200 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
Q. And, Ms. Dain, once again going back to my willingness on behalf of the
Committee, if they would allow me to go look at sentencing patterns overall, I
think that's your question there.
A. Yes, I think that is -- that is an issue. Also Judge Cottingham points out,
he goes on to say on page 4 of the transcript that I have that it concerns him
that citizens have the right to have confidence in our judicial system and if
the community and our system loses that confidence, our government basically
will fail.
I think that Judge Cottingham has done a great deal to contribute to that
feeling that people have which in our community is overwhelming. Everyone that
I've talked to and people that have come up to me feel the same way that I do,
that there is something very wrong here that's not being addressed.
So I mention that because I just wanted to point out -- I think that kind of
comes into the area where Sheri said she felt he was talking out of both sides
of his mouth because he's saying one thing and he's doing another.
He also said in his decision that one of the ways he knew he reached a good
decision is when both sides were mad. Well, there has been a lot of outrage over
the fact that he didn't really do anything about this. I haven't heard a peep
out of anyone who thinks that he was sentenced very harshly which brings up
another issue. I keep hearing that this man is a very stern judge particularly
with sex offenders, but yet this case takes on a whole different -- it's in a
whole different vein and why would that be? There'd have to be some reason that
that is and the only explanation that I can find is that he's a public
official.
Q. And, Ms. Dain, once again, that goes back to this disparity between
sentencing. Could I ask you if you have any complaint today, you personally,
and I would ask that the second -- the third witness as well is there any
complaint on your part that aside from the nature of the defendant as to the
nature of the crime effecting Judge Cottingham's sentence?
A. I'm sorry. Would you repeat that please?
Q. I've heard you and the previous witness describe the nature of the defendant,
him being a public official somehow has effected Judge Cottingham's sentence,
the severity of it. Does anyone or did either of -- you, since I don't have the
other witness before us, do you believe the nature of the crime that it was a
sexual crime perpetrated against a female? Do you allege that?
A. Do I believe that it is a sexual misconduct?
Q. No, do you believe it had any effect on Judge Cottingham's sentencing?
Printed Page 201 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
A. Because it was --
Q. Perpetrated against a female -- a crime perpetrated against a female that was
sexual in nature?
A. Yes, I do, but I think that because our culture has been very tolerant of
those types of things happening -- happening to women that even a well
intentioned individual might make that misperception. If I held you against
that wall by force and grabbed your genitals, I'm sure -- or if another man did,
that it would be perceived very differently than if you were to do that to me.
Not choosing you out individually, I'm just giving an example.
Q. Thank you. My wife appreciates that as well. I guess the reason I ask that,
Ms. Dain, you know, there has just been this undercurrent here that somehow
there is a victim out there that is a prototype of this, a woman who was
violated sexually and then somehow the justice system violated them again?
A. Yes.
Q. And I guess I'm trying to address that in a very -- on a level where I can
understand it because I've heard you say that Judge Cottingham is very serious
and very stern with sexual offenders on one hand and then I hear you come back
and say that he's -- you think that somehow effected his decision. Now, which
way is it?
A. I don't know which way it is. I'm not in his head, but either way, it is an
error.
Q. I'm talking about your impression because you told me just a moment ago, it
was your understanding --
A. I think it's both. I think that it's --
Q. How can it be both?
A. Well, if he -- if he doesn't truly see the crime as being that offensive,
which -- let me back up and say something. I don't have firsthand knowledge of
his sentencing criteria for other sex offenders.
Q. I'm talking about you mentioned awhile ago, you said it was your impression
--
A. He was a harsh judge.
Q. -- that he was a very harsh judge on sex offenders and then I just asked you
a moment ago, do you think the nature of this crime and that it was a crime of
sexual violence perpetrated against a woman effected the justice delivered and
you said, yes, it did. How do you have both of those coexist at the same
time?
A. There can be always be more than one factor in a decision. I think both
contributed to it. But also the cases that these individuals made
Printed Page 202 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
comments to me about, the sex offender cases, were actually full blown rape,
which I think is perceived differently.
I was actually startled to hear him earlier say that this was a nonviolent
crime. I don't believe that it was a nonviolent crime which -- well, in itself,
I have concern about that statement.
Q. Is there anything else that you would like to --
A. Yes, I have petitions signed by 323 individuals in our area that would also
like to let you know that they have no faith in this judge and I find that I
have very little, if any, faith at all in any of my government institutions
anymore. I don't say that to offend you.
I suppose that I probably shouldn't even say that because offending you
probably doesn't help my cause, but one of the reasons that I feel that way is
because of Judge Cottingham and his being on the bench has effected my feelings
about the judicial system and others and that is not good for the community
because we've all been effected in a very negative way.
Q. I wish to thank you for being here today. I'm glad you had the faith enough
to at least participate in this government process. Mr. Chairman, I have no
further questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Any Members have any questions at this time? No
questions. Thank you for coming. We very much appreciate it.
A. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, there is one remaining witness --
A. Should I leave this with you.
Q. Yes, ma'am and I'll have -- would you mind getting those and just hold them
and we'll enter those into the overall record. Thank you, Ms. Dain.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you 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. WILSON: I do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am. Have a seat and please state your full name
for the record.
MS. WILSON: Kathleen Lynn Wilson.
THE CHAIRMAN: And remember to try to talk into that thing --
MS. WILSON: Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: -- because the court reporter is trying to take down everything
that you say? If you could speak right in. Usually if you come in on the side,
it will pick it up.
MS. WILSON: Okay.
Printed Page 203 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Please answer any questions Mr. Couick has for you.
MS. WILSON: Yes. Am I -- do you want my address?
MR. COUICK: Yes, ma'am. I'll begin --
THE CHAIRMAN: He'll get all that. He does it. I only do the formalities.
MS. WILSON - EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:
Q. Ms. Wilson, if you would please, give me your complete address.
A. 109 Castlewood Lane. I get my mail through Elgin, but I live in Richland
County.
Q. And you are a -- as a profession, you're engaged in?
A. I'm an insurance analyst for a local software company.
Q. What type of analyst?
A. An insurance analyst. Life insurance analyst.
Q. You think I qualify for any life insurance in this job?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: No.
A. We can rate you.
Q. That's right. Ms. Wilson, you have heard at length the process of analysis
at least that I'm personally trying to go through to understand the charges that
have been brought against Judge Cottingham.
A. Yes.
Q. And I'd like to go through that process one more time and start at the
beginning which I would consider the worst case scenario and the worst case
being that somehow Judge Cottingham was a judge that went to Horry County with a
mission and that he went there to take care of something that was personal to
him, that he had a personal interest, something at stake with either Judge Lee
or any of these other defendants, but more specifically Judge Lee. Do you have
any information that would lend -- that's personal to you, that you have
firsthand knowledge of to show that he had a conflict of interest as it relates
to Judge Lee?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Moving on from that then, this pattern of sentencing that you, I believe,
refer to, you say Judge Edward B. Cottingham -- reading from your affidavit --
has a pattern of extremely lenient sentencing of public officials. The only
testimony that I have heard today admittedly that each of the last three
witnesses including yourself, who are laypersons --
A. Right.
Q. -- had -- on this pattern of sentencing, has been from the judge himself and
he has taken the time to do the research and shows where it would fall on the
grid. Do you have any information that would show that this sentence in the
Archie Lee matter fell outside what was a normal
Printed Page 204 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
sentence either imposed in the past by Judge Cottingham or by any other prudent
judge in the state and a similar circumstance?
A. No, I don't. I do want to emphasize that I'm not a lawyer.
Q. Right.
A. And I work full time and I'm an unpaid activist, so...
Q. Right. And that's why I offered earlier -- I'm willing to the extent the
Committee would allow me to double check and find out what would be fair. We
have done at least initial inquiry. I'm not sure what else we can find, but
we'll be glad to go check further on your behalf, the Committee's behalf.
Assuming that we don't have personal involvement or any facts that would
support personal involvement or personal conflict and we don't have any facts
that show a departure from the norm, what can you tell me that keeps me from
landing in this third camp. That says that nothing went wrong?
A. The leniency of sentences of public officials who came before Judge
Cottingham, it seems that when the public officials commit a crime, if they're
caught, they have to give back -- if they've stolen something, they have to give
it back or they receive a light fine and some community service. It's very rare
that they ever do any jail. And it's very rare that the fine is even that
large.
I could repeat the cases that were in the paper. There are people taking
$2,000 in bribes and they give the money back and pay a $750 fine. I mean, it's
just -- the amount of the fine is extremely low, the amount of public service is
extremely low and that's the extent. One official received jail time. And in
the sentencing, Judge Cottingham stated that the reason he received jail time
was not because of the severity of the case, but because he had tried to cover
his tracks and made it hard for the investigators to track him down. I can
repeat -- you know, I've got five case that --
Q. Yes, ma'am, and these are essentially on the same cases that were handed up
earlier?
A. Right. But it just -- when I look at them and I see the large amounts of
money involved and the small amount of money involved in the fine and a few
hundred hours of community service, it just strikes me that these people are not
held accountable for their crimes.
Q. And I understand the sense of frustration that you have. What I ask you is
the question I asked Ms. Palmer earlier, if we were to find out, particularly
with the Archie Lee matter because that's the matter before us that you're most
interested in right now, if we were find out this fell into
Printed Page 205 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
the normal sentencing pattern that other folks with similar circumstances were
sentenced to a similar sentence, how would -- would that be --
A. Well, I would -- I would be surprised, but if you did find out that all the
public officials were getting light sentences then maybe all the judges need to
be looked at.
Q. No. I'm not talking public officials. I'm talking about sexual misconduct.
That I understand was the gravamen of the --
A. Well, that's not really the reason I'm here. I'm here because the public
officials are getting off lightly.
Q. But what was the crime he was charged with that he was actually convicted and
sentenced under?
A. Assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature --
Q. All right. If I --
A. -- misconduct.
Q. If I were to go look at those offenses and whether it be your next door
neighbor in Elgin and Judge Lee, if I found that Judge Lee's was comparable to
the average Joe on the street, what else can I look for? I mean if it falls
within the reasonable norm, what else should we look for?
A. Well, I'm not asking you to look at it that. I'm asking you to look at what
Judge Cottingham has given ordinary Joe sentencing compared to what Judge
Cottingham has given to public officials.
Q. Right.
A. That's where I think you'll find the disparity.
Q. And that's what I'm saying, too, that if we look at those and we find there
is no disparity, what more can we do?
A. Well, I would be surprised.
Q. And I'm just asking. I'm going to look if the Committee will let me, but if
we find there is not a problem, what do we do?
A. Well, if you find that there is not a problem, then there is not a
problem.
Q. Now, I'm not prejudging what the result is. I just want to make sure --
A. Maybe the sentencing guidelines need to be changed, but not -- there is not a
problem with this Committee to deal with.
Q. Is there anything else you would like to brief the Committee on today while
you're here?
A. Well, I was just, you know, surprised that these people, the public officials
that are privileged people seem to get a lighter sentence. Their public
humiliation seems to count as part of their sentence which doesn't seem right.
Printed Page 206 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
Also, I was surprised at the invalid wife weighed heavily in the sentencing.
I don't know that the same consideration is given to mothers of infant children
in their sentencing or they're kept out of jail because of that. And I also
thought it was strange that a Member of the General Assembly was allowed to
represent Archie Lee when part of his job is to reelect Judge Cottingham.
Q. And I have not heard that aspect of the case raised by you before this time
nor by any of the other complainants today. Did you observe any unique activity
in the courtroom or do you have any personal knowledge of any influence that
public office held by that attorney had over Judge Cottingham's sentencing?
A. No, I do not. It just strikes me as odd that he -- he was, you know, a
defense attorney appearing before the judge when later -- you know, early next
year he gets to decide whether that judge gets to keep his job.
Q. And, unfortunately, attorneys who are legislators have to make a living, too,
you know. It's one of those facts of life. Is there anything else that you
would like to share with the Committee?
A. Well, if I could please I have items --
Q. I intend to pursue them with the Committee's allowing me to do that, but I am
really looking for things like that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you ma'am. We appreciate you're coming. Judge Cottingham,
would you please come back. Proceed, sir.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:
Q. Judge, you're still -- I know you're well aware of --
THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to tell him that, too, but I figured --
Q. You're still sworn. You're still under oath, still sworn. And I know there
is probably a lot that you would like to respond to and if you could bear with
me to let me ask a couple of specific questions before I forget those in
listening to what else you have to say.
I heard as you did, testimony by Ms. Dain that the incident with a piece of
paper that you had there on the bench on the day you sentenced Judge Lee in
Horry County. She mentioned that you seemed to refer to it and use it as some
guide in your sentencing. Could you explain to this Committee the circumstances
of the piece of paper, if you feel like it was privilege, what was on it,
generally what use was being made of it and where was its origin?
A. I can assure you that there was no paper for any kind of --
THE CHAIRMAN: Judge, please pull that microphone.
A. I can assure you that there were no comments written down concerning my
sentence. I may have reached over and looked at the indictment. I may have
looked at my notes as I was taking the
Printed Page 207 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
proceedings, but I assure this Committee that there was no preset sentence.
The only thing preset in this matter was the statement by the Solicitor, he
proposed to let him plead nolo contendere. He asked me what was my position. I
said I would not permit a nolo contendere unless he, the Solicitor, tendered it.
That was the done. Other than that, the sentence was mine and that...
Q. Judge, you bring up one of the more interesting aspects of this case to me
and that's the role of the Solicitor in a case of this matter because as you
well know and I'm not sure the public properly understands the role of the
Solicitor in defending victims' rights in this state, they are charged with
assuring the victims have notice of hearings and that they have participation in
the process to the extent that they're allowed. What was the role of the
Solicitor in coming up with an plea? Did he just simply bring it to you or did
you request him to go out and develop a plea? Who originated the idea of a plea
with you? Is it something you originated or was it something that was brought
to you?
A. No, sir. As I indicated, I was scheduled to hold this court some six months
earlier. Our schedule is set some six months earlier and when we go to Horry
County, it is the Solicitor's responsibility to call the case that he desires.
In this case, the Solicitor requested a pretrial conference with me with the
attorneys for the defendant. They met in my office and I was asked would I
accept a nolo contendere and I said I would if he recommended it in that
courtroom. And he did and I did.
Q. So it was not a sentence that you requested? It was not a --
A. No, sir.
Q. -- determination you requested?
A. Let me say one thing. I cannot permit an innuendo made here to stay upon
this record and that is is the suggestion that the Chief Justice of this state
is in any way involved with this matter. My schedule is set six months
earlier.
Q. Judge, I did want to get to that matter because that is something very
serious.
A. Well, I cannot let that innuendo stand.
Q. All right. And this --
A. It's wrong. It's --
Q. And that's obviously the first opportunity, we'll have to discuss it after
the testimony.
A. That's the first time I'd even heard of anything like that. I'm not --
Q. Judge, in terms of your sentencing of sexual crimes perpetrated against
women, have you ever been criticized by any group generally
Printed Page 208 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
recognized as being a part of or advocating the rights of women or rights of
women victims for leniency?
A. Never. This the first time I've heard of that. I have the reputation for
being right harsh on these kind of things and I'm glad that I have that
reputation. The last rape case I tried in Horry County, I sentenced him to the
maximum of 30 years.
Q. What was the different circumstances of that rape case? I know rape is
certainly different than assault and battery of a high and aggravated
nature?
A. In that case, a young lady from North Carolina was enjoying the sunrise on
Labor Day -- a sunrise on New Year's morning on the beach. A young man 28 years
old took that lady at knife point, took her across the street into a wooded area
and raped her. I concluded that under those circumstances he was going to jail
for 30 years because if a young lady can't enjoy our beautiful beach on the
morning of the new year, that sort of conduct, we are in terrible shape in this
state and I truly hope that I sent a message that I --
Q. Judge, let me ask you this. I hope I don't sound impertinent when I ask
it.
A. I'm delighted to answer, sir.
Q. A person certainly has a right to enjoy the beach and enjoy the sunrise, the
courts of the state are set aside for the protection of the citizen's rights.
These crimes were perpetrated in a public courtroom or an area adjacent to a
public courtroom. What were the incidents or the characteristics of the crimes
without getting too graphic that led you to the conclusion that they were not as
violently oriented as the rape you just described, if we set aside for a moment
the location.
A. You mean actions by --
Q. Judge Lee.
A. -- Judge Lee.
Q. Right.
A. Well, let me understand. Let me make this plain to you as to these
witnesses, as I understand it, they regarded it as violent and I fully
understand and appreciate that position, but the basis was misconduct in office
though there was a touching. A mere touching constitutes technically an assault
and battery of high and aggravated nature, but the charges were basically
misconduct in office.
The Solicitor referred to them in the hearing as nonviolent. Now, these
ladies considered them violent and I understand that. I said to that gentleman
at that hearing that if my wife or daughter would have been treated in this way,
I would have had an emotional involvement that would
Printed Page 209 . . . . . Thursday, January 13,
1994
have wanted to them in jail. The record will reflect that I said that. I also
said, though, that I as presiding judge must be detach myself from those
considerations and look at the overall picture.
Q. And finally, Judge, from my -- the questions that I had, I want to
specifically address, was the issue of somehow there was your traveling to Horry
at the direction of some higher official or some group of officials.
You heard testimony I believe earlier that there was a -- I think I used the
words, not the witness, a brotherhood of public officials and judges that
somehow protected mutual interests or that there was somehow this public
official, whether it be judge or someone that directed you to go down and take
care of this.
While there was no specific testimony that can indicate facts that would show
that, there was just general allegation. Has anyone filed a complaint against
you or any other public official to your knowledge revolving around the Archie
Lee matter and in terms of its being tried?
A. No, sir. First let me say, sir, that under our schedule, we are assigned in
September, or the fall, scheduled for the next year. My assignment for this
particular week was made by Court Administration some five months earlier.
When I get down there, I do not know what case is being called. Now, I want
to assure this tribunal here, I cannot let the innuendo remain, it would be
absurd to suggest that any the Chief Justice called me about such a case and I
can assure this Committee, I didn't even know the connection with Dick Harwell.
I think his son married Archie Lee's daughter. I never heard of the family of
Archie Lee. Now I've heard about it since then, but I can assure you,
gentlemen, that that is simply not true.
Q. And you're not aware of any charges or complaint whether formal or informal
that's been brought against you?
A. This is the first time to my knowledge that such an allegation has ever been
made.
Q. If something --
A. I want to say as strongly as I can, that that just simply did not occur and I
seriously doubt -- if Mr. Wilson said he did -- I don't doubt these ladies words
-- I suggest that may be he was misunderstood, but I would seriously doubt that
and I would urge this Committee to check with him and see.
Q. Judge, I believe the testimony was actually not that any contact had taken
place. I think that the testimony that was given and it was hearsay and I did
allow perhaps her to run with some without objecting to it, was
| Printed Page 190, Jan. 13
| Printed Page 210, Jan. 13
|
Page Finder Index