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 230, Jan. 13 | Printed Page 250, Jan. 13 |
Printed Page 240 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
Committee exam the contents of that letter. And than other that, I really have nothing to say that I can substantiate.
Q. Mr. Pointer, you have appeared --
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: Let me clarify something. You cited Appellate Court Rules?
A. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: Okay, I just wanted to make sure I heard him right.
Q. In the Canons of Ethics. They are actually numbered as an Appellate Court Rule --
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: Okay.
Q. -- by the Supreme Court.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: So it's the same Canons --
Q. Same Canons.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: -- that we've been referring to, it's not separate that we've --
Q. Right. Mr. Pointer, you have appeared here today in relationship to the application of Ms. Malissa Burnette for election to the Circuit Court. Have you appeared in the courtroom where Ms. Burnette was present in any capacity before?
A. Yes, I have been present in the courtroom.
Q. And what was her relationship, vis-a-vis, was she your attorney?
A. Right. As --
Q. She was your attorney?
A. No. I'm sorry. As my affidavit states, I realize that my concerns that I feel obligated to present to the committee I realize will be viewed with suspicions because Ms. Burnette was the attorney for my -- first attorney in a series of attorneys for my ex-wife in a divorce hearing.
Q. What type of action was it? Was it a simple divorce or were there custody matters involved?
A. I believe probably everything that could be involved was involved.
Q. But it involved also the custody of a young child?
A. Yes. Of whom I have custody.
Q. Were you awarded custody at the termination of this hearing?
A. There are certain matters that are still unresolved. And I guess that issue would be ongoing, but at the moment, yes, I do have --
Q. But at the time of the conclusion of the hearing in which you complain, the affidavit you speak of talks about a particular hearing. Were you awarded custody at the end of that hearing?
A. No.
Q. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Printed Page 241 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do any Members of the Committee have any questions? Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming. There being no questions. He's free to go?
MR. COUICK: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: You're free to leave, too, sir, if you -- do you have any questions of the --
MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Burnette had filed a -- we had supplied as we do with all candidates a copy of the Complaint and Affidavit to Ms. Burnette on Monday after it was filed. She has prepared a written response which I believe has been included in your notebooks. I would be glad for Ms. Burnette to respond, if she should chose. The written response is there, but she is welcome to take whatever option she would like.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Burnette?
MS. BURNETTE: I really don't have much to say and you do have my written response, but as far as I know, he has not presented any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part and I certainly deny any wrongdoing. He did submit a copy of a letter a witness sent to him. It's not under oath and I have submitted to the Committee my statement. It was a custody matter he lost when I was representing his wife. I'm very sorry he wasn't able to put this behind him.
MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, the Staff after receiving the letter which was attached to the Affidavit attempted to contact the person that signed the letter. They are a public school teacher. We left numerous messages. Realizing that it had to be handled in a confidential manner, we said it was important, that it was important to contact us as soon as possible.

That public school teacher who signed the letter that is attached to the affidavit chose not to contact us back. We understand from Mr. Pointer that she has received our calls. Knows we're trying to call her. While he did not affirmatively say that she did not want to participate, Counsel certainly had the impression that this was not something that she wanted to become involved in.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you. If there are no further questions, you're free to leave if you wish. I would tell you what we have told the rest and for the record today, as we complete each hearing, we are leaving the record on these candidates open and they will remain open until this Committee takes action to close the records.
MS. BURNETTE: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now, we move to the second candidate in the race for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Richland and Kershaw Counties, L. Casey Manning. Mr. Manning, could you come forward, sir. Same

Printed Page 242 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
chair as everybody else over there. If you would please raise your right hand, please, sir. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. MANNING: I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Have a seat and for the record state your full name and your current address, so the court reporter can get that.
MR. MANNING: Lee Casey Manning, 10 Woodlands Court, Columbia, South Carolina, 29209.
THE CHAIRMAN: I note that this is your first screening. Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. MANNING: Yes, sir, I have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it correct or does it need any clarification?
MR. MANNING: The first clarification is my address has changed obviously from 305 South Saluda to 10 Woodlands Court. This occurred back on October the 28th when my wife and I bought a new house.
THE CHAIRMAN: We'll take care of that. Is there any other clarifications or changes.
MR. MANNING: I think that just about covers it. I submitted a letter dated November 15th, 1993 to Ms. Nancy Goodman that details my activities from 1977 until 1979 when I began practicing law in Dillon County.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. And I'm informed by Staff that we have that and that also will be included. With those additions and corrections and clarifications, do you have any objection to making this summary a part of your record of your sworn testimony?
MR. MANNING: No, sir, I don't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Lee Casey Manning
Home Address: Business Address:
10 Woodlands Court 136 E. Main Street
Columbia, SC Lexington, SC

2. He was born in Dillon County, South Carolina on December 7, 1950. He is presently 42 years old.

4. He was married to Laverne Hunter on August 4, 1973. He has three children: Charlotte, age 14; Casey, Jr., age 12; and Morgan Rose, age 3.

Printed Page 243 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1969-1973, B.A. from College of Social and Behavioral Sciences; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1974-1977, J.D.

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

8/19/93 South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(SCTLA) Annual Convention

4/10/92 A Seminar for Bar Examiners

8/13/92 South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(SCTLA) Annual Convention

9/18/92 Criminal Practice in South Carolina

5/8/91 Breath Test Procedures for the Legal
Community


8/15/91 South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(SCTLA) Annual Convention

9/27/91 South Carolina Criminal Practice Seminar

1/12/90 Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility

2/7/90 No-Fault Automobile Insurance Seminar

8/16/90 South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(SCTLA) Annual Convention

2/16/90 Workers' Compensation 1990

12/14/90 Evidence Law Seminar

8/17/89 South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association
(SCTLA) Annual Convention

Printed Page 244 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
9. Taught or Lectured:

5/20/93 Bridge the Gap - Criminal Practice - Pre-trial Matters

9/18/92 Criminal Practice in South Carolina

3/5/92 Bridge the Gap - Criminal Law

12/13/91 Evidence Law and Trial Techniques

10/19/90 South Carolina Criminal Practice - Pre-Trial
Matters - Covered topics including preliminary
hearings, bond hearings, pre-trial motions and
discovery

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)Partner, WALKER, MORGAN & MANNING, Lexington, South Carolina, 1989-Present. He reentered the private practice of law in 1989, and joined the firm of Walker, Morgan and Manning. This is a Lexington County firm that does a high volume of business in personal injury and other civil litigation. Because of his background, his primary focus still has been criminal defense work. He has engaged in a great deal of civil work, but most of his civil work has not resulted in trial litigation. Since 1989, however, he has not handled domestic cases, except on an infrequent basis.
(b)Assistant Attorney General, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, 1983-1989; Chief of Prosecutions, 1988-1989. For five (5) years, approximately 1983 to 1989, he worked out of the Criminal Prosecution Section of the Office of the Attorney General. His primary focus during this time was criminal prosecutions throughout the state. The Prosecution Section handled primarily conflict cases from the different 16 Circuit Solicitors that would arise. During various times, however, one had the opportunity to go to the 4th Circuit or stay in the 5th Circuit or go to the 14th Circuit or the 8th Circuit and prosecute cases for a week or so either alone or with the local solicitors.
He engaged in a lot of agency work during this period of time with the Attorney General's office. One of his agencies was the

Printed Page 245 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
Ombudsman's Office. He represented SLED as well as the Solicitor's Association during this period of time. The main focus, outside of prosecution, was agency work lending advice and support to the solicitors, sheriffs, chiefs of police and everybody involved with law enforcement. The best way to describe this period of time would be a primary focus on criminal prosecution with a secondary emphasis on agency representation.
(c)L. CASEY MANNING, ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW, Dillon County, South Carolina, 1979-1983. He did a tremendous volume of domestic work during this period of time. He also did a tremendous volume of juvenile work in the family courts at this time. In fact, at one point, Nancy Bailey, Esquire, a local Dillon County lawyer and himself, were the only two lawyers in the County that handled appointed juvenile cases in the local Bar. During this period of time, he engaged in a wide range of the general practice of law, including writing Wills, contracts, real estate, criminal work and civil litigation in the Courts of General Sessions and Common Pleas. He did extensive work in Magistrate's Court, primarily in Dillon County. He did some probate work by being retained, as well as PCRs, some administrative hearings and did a little bit of everything. This period lasted for approximately five years.
(d)Part-Time Instructor; FLORENCE-DARLINGTON TECHNICAL COLLEGE; Florence, South Carolina; March, 1980 - November, 1980
(e)Law Clerk; RICHLAND COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE; Columbia, South Carolina; December, 1976 - May, 1977
(f)Constable and Agent; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; Columbia, South Carolina; May, 1973 - August, 1974

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell: BV

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - twice
State - weekly
Other - Magistrate (weekly)

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 30%

Printed Page 246 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
Criminal - 60%
Domestic - 10%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 25 %
Non-Jury - 75%
Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) State v. Stephen Gregory Scott. This is his first murder case. It was tried in Dillon County in 1982. The Honorable Marion H. Kinon presided.
Greg Scott was the younger brother of a classmate of Mr. Manning's in high school. Greg Scott was a white male approximately 25 years of age at the time. He was charged with murdering his first cousin. He was a co-defendant. The other defendant was a black male by the name of James Mack. James Mack pled guilty prior to the call of Greg Scott's case and gave State's evidence against Greg Scott.
This case was significant to Mr. Manning since it was his first murder case. The deceased was killed on May 29, 1982. The trial began on June 22, 1982. There was a two-week term of General Sessions in Dillon County, and Mr. Manning was trying every single case held during that term. He tried a DUI, and his client was acquitted. He tried a breaking and entering and grand larceny case where two co-defendants testified against his client, and he was acquitted. He tried an assault and battery with intent to kill which resulted in a mistrial. Greg Scott's murder case came at the end of the two-week term. During this period of time, he probably disposed of approximately 20 to 25 pleas, in addition to trying all of these other cases.
The case was called and was prosecuted by DuPre Miller, along with his deputy Solicitor Lee Youngblood. The State called approximately 12 witnesses, and Mr. Manning called about 20 witnesses. The case was heard prior to the advent of Circuit Court Rules 103 and 104, which today translate into Rule 5 and Brady Motions. The case was

Printed Page 247 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
called and tried, and after a three-day trial, Mr. Scott was acquitted. Mr. Manning filed a Writ of Prohibition. He tried to get a Supreme Court Justice to sign his Writ directing the Circuit Court to cease the trial. Former Chief Justice Woodrow Lewis did not sign the Writ of Prohibition, and he advised Mr. Manning that Rule 103 and Rule 104 that tracked the Federal Rules for Disclosure were about to take effect in South Carolina.
The significance of this trial is that Greg Scott had a prior record for breaking and entering and grand larceny, and as such his reputation could be impeached. He was not a very pleasant character. After the trial, Greg Scott went to seminary school in North Carolina, got his degree, remarried his wife (whom he had divorced), and he, and wife and two children put the family back together and started a preaching career. The last he heard, Greg Scott was doing well and was a Minister of the Gospel.
(b) United States of America v. Homer Lee Shealy. This case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division. Homer Lee Shealy was indicted under 18 U.S.C. Section 9-24(c).
Homer Lee Shealy pled guilty to distribution of marijuana in the General Sessions Court for Lexington County on July 11, 1991. He received a sentence of one year from the Honorable Carol M. Connor. This offense occurred on or about May 6, 1991. On or about December 11, 1991, the United States Grand Jury indicted Homer Lee Shealy under 18 U.S.C. Section 9-24(c) for possessing a firearm while committing a drug trafficking offense. This is almost a strict liability crime. If one had a gun during the commission of a drug trafficking offense or a violent crime, then Section 9-24(c) came into play. The sentence was a mandatory minimum 5 years and $250,000.
The case was called to trial and was prosecuted for the United States Government by Matt Hubbell. The Honorable Joe Anderson presided. After a three-day trial, the jury acquitted Homer Lee Shealy. This was one of the first in this State where a defendant had been acquitted by a jury for an alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 9-24(c).
(c) The State v. Styles Harper, Jr. Mr. Manning was working out of the Criminal Prosecution Section for the
Printed Page 248 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
State Attorney General's Office in 1984 when this case arose. This was a vehicular murder case in Beaufort County. It was an interesting case as there were no eye witnesses to a head-on collision between a car driven by Mr. Harper and a couple riding on a motorcycle.
The highway patrolman that investigated the case erroneously assumed that since Mr. Harper's vehicle came to rest facing east that he was travelling east, and he wrote up his report that way.
There was a civil side of this case that was prosecuted by Sam Svalina, a distinguished lawyer at that time with the Dowling Firm in Beaufort County. Sam Svaline had taken approximately 30 to 40 depositions in the civil case. The criminal side of the case had been on what was then known as a contingent docket for approximately a year and a half. The Honorable Buster Murdaugh had a conflict in prosecuting the case inasmuch as he was personal friends with the Harper family and this is the reason why the Attorney General's Office was asked to prosecute this particular matter.
Two distinguished lawyers in Beaufort County defended Mr. Harper (James Moss and Mike Charles MacLoskie). The significant thing about this case was that it was a vehicular murder case and under the theories of State v. Mouzon, a case arising out of Sumter County, that one could imply malice from the operation of a motor vehicle. Therein lay the basis for charging Mr. Harper with vehicular murder. It was a long, involved and technical case that was tried for three to three and a half days.
This preceded the Felony DUI Statute in our state and that is one reason why it was tried as a vehicular murder. As a prosecutor, it was interesting inasmuch as one had the opportunity to not only obtain a conviction for vehicular murder following the dictates of State v. Mouzon, but it would have been a special note to have been able to accomplish this without any eye witnesses.
(d) State v. Sam Johnson Bailey. This was a Criminal Sexual Conduct case that he tried in his real home in Dillon County in the fall of 1982. It was also his first Criminal Sexual Conduct trial. Mr. Bailey was charged with raping his 9-year-old stepdaughter. Mr. Manning was
Printed Page 249 . . . . . Thursday, January 13, 1994
appointed to represent Mr. Bailey in this case. He had been held in lieu of bond in a Dillon County Jail for approximately six months. He did extensive investigation and travelled to the Cities of Bennettsville and McColl to gather information about Sam Bailey, his estranged wife, the mother of the alleged victim. He also got information on how the Department of Social Services in Dillon as well as Marlboro County had investigated this case.
(e) William Glenn Hinton - Parole Board Hearing. He handled a Parole Board hearing for the above-referenced individual on October 25, 1989. This case was significant to him inasmuch as he had grown disenchanted with Parole Board hearings. He had handled probably two or three up until this time. Mr. Hinton had gotten married while in prison. He was 32 years old and married Jo Hinton who had 2 sons, one age 15 and the other age 17. Mr. Hinton was serving a term for armed robbery. He had been up for parole two years prior to this date (1987) and was turned down.
In determining how best to represent Mr. Hinton, Mr. Manning prepared a "Hearing Notebook." It is his understanding that it was the first time a presentation of this kind had been made to the Parole Board. The idea was to determine how to best package an individual for presenting his case before the Parole Board. A Parole Board hearing lasts approximately 6 to 12 minutes. In preparation for Mr. Hinton's parole hearing, Mr. Manning went to several hearings prior to the date of his hearing. In the Notebook he prepared a Table of Contents, which included a Summary of Facts that detailed the original offense. He also included photographs of Mr. Hinton and his new wife and stepsons at home in Hartsville, South Carolina, in the house he would be living in if paroled. He also included excerpts from the transcript of his guilty plea in Florence, South Carolina, which indicated he was not the trigger man. He also arranged and obtained statements from the Drug and Alcohol Awareness Programs that he had attended while in prison. Further, he had Mr. Hinton to undergo two drug screens prior to the date of his parole hearing. He also had Mr. Hinton pre-enroll in a Community Drug Rehab Center in Hartsville

| Printed Page 230, Jan. 13 | Printed Page 250, Jan. 13 |
Page Finder Index