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 5100, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5120, Apr. 28 |
Printed Page 5110 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
32. Sued:
(1) 6:CV-85-2730, Robert L. Wilson v. City of Greenville, Mayor William Workman, Ralph King Anderson, Jr. . . .:This was a civil rights action that related to a local sign ordinance; the Summons and Complaint were filed on October 10, 1985; then United States District Court Judge Wilkins dismissed the action on October 24, 1985; the records maintained at the District Court indicate that the defendants were never served.
(2) 3:CV-86-1444, Jasper Buchanan v. Richard Riley, Travis Medlock, William Leeke, Woodrow Lewis, Donald Zelenka, Ralph King Anderson, Jr. . . . : Pro Se action brought by an inmate of the State Corrections Department; United States Magistrate Gambrell recommended dismissal, concluding that the action was frivolous, on June 3, 1986; United States District Court Judge Blatt entered judgment for all defendants on July 16, 1986; according to the docket sheet at the District Court, the defendants were never served.
(3) 3:CV-80-1640, Annie M. Timmons v. [all members of the South Carolina House of Representatives and the South Carolina Senate]:United States Magistrate Gambrell advised the plaintiff that a voluntary dismissal would be directed because the defendants were never served or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff would have to serve the defendants properly; this letter was dated July 27, 1982; then United States District Court Judge Wilkins issued an Order dated October 13, 1982, staying the case for six months in order to allow the plaintiff to petition to reopen it or it would be dismissed; this is the last entry in the file; the records at the District Court indicate that the defendants were never served.
(4) 3:CV-82-401, Jasper Buchanan v. Ralph King Anderson, Jr.; Sidney Tyson; and Donald J. Zelenka: This is a pro se habeas corpus action brought by an inmate within the custody of the Department of Corrections; United States Magistrate Gambrell recommended dismissal March 1, 1982; then United States District Court Judge Hemphill dismissed the case on
Printed Page 5111 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
April 5, 1982; the District Court records indicate the defendants were never served.
(5) CV:89-1533, Donald J. Strable v. Clyde N. Davis, Jr., Clerk of Court, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Chief Justice, The Honorable George T. Gregory, Honorable Julius B. Ness, former Chief Justice, Honorable Cameron B. Littlejohn, former Chief Justice, Honorable Elijah Curran Burnett, Circuit Judge, Honorable James Edward Moore, Circuit Judge, Honorable Tommy L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Judge, Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Circuit Judge, Honorable Frank P. McGowan, Jr., Circuit Judge: This was a Pro Se action against numerous judges. The case was summarily dismissed by Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals (Fourth Circuit) resulting in a per curiam dismissal on February 1, 1990.
(6) CV:4:91-3572(H), Jerry Lee Bruce v. Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Ferrell Cothran, Sharon N. Odom, Ray E. Chandler, Harold Detwilder and R. Wright Turbeville: This was a Pro Se action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. It was summarily dismissed by Judge Charles W. Gambrell on November 26, 1991. This case was never served on the defendant, Anderson.
(7) CV:8:92-283-17K, Phillip R. Pyett v. Judge Ralph Anderson, Dudley Saleeby, Jr. and John DeBerry:This is a Pro Se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The case was summarily dismissed by Judge Joe F. Anderson, Jr. on October 22, 1992.

39. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
11/24/93 Ink Cartridge $20.00
11/29/93 Postage Stamps $98.60
11/29/93 Personal stationery $34.00
(estimate - letter written to members of the General Assembly)

TOTAL: $152.60

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Inn of Court

Printed Page 5112 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
None

46. He was the recipient of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Portrait and Scholarship Fund - 1993

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Ashpy P. Lowrimore, Senior Vice President and City Executive
Southern National
P. O. Box 6676, Florence, SC 29502
664-1010
(b) William T. Monroe, Pastor
Florence Baptist Temple
2308 South Irby Street, Florence, SC 29505-3427
662-0453
(c) Alma M. Jenkins
Court Coordinator/Administrative Assistant (for Horry County)
P. O. Box 677, Conway, SC 29526
248-1353
(d) Honorable Mary P. Brown
Clerk of Court (for Berkeley County)
P. O. Box 219, Moncks Corner, SC 29461-0219
761-6900
(e) Honorable Barbara A. Scott
Clerk of Court (for Richland County)
P. O. Box 1781, Columbia, SC 29202
748-4684

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE - ADDENDUM

2. Positions on the Bench:
Circuit Judge at Large, Seat No. One, serving continuously since September 14, 1979

10. Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He has limited his community involvement so as not to conflict in any way with the performance of his duties. Generally, he involves himself in church and Bar activities.

Printed Page 5113 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints have ever been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands against you.

We checked the records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, being the Florence County Sheriff's Department, the Florence City Police Department, SLED and FBI and all those records are negative. The Judgment Rolls of Florence County are negative.

I would note that the Federal court records show no judgments or criminal actions against you, but there were eight civil actions in which you were a defendant, including six civil rights actions brought against you and others which have been dismissed, one mortgage foreclosure in which you and others were defendants and default was entered against the other defendants in that case. And there was one writ of habeas corpus filed and Summary Judgement was granted. Does that -- is that correct in your memory?
JUDGE ANDERSON: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: We do have one complaint or statement that we've received and that was the statement of Mr. Kelly and what I'm going to ask, Mr. Kelly is not going to come forward and testify again, but perhaps during the course of your discussion, you can elaborate on the facts that's he outlined and try to respond to those. And the one witness we have is present to testify against you today was Mr. Kelly who has already testified. At this time, I'm going to turn you over to Mr. Elliott for questioning.
JUDGE ANDERSON: All right.
JUDGE ANDERSON - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Judge Anderson, since it's fresh on our minds now about Mr. Kelly's complaint, why don't we go ahead and give you an opportunity to respond to that, if you care to.
A. Members of the Committee, I have one major qualm, I would ask you to consider this. I have this case on remand and I have a hearing scheduled in this case next week in regard to issues. Thus, I would ask you not to ask me any questions that would infringe upon the ethics of the office.

Now, let me say with clarity and with no equivocation, my order was issued in regard to those two cases. The orders that I issued in regard to the two cases set out my position concerning the right of the County of Lexington to be heard before I would issue orders of expenditure of Lexington County funds. The State Supreme Court reversed that part of the order saying that Lexington County had no standing.

Printed Page 5114 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
When I consider this case further on remand, I shall diligently and conscientiously follow the exact language of that opinion. And I tell you now I will do that without any deviation including, if necessary, expenditure of county funds to give this man a clear -- a fair trial.

Now, folks, I've been given so many cases in this state, a number of which are death penalty cases. I am not going to make a person face the death penalty without some decent, proper clothing. I am not going to make a death penalty defendant come forward in prison clothing nor in prison shoes. Fundamental fairness is involved in those trials and as a matter of conscious, if I don't make it on the State Supreme Court, I just want to make -- there are some matters of conscious that apply to my trials, and I am not going to make any defendant in a criminal trial especially, especially in a death penalty trial face the court or the jury in prison garb. I shall not do that. I do not think that meets the test of due process under the Constitution.

Now, what I'm going to attempt to do and what I have attempted to do is juxtapose that to the money available. I do not want to waste taxpayers' funds. I have spent an inordinate amount of time in recent years trying to evaluate the requests that have been posited to me concerning the expenditure of funds for expert witnesses, a plethora of expert witnesses that I have considered. But I believe under the oath as a Circuit Judge that I have a duty and responsibility to give due process.

That due process is panoramic. It involves the State and the victims, but it involves the defendant. The trials of these death penalty cases is not only governed and controlled by state law, the United States Supreme Court decisions govern and control these cases.

I ask you Members of the Committee to simply be cognizant of the fact that when these trials are conducted, they are scrutinized and reviewed not only by the State entities, but by the federal entities and the trial must meet the highest mandate in regard to due process.

I will answer anything specifically except I respectfully say to you again that I have a hearing scheduled in this matter next week on remand. I have tried to make it crystal clear that I will order the expenditure of the necessary funds to give due process. And if that is a negativistic factor, the oath of the office requires it, and I shall take the consequences.
Q. I appreciate your ethical considerations about talking about it, but could I just ask you about the process for a moment?
A. Yes, you may. Yes.
Q. At this stage, are you actually concerned with the amount that's being spent on the defendant's defense for the actual -- just the provision of the services?

Printed Page 5115 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
A. In regard to the hearing that I will hold, amounts will be involved, services will be involved and the identification of expert witnesses and personnel will be involved.
MR. ELLIOTT: Do you want to see if anybody else had a question about that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McConnell?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. Judge, so I can make sure I understand, your decision that went up to the Court, you ruled that the County could be heard on the matter; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that would have given you the availability at that time of hearing from all sides, available money, the necessity and everything and the Court came back and said that the ex parte law said that the County had no standing; is that essentially correct?
A. That's the gist and gravamen of the decision.
Q. So frankly you were somewhat overturned on the question of hearing from the County, would that be a fair statement?
A. The most chilling word in my life is reversed and you will see that in the front of the Opinion, reversed.
Q. All right. Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think Senator McConnell's point is that your
-- the position you took in the case was more consistent with what the complaining witness, Mr. Kelly, or was somewhat consistent with the position Mr. Kelly took; is that correct?
A. I think it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Elliott.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Judge Anderson, among the materials you submitted to this committee was an indication that your 1993 taxes are unpaid. Could you explain that? Is there --
A. No.
Q. -- any --
A. I just had not filed the --
Q. The return?
A. I was talking about the 1993, but all my taxes have been paid. Yes.
Q. On your Personal Data Questionnaire you mention that you're a member of the South Carolina Inn Court, and you spell that I-n-n?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us what that is?
Printed Page 5116 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
A. That's an honor society at the law school established by then Chief Judge Sanders who invited a number of Circuit judges in the state, law professors and lawyers, trial lawyers to become a member of the Inn of Court. It's a national organization. It has its etiology in England in regard to people involved in the system coming to talk about the scholarship activities in regard to the law, concerns in the law, developments and trends in the law. It is a meeting of individuals by invitation.

You are invited to become a member and I was invited to become a member by that organization and have participated in general discussions. They normally meet at the law school. They normally have a general discussion about a topic that is identified and it is in most instances intellectually stimulating.
Q. Is there any special criteria for admission other than Justice -- Judge Sanders' invitation?
A. Well, he is not the only one that invites you. I think it's a committee that invites you and I do not know what standard they use. They just gave me the invitation and I accepted.
Q. All right. A little while ago you talked about how you get a large number of cases that are complicated cases and it seems to me that's true, and you've certainly listed some in your Personal Data Questionnaire. Do you enjoy the complicated case? How do you approach the complicated case?
A. It has been said to me publicly and privately that I am somewhat unusual in that I would rather try a complicated legal issue rather than what might be termed a standard trial, and I do not denigrate any litigation by the use of that word, but, yes, I do like the challenge of the high line issue case, both in the civil and criminal venues.
Q. Do you consider yourself successful as a judge in trying those cases?
A. The highest honor given to me in recent years has been the vote that I received unanimously by members of the bar in two scenarios, one in regard to judicial rating concerning various factors that was released some several months ago and, two, a rating that I got released this morning. I pride myself in giving everything that I have to the task and only say that I will continue to do that. That's what I've tried to do.
Q. You have a son who is an attorney and he practices law with the Attorney General's office. What do you do if you ever have one of his cases come before you?
A. I do not have the Attorney General's Office appear before me. I insulate myself from my son and the Office of the Attorney General.
Q. You have been engaged in politics in the past.

Printed Page 5117 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
A. A long time ago.
Q. It's been a long time ago.
A. 15 years.
Q. What's your opinion about what a judge is able to do in the area of politics?
A. I do not believe a judge should engage in any political activities.
Q. Talking again about complicated cases, you did note that legal scholars in a national publication commented on your Alvin Davis, Jr. case.
A. Yes.
Q. Did the legal scholars give you a favorable review?
A. The article was in The National Law Journal which is a prestigious law journal. The case emanated from the Richland County venue. It involved an individual who had been sentenced for a major crime, but then the jail personnel let him walk out. And he stayed gone for approximately eight years, if I recall, became a model citizen and did everything that was necessary to be rehabilitated. And when he came before me, they had locked him back up and I turned him loose.

I ruled that as a matter of due process the State could not let an individual loose, turn that individual back into society and do nothing. And by the way, he lived in the venue almost the entire time only a few blocks from the Richland County Judicial Center, so I was somewhat appalled by the lack of law enforcement to do anything, and then I tried to make them responsible for their actions.
Q. Did you get a favorable review?
A. I think I did. I think nationally it was accepted as a case where unusual fact scenarios were presented in regard to individuals in like circumstance and there was some precedent around the country, very little directly on the point, and I tried to conclude the matter on due process issues. I think the review was favorable.
Q. In a past screening in 1979, you discussed at some length the distinction between your beliefs in and opinions in political life and your positions or conduct as a judge. And in that screening, you're talking about the role as a Circuit Court judge and you basically said you didn't think a judge ought to interject himself into the policy making decisions of the state in regard to things like capital punishment and mandatory sentencing. Now, you're seeking the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Do you see that any differently?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Also in that 1979 screening, you described yourself as a trial lawyer and you said you did not do very much

Printed Page 5118 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
"office work practice," and it sounded like you really enjoyed the excitement of the courtroom and that's kind of what got your blood stirring. And now you're looking at a job where you're probably going to be sitting behind a desk a lot doing a great deal of research and have a little less interaction and excitement that you derived from the courtroom. Is that going to be an adjustment for you? Will you miss it? Will you be happy on the appellate court?
A. Counsel, I think the adjustment was when I made the transition from trial lawyer to trial judge. Obviously, when I try a case, I'm not the lawyer. I let the lawyers try the case. My view is to let the lawyers present the issue and I have maintained a position of passivity in most instances in that regard, and so I do not see any change from the trial judge mode to the appellate judge.
Q. You won't miss the interaction? I've heard appellate work described as being pretty lonely at times and it sounds like from what you're saying that's not going to be an adjustment for you?
A. I love what I'm doing. I enjoy being a trial judge. I mean I enjoy getting up going to work early in the mornings. And I certainly understand the transition, but I do have some tendency to want to write. I know my writings thus far have been limited because my role is the trial judge and writing is then sent to the appellant entity.

I think the opportunity and privilege to write precedent is a tremendous opportunity and privilege. I do believe that the role in that regard would be different, but it is appealing to me to make that transition.
Q. A couple of things you touched on just then. Let's talk about the work ethic for a minute. What is a typical week for you in court?
A. Every morning at 7:30, I'm at the office everywhere, Charleston, Columbia, wherever I'm being assigned. Every morning, 7:30. I normally stay until about 7:00 in the afternoon. I have stayed later, to the consternation of counsel sometimes, but I suppose amelioration has set in. I try to be aware and cognizant of their load. I give a very full day to the job. Normally around ten hours.
Q. Yes, sir. I didn't know 7:00 o'clock was in the afternoon, but it's good to hear that. Did you -- have you had any complaints about your work schedule, that it's too long or do you hold court for too long?
A. Not in recent years. When I first went on the bench, I had probably exacerbated that work schedule to the point of a little too long and probably needed to truncate it somewhat which has occurred. I obviously recognize lawyers needed to get ready in the morning. Lawyers have the need to talk to witnesses, get their schedule ready and I've tried to tailor that.

Printed Page 5119 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
Q. And you mentioned, too, a few minutes ago about writing and liking to write. And your writings have received some notoriety in the press. In fact --
A. I knew that was coming.
Q. -- there was one newspaper where -- account where I read that you used some word, and I don't remember the word, nor would I know what it meant or be able to pronounce it probably, but where Solicitor Harpootlian challenged you in a courtroom to spell it and apparently you were able to do so and you moved on from there.

But you have received some notoriety in the press for using words that are probably not in common usage even among educated people, in particular, there was that article by James Kilpatrick. You're nodding your head. Apparently you're aware of it. How do you meet that criticism?
A. Well, I don't think it's a criticism really and I say that honestly and candidly because the lawyers who know me, we have repartee about words. I consider myself an etymologist. I love words. I also always have enjoyed words. Folk like Harpootlian, he's a word person. He will give me a word and challenge in a moment. Obviously, I would like to respond and I do enjoy responding.

Recently, a lawyer said to me, "You know, you've been a little inhibited in regard to your words and vocabulary." I said, "I don't want another Kilpatrick Number 2 syndrome.". I note that Kilpatrick didn't complain about the syntax or the grammar or the usage of the word. And I know he is constantly saying other people don't know anything about words.

It happens to be in the order that I issued, the lawyer before me was an honor graduate from Harvard Law School. He knew all those words. Throughout that trial, we had had constant colloquy and soliloquy concerning words and maybe Kilpatrick didn't understand the word and had to look it up, but Ned Zeigler didn't have to look it up. He knew it. He just lost.
Q. You might want to get with Ms. Boyd, our stenographer, after this is over and spell a few of those words for her. Do you have any experience as an acting justice or judge at the appellate level?
A. Five times, I have served on the State Supreme Court. That's a wonderful experience. Fantastic. The air and atmosphere there is certainly different from down at the trial level, in the pits and in the trenches. I did not have the opportunity to write. I was invited one time by Bubba Ness and I mentioned something about a dissent and the last

Printed Page 5120 . . . . . Thursday, April 28, 1994
thing I saw in his face was the information that I needed not to file a dissent.
Q. Judge Anderson, we took a look at the Court Administration's report on matters that judges had under advisement over 30 days and the period of time we looked at was 1992, 1993 and January of 1994 and you never had a case pending over 30 days. I assume you do that by keeping the kind of schedule that you were just talking about.

| Printed Page 5100, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5120, Apr. 28 |
Page Finder Index