| Printed Page 5150, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5170, Apr. 28 |

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Judicial College Reno (Spring, 1985); attended mandatory JCLE's as required and JCLE's that have not been required

9. Taught or Lectured: About two years ago he was on the panel at the Solicitor's Convention, "What is Expected of a Judges' Clerk"; various Judge Association meetings; South Carolina Bar mid-winter meeting; instructor for new Circuit Judges; and presently preparing to instruct newly elected Circuit Judges. This "school" is handled by the Circuit Court Advisory Committee, which he chairs.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He went immediately into private practice as a sole practitioner in 1963. He practiced alone until 1976. Thereafter, he took in an associate and practiced until 1980, when he was elected to the Circuit Bench. His practice consisted of all types of work (criminal, civil, domestic and property) with over 60% of it being in criminal and civil trial work.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:He is not listed, as far as he knows. He has never tried to have himself listed. He never thought he would need it while he was practicing and never had the occasion where it was needed or desired. Presently, he is frequently requested to give his opinion as to how attorneys should be rated.

19. Five (5) Criminal Appeals:

None.

20. Judicial Office:
Elected to the Circuit Bench in 1980 until the present

21. Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a) The State v. Ronald Mackey Amerson, et al., South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No. 23827
(b) Carolina Production Credit Association v. Colonel R. Rogers, et al.

22. Public Office: South Carolina House of Representatives, 1967-1976; South Carolina Senate, 1977-1980 - elected to these offices

24. Unsuccessful Candidate: He ran for South Carolina Supreme Court in 1991, and withdrew after screening and before the election.

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:Not as an occupation, but he owns rental property and farming interest

26. Officer/director or management of business enterprise:He is an officer in a close corporation owned by him and one other person involving a farming operation. The business is Brownway Farms, Inc. in Horry County.

28. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
He knows of none, but if any existed, he would disqualify himself from hearing it.

29. Arrested or Charged: He was charged $50 for a game violation in approximately 1971.
EXPLANATION: In approximately 1971, as a member of the House of Representatives, he was invited by former political opponents to attend a dove shoot. In an effort to mend fences, he decided to attend. They went to the location just before lunch but were not allowed to go beyond the locked gate so that no one could say they shot before the proper time. During this time two game wardens came in to check the field. It was okayed. Thereafter, they went on the property, took their stands and started shooting. Shortly thereafter, another game warden and a federal game warden came in and charged everyone in the field. They all were astonished in light

32. Sued: He has only been sued as a member of the Marion Legislative Delegation while serving in that capacity, and he believes in one or more cases as a Judge which were all dismissed.

36. Lodging, Transportation, Entertainment, Food, Meals, Beverages, Money or Any Other Thing of Value From a Lobbyist or Lobbyist Principal
He was invited and attended a reception given by the S. C. Bankers Association. He understands this should be reported as a value between $22 and $23. The date was January 11, 1994.

39. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Preparation and distribution of my intention at a cost of $35.40

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Marion County Bar; American Bar Association (formerly)

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
He has given up all organizations except Mason, Shriners and Wildlife Action. He is also a member of the Summit Club.

46. He has been a Circuit Judge for over ten years and feels that every circuit he has been in can attest to his judicial temperament, handling of the court, working with the jury and any other area. He is the Chairman of the Circuit Court Advisory Committee which considers and advises the Supreme Court on matters requested by the Supreme Court or as a conduit from the Circuit Bench and/or the Bar Association to the Supreme Court. This Committee has also been used to instruct new judges as they prepare to begin their work on the bench. He is also presently Chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission which accepts, acts upon and recommends action to the Supreme Court, if any is required, concerning any alleged violation of Judicial ethics against any Judge from and including City Recorders to the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. Before becoming Chairman of this Commission, he was a member and before that was a hearing officer for the Commission.

2. Positions on the Bench:
He has been the Resident Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit since elected on March 18, 1980 and qualified on June 6, 1980.

10. Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He is a member of a local golf club. He has never used his judicial office to further this interest.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands.

Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies that being Marion County Sheriff's Office, Marion City Police Department, SLED and FBI, all are negative. The Judgement Rolls of Marion County are negative. The Federal Court records show no judgements or criminal actions against you.

We have no complaints or statements which we received against you. No witnesses present to testify against you.

Prior to turning you over to Mr. Elliott for questioning, I'll offer you the same opportunity and that is either orally or in writing to deliver a statement to be made a part of this transcript of record.
JUDGE WALLER: I really don't have any statement that I want to deliver. I do as an aside want to say that since that last hearing, I have been screened five times from November the 18th, I think, or November the 11th until today. I have been through this screening a good bit.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
JUDGE WALLER: Yes, sir, Mr. Elliott.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Elliott.
MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you.
JUDGE WALLER - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Judge Waller, sometimes you think about the trial lawyers --
A. Would you mind if I close that door?
Q. Certainly not.
A. I could hardly hear you. I had it coming from both sides.
Q. Sometimes you think of trial lawyers as being those folks that really don't like to write at least on a consistent basis and then you think of those that are at the appellate court level sometimes as being those who don't like going to the courtroom. Where do you fit along that spectrum?
A. Probably into both of them. I've enjoyed every part of everything that I've done involving the law. Enjoyed practicing the law a lot. I enjoyed when I was a Member of the House and the Senate, I enjoyed making the law. I've enjoyed being on the Circuit Bench and I think I would enjoy being on the Supreme Court.

I don't think that you -- just because a person enjoys writing that that would make them a bad circuit judge and just because a person enjoys the activity of the courtroom would prohibit them from being able to write on the Supreme Court.

And I think that all of that brings into my -- my position now trying to get on the Supreme Court, I think all of the experience that I have had would benefit me in the writing that I would be required to do on the Supreme Court. Did I answer your question?
Q. Yes.
A. All right.
Q. What is it about the Supreme Court that appeals to you?

But I also feel like that I'm basically an average person who can feel for the average people who can interpret laws not real strict and not real liberal, but the way that the average person would look at that particular law.

And I think that I could bring that feeling, that concept into writings that would be written by me on the Supreme Court if I get there. And I think that that concept also would be very beneficial when the judges get together before the case is assigned to someone to write when you're discussing the case as to what you're going to do, to bring in that particular aspect of each individual case and discuss it. It's a real unique opportunity for an individual, whoever that individual might be, to be able to sit with the other four people and espouse your feelings about a particular matter and know that there is a possibility that these feelings can be accepted by the other members of the Court and that that will lay down the precedent for the people of the State of South Carolina and perhaps in other states, too. And it's an awesome concept and I would just enjoy doing that kind of thing.
Q. Well, as you say your decisions start to have exponential effect when you get on the appellate level. Will that have any -- make any difference to you about how you approach it than it does at the Circuit Court level?
A. I don't quite understand your question.
Q. Well, at the Circuit Court level, your decision will basically effect the litigants before you. When you get to the appellate court level, that decision will have a far -- much father reaching impact. Is that going to make a difference to you and do you think you'll approach the job any differently because of that?
A. No, I think it would have to make a difference. I mean any time you're getting ready to make a decision, you're not making the decision -- in my belief, when the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court for the State of South Carolina hands down a decision, that decision is not supposed to, in my belief, last three months and six months. This is

I have had Justice Harwell to tell me on occasions two, three, four years ago, said if you want to sit on the Supreme Court, I'll be glad to let you sit there any time that you want to, but I've got to tell you this, I don't think you want to do it while you're a Circuit Judge and I said why is that. He said well, not only do you have to continue doing your work, but you also have to do the work as far as writing that opinion and meeting, too, and said, you know, your work is more than you can say grace over anyway. But, you know, I've never been asked, but one time and that one time, I came in and sat.
Q. In the area of legal writing and contributing to CLE's, could you just tell the committee a little bit about your experience in that area.
A. Legal writing.
Q. Yes, sir, or contributions to CLE's or JCLE's, and I know you deal with the new judges.
A. Yes. Oh, I see where you're -- I have on occasions starting years ago been a participant in CLE's. I can't recall what it was about. I know one time I was a participant in a panel discussion where there were a number of judges there. I have spoken and been one of the guest speakers to the Solicitor at their convention one time. I've spoken to the annual conference of the Bar, the annual meeting of the Bar.

I have taught -- been a member or one of the judges that teach the new judges who come on as much as we can about what to expect and how to be a judge. I'm in the process of doing that again. The -- I think it's the 24th, 5th and 6th of next month. One of the reasons is that this is handled

Now, when you're over on that side of the bench, the
-- as a lawyer, the judge is the one who handles the procedure and you just go along with what the judge says. The judge says, all right, next we're going to do so and so, and next we're going to do so and so. Well, then all of a sudden you find yourself in the position of being the one saying next, we're going to do so and so, so you don't really teach these judges what they're supposed to do. What you're doing is you're bringing it to their attention as to what you're supposed -- it's kind of like studying psychology.

You know, psychology, you already know everything they teach in psychology. Nobody has -- just never brought it to your attention, and it's kind of the same way.
Q. You've talked a little bit about this, but what's your approach to writing orders. How do you think they should be composed?
A. I think I understand your question, and I'm going to answer it the way I understand it. Whenever you -- whenever you're preparing to write an order, the first thing you have to do is you have to set out what the problem is in the -- at the first part of the order -- what is the question?
Q. Well, you're getting it. That's exactly what I'm asking.
A. I mean is that the way you want me to answer?
Q. Well, that, and, you know, we've had previously some discussion with Judge Anderson about some criticism that he received in the newspaper about writing at too high a level, that maybe it wasn't comprehensible?
A. No. Well -- I have always condemned myself for never having been a tremendous reader. I probably have read more since I went to law school and married a librarian than any time in my life. And I condemn myself for not having done that, but at the same time, any order that is prepared that can't be understood by the average person, in my opinion, is not a real good order. It's got to be understood. If it can't be

I think anything that you write has got to be understood. You know, when you write an order, you're writing it for a purpose. You're writing it to give some guidance. Well, let's say on the Circuit Court level, if I prepare an order on the Circuit Court level and I have Representative Beatty as one of the attorneys in front of me and I rule against him, then he wants to be able to take that order and read it and understand easily why I ruled against him. And if he disagrees with my reasoning, then he doesn't have any problem in how he's going to appeal my ruling. But if I cause him some problems with a convoluted order or writing it in such a way that the average person can't understand, he's going to have some problems. Anybody would have some problem.

Now, you take that away from the Circuit Bench and you put it on the Supreme Court, when you write an order on the Supreme Court, you're writing it for the purpose of giving guidance to judges and lawyers thereafter, so it needs to be something that is written in such a way that it can be understood. And, certainly, in my opinion, perhaps it's because of my deficit, in my opinion, it has to be written in good, plain, clear common language where everybody can understand it.
Q. What's your philosophy about writing dissents and concurring opinions?
A. I heard you ask that question to Judge Kinard. I don't think that anybody should take the position of writing a dissenting opinion or a concurring opinion just so that they can espouse their beliefs on that particular subject. There is an effort always I think on the Supreme Court for it to appear that the Court is unanimous in what they do.

But at the same time, I think about the Allen charge that we give to the jury whenever a jury is hung and I tell them at that time that, you know, it's your duty to go in and try to reach a decision, but don't invade your beliefs; don't just do it, just to do it. And don't agree with somebody just because they're the majority and you're standing out here in the minority. Stand up for what you believe.

Now, if I were on the Supreme Court and it appeared at the discussion after hearing the case that I found myself in a minority position then, of course, I'm going to try to convince the other four that I'm right and that they're wrong and if they -- and then, of course, they're going to turn around and try to convince me that they're right and I'm wrong. And I think sometimes I probably will go along with them, perhaps sometimes they might go along with me and if it is of such a nature that I feel like a dissent should be written, then, of course, I would write it.

Rather than to hold something back, let the lawyers wonder about how I'm going to rule, I try to rule as quickly as I can and that's what is reflected on the report. I don't usually have anything under advisement.
Q. Okay.
A. I think in all the years that I've been a judge, I perhaps have taken, perhaps three things under advisement and they were extremely complicated.
Q. What kind of workweek do you anticipate going on to the Supreme Court, if you're elected and how far are you willing to go to meet the work load?
A. What kind of workweek do I anticipate?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Normal workweek. I have asked a number of the justices with reference to how you work and, of course, you put in a full workweek, but you have a little bit more leeway in
-- on the Supreme Court than you do on the Circuit.

| Printed Page 5150, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5170, Apr. 28 |