| Printed Page 5160, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5180, Apr. 28 |

When you're on the Supreme Court, you've got you and your law clerk and you've got your job that you've got to do. If you want to take off two hours from 2:00 to 4:00 and come back in from 8:00 to 10:00, then you can do that. You got a little bit more leeway, but you put in your hours. Did I answer that question?
Q. Yes, sir. What's your impression about which is a tougher workweek, Circuit Court or the Supreme Court? And I don't mean to put you on the spot.
A. I don't think -- no, I would think -- I think Circuit Court would probably be a tougher workweek and the reason is because you have so many other things that you have to consider. You have so many other people that you have to consider. You have to make sure that you are -- am I talking you out of -- you have to make sure that other people are not imposed upon whereas if you are over there and the job is yours, you can do it at night, you can do it in the evening, you can do it all day long and at night. You can do it any time you want to, as long as you get your work done. Then you don't have the pressure of doing the work on the appellate court that you would on the Circuit Court. There is fewer people to consider, fewer things to consider.
Q. But what I was interested in, is that the -- when Judge Baggett said that he thought it was real stressful being on the Circuit Court, I take it that's what he probably meant was just the pressure of --
A. Probably.
Q. -- having to do everything within a fixed period of time?
A. Probably.
Q. If you're elected to the Supreme Court, what will be your approach to preparing yourself for cases that are not preassigned to you? Do you read the transcripts? Do you read the memorandums?
A. I don't see how you could prepare yourself without reading the information. If you don't read all the information that the lawyers feel is important, then you would be going into the hearing, going into the discussion not prepared. So I think you would have to. I don't see any alternative.
Q. Regarding ex parte communications, I found it real interesting to hear what Judge Kinard said. Is your experience the same in your circuit? I mean it sounds like the Fifth Circuit is an unusual place?
A. You mean having to deal with ex parte communication?

Now as far as talking to lawyers, I talk to lawyers. I deal with lawyers. I see them all the time. When it comes to talking to lawyers about a case, no, I don't. If somebody comes in and they're talking with me and we're talking about what they've done or where they're going on vacation or something and then they say,
"Judge, I want to talk with you about a certain case." I said, "Wait a minute. Whoa, I've got to have the other side to do that."

It is so much in the mind of Circuit Court judges that we have started being perhaps overly cautious. I get a phone call now and I generally don't answer my phone. Either my secretary will answer it or my law clerk will answer it and they will tell me that there is a lawyer on the phone. And I generally have my law clerk ask them what is it about. And if they tell me it's something about a case, he'll tell me that. And I'll say, "Well, get in touch with the other side and have them call me with a conference call."

There's a cute little experience I had about that. He did just that and I got the conference call back and picked up the phone and they didn't know I was on the phone. And one of them said, "What does he want with us?" He said, "I don't know what he wants with us. All I know is we're supposed to give him a conference call." And then I came in and told them, I said, "I understood ya'll wanted to talk about the case," which in fact, they did and I had both lawyers there where I could talk with them.

You have to be very careful. You know, you have to watch that you don't do anything -- well, I can't think of the word. Here I go with my deficiency as far as words is concerned.

I know what it means, though, where you can't do anything wrong and you can't do anything that appears to be wrong. Appearance of impropriety. Any time there is something that might appear that somebody could take wrong, you better cover yourself and that's what I try to do.
Q. What is the correct standard to use for recusal?
A. There are a number. Of course, if you have an interest in it in any way, you recuse yourself. I had some bank stock that has a case in

So I brought that to the attention of the lawyers and told them that I felt that I should recuse myself in that case because it just wouldn't look right with the bank that I have stock in talking about a merger with another one, so I recused myself from that one.

There are some instances where you can get opinions from the Judicial Standards Advisory Committee which I have done in a particular case. Realizing that I'm from a small county and that I hold court in my county frequently and one of the most active lawyers in that county is my former law partner and my brother-in-law and I wrote for an advisory opinion on that and got it back and I have it.

And they tell me that what I'm supposed to do, which is what I do each time that if a matter, civil or criminal, comes before me that he is involved in, what I have to do on his is in open court, I have to make everybody aware of the fact that he is my brother-in-law and he is my former law partner .

Then I ask the other side and I try to do it in such a way that they can easily say, "Judge, I'd like for you to recuse yourself," without feeling like they've offended me as a judge. If they want me to disqualify myself, I'm more than happy to do that, although I truly believe that if they said they didn't want me to, I would probably be more in their favor than I would in his just because I wouldn't want anybody to say that I was.

But I have recused myself in a number of cases on the civil side and a number I have not because they said, no, judge, no problem, you can do it.

In the criminal side of the court, the Solicitor is quick to say doesn't bother us at all, you go right ahead and do it, so I generally always do it.
Q. What parts of your temperament and demeanor that you take to the trial bench do you think are going to be the most important for you to have on the appellate bench?
A. What parts of my temperament?
Q. Yes, sir. Are going to be more important at the appellate level than the trial level?
A. Well, you know, from what I understand about the appellate courts, you really don't have a whole lot of contact with people. Temperament, perhaps, wouldn't be as important, always important, but wouldn't be as important on the appellate court as it is on the trial court.

And I had someone right here in this State House the other day tell me about a judge who is now retired, that fellow still -- whenever something was written in the paper about one of the five screenings that I had and they said something about the -- that my temperament was pretty good on the bench and, really, they said better than that, but I won't brag too much on it. But he pulled me off to the side and he said, "I enjoyed reading what they said about you in that area," and then started telling me about this other experience that he had and he said, "You know, I never will forget that experience. It's always been a bad experience for me."

And then he came right back and told me about a sitting judge now -- by the way, Mr. Chairman, you'll be interested in knowing he was talking about Judge Rushing at this time. He said, "My wife had an experience with Judge Rushing and said it was a very pleasant experience." He said, "She didn't understand at all what I was talking about whenever I was telling her about my experience because it was so different." So you see there is a perfect example of a man and his wife who have had two different types of experience with a judge's temperament that have sent a message out to the community. And I think that regardless of where you are, if you're a judge, you've got to always remember and that's one of the things, the very last thing that I got on some guidelines that I had prepared for the new judges remember you're an ambassador for the judicial system.
Q. You're a hunter, and that's shown up in previous screenings and I'm not going to ask you about that, but in that area of gifts and social hospitality, in the area of gifts and social hospitality, how do you treat an offer of a hunting trip from an attorney?
A. Well, you know, there's an opinion on that, too. The opinion basically says that hunting in the South is an accepted pastime and that

I have accepted in years past, I have -- not recently. I have accepted invitations to hunt with lawyers. Most of the time if I hunt with a lawyer, it's my brother-in-law. And since being on the Circuit Bench, I haven't had a whole lot of time to do much hunting. I can't do that at night, you know. It's against the law.
Q. Would you treat a business lunch like you would a hunting trip?
A. I don't understand.
Q. Well, do you consider that a gift or social hospitality?
A. Oh, sure, that's a gift and that has -- that I don't know if it's been spoken to by any type of advisory opinion, but if I went out with a lawyer, I pay my part. And the first off, I wouldn't go out with a lawyer that was involved in any kind of case. It would have to be something like maybe I saw a lawyer down at the beach and he said, "Come on, let's have lunch together," and we walked in a place and had lunch together. I'm holding court in Richland County at the time for a six-month period, but I saw him down at the beach, the Horry County lawyer, and we had lunch. Well, when the bill comes, I'm going to pay my part. As a matter of fact, I might not only pay my part, I might pay that lawyer's part, too. If he or she insists on paying mine, I'd say, "You know you can't do that. Now, I'll pay yours." And sometimes they let me.
Q. Judge, three of your cases have been brought to the attention of the Committee. They are State versus Bellamy, State versus Plemmons and State versus Davis. They were all cases in which you were reversed and the reason they were brought to the Committee's attention was there were some errors that were made more than once in those particular cases?
A. I don't really recall the specifics about those cases, but I think State versus Plemmons was one of the ones that I was reversed because I followed the law that was existing at the time. And then the law was changed by the United States Supreme Court. And then I was reversed at this point. And if I'm not mistaken, which I might be, but I don't think I am, that law has now by the United States been reversed and it's back this way. And really what I did the first time is the law now.

But in between those two times, it changed and I was reversed.
Q. So while you were holding the trial -- while there might be opinions that appear and they reversed you, you may have been holding the trial on a later case at the same time, the first ruling came down?
A. No, no, no, no. There was a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. I'm holding the trial. The question comes up, I rule the way the United States Supreme Court says you're supposed to and the South

After they reversed themselves, this matter then is brought before the South Carolina Supreme Court to be heard. The South Carolina Supreme Court relies on the latest ruling from the United States Supreme Court and, of course, reversed me.

Since then I think within the last six or eight months, I forget the time, but since then, the United States Supreme Court has reversed themselves again and gone back to their original position. So what I did in this original case, if I were to do it today, if I'm not mistaken, and, of course, I say I don't have these cases in front of me, but if I were to do it today, I'd have to do the same thing I did originally in order to comply with the law of the nation, of the United States Supreme Court.

That's one bad thing about a Circuit Judge. You follow the law that exists right then. And it changes and after a case is over and then whenever you're reversed, you're reversed on the change and you'd have to have a crystal ball to know what that change was going to be. Another thing -- what was it? Before I get to Lemmy Arthur, I want to tell you about that one. And I can't remember what I had in my mind. But you asked me about the Lemmy Arthur case, too, I believe, didn't you.
Q. No, sir, it was not one of them?
A. Oh. Oh.
Q. But I mean if you want to comment on that, that's fine.
A. No. That's -- that was -- no, that's okay. I thought it was one of them. Plemmons, and what were the other?
Q. Well, the most recent one is State versus Davis, State versus Plemmons and then State versus Bellamy. State versus --
A. State versus Bellamy was the one that I was reversed on, if I recall, by saying that a weapon was considered a deadly instrument. Is that right?
Q. Well, I guess the one, the common thread that goes through the three cases, and I guess it's unfair to characterize the State versus Bellamy case as being a reversal. It was indeed on other cases, but that's the one where the Court basically made kind of a laundry list of things that the Court and the Bar should do in death penalty cases. There are about seven or eight items.
A. Yes. One of the things that was in State versus Bellamy that reversed me was that thing about considering a gun a deadly weapon, that they -- that the jury had a right to consider a gun a deadly weapon. I actually was following word for word Chief Justice's Ness' charge whenever I did that, so -- and we all were. You know, all the judges were. But -- and

Well, there was another case where I was asked and I told them what they meant. And they said, no, you're wrong there, too. I have been reversed, I think, with those three times on that same question that keeps changing on me. And I can't help that.
Q. Judge --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this isn't a parole eligibility question or another one -- but, I'm sorry.
THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to say for simplicity's sake, why don't we do this? Why don't you look at the cases and if you feel like your comments need further illumination, then forward in writing to the

There has been some confusion about what an indirect solicitation of a pledge is and the Screening Committee has taken a pretty strict or has a pretty strict interpretation of that and I'd invite every candidate the opportunity to read that.
A. Mr. Chairman, I actually followed what was sent to me, I believe, in the packet.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Couick's opinion, if that's what you're referring to, is -- that's --
A. Well --
THE CHAIRMAN: -- specifically what I'm referring to and would just for everyone remind them to take a look at that when they're gauging whether or not their contact, their contacts are appropriate. That's the guideline the committee has established.
A. Might I ask a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
A. I know what the intent of solicitation is, that we are not to seek any type of commitments until such time as we receive from the committee your action on these hearings. But is that what it says? Does it say after screening.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think -- my recollection of the opinion is, and counsel can correct if I'm wrong, but is that it says that any attempt, any encouragement for someone to contact a legislator prior to screening is deemed an indirect solicitation.
A. Well, see, that's what -- I'm not going to do it until after the report comes out, but the -- I was somewhat confused in that it said after screening. Well, what we're doing today is screening, you know, and -- but I don't have the report.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, let me just -- and I'll -- we do not treat these as violations because we think the Rule -- because we think there is some confusion about the Rule and we've got a period of time that we think we need some education of the candidates and the Members, but the opinion says the committee believes it would not be improper for a candidate before screening to request that friends, colleagues or Members of the General Assembly contact Members after the committee issues its report. So it makes it clear that the contact should be made after the screening committee.
A. After the report.

(A lunch break was taken)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Candidates for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4. Our first candidate is Steven D. Dennis. Mr. Dennis, if you come forward please. Stand and raise your right hand.
STEVEN D. DENNIS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
MR. DENNIS: I have, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: And is it in order?
MR. DENNIS: I believe it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any objection to us making the Summary a part of the transcript of your sworn testimony?
MR. DENNIS: No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be done at this time.

1. Steven D. Dennis
Home Address: Business Address:
513 Hampton Trace Lane P. O. Box 11487
Columbia, SC 29209 1777 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29211 (29201)

2. He was born in Columbia, South Carolina on November 30, 1948. He is presently 45 years old.

4. He was divorced in 1993; wife was moving party; one-year separation. He has two children: Matthew C., age 14, and Patrick G., age 17.

5. Military Service: No.

| Printed Page 5160, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5180, Apr. 28 |