| Printed Page 5180, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5200, Apr. 28 |

Trial lawyers like myself have a tremendous urge to jump in there and run the thing. Being quiet is one of the most difficult things, but the first thing you've got to do in each trial is be quiet and to listen, pay attention to what's going on. And I don't know whether you've ever tried to concentrate for six straight hours, six or eight straight hours on things, it's difficult to do and it takes a lot of work. But I think that's the first way to approach the problem.

You've got to know the facts and what's going on before you can go any further, then you've got to know the law. If you don't know the appropriate rules to apply to those facts, you're going to come out with a poor decision. I have not memorized the law. I often take breaks and take a two-minute break on the bench and go get a law book, pull down a law book and read and refamiliarize myself with a statute or a case or something of that nature, but I think you'd better take your time and make sure you understand it before you go forward.

And then you have to consider not only the legal aspects of the decision, but I think you have to understand and appreciate the practical aspects of the decision that you're about to render also.
Q. Will you -- I guess this is really more of a procedural question, but are you going to be writing your own orders or are you going to be asking

We meet on the street or we even met in the hallway, say hello and, you know, talk about sports perhaps, but they all know what the rules are and I know what the rules are and, you know, we don't test the rules.
Q. Who do you go to lunch with?
A. Actually, believe it or not, I go by myself most days or eat at my desk. I'm kind of busy and I really don't have time for long involved lunches.
Q. Are you involved in any political organizations?
A. I am not.
Q. Do you contribute any money to political campaigns or candidates?
A. No. In the past, there have been some individual people that I thought a lot of and tried to help out, but no organized group.
Q. What is your standard for recusal?
A. Well --
Q. Is that -- does that come up in front of you?
A. Yes, it does, as a matter of fact. I've been fortunate enough to go to some judicial conferences at the National Judicial College and one of the conferences I attended addressed this, and again the rule is pretty easy, they basically just say if you would be ashamed or upset at having it broadcast on TV or put on the front page of the newspaper or somebody to tell your mother about it, then you shouldn't do it. And that's sort of the rule of recusal.

If it's something you would be ashamed for the whole world to know about or feel uncomfortable with, you just shouldn't do it. You've got a high duty of honor to yourself, not only to yourself, but to the Bar and the Bench not to bring them into any disrepute whatsoever.
Q. Would you -- if you're elected Family Court judge, would you hear a case if Mr. Olive or Mr. Holler is one of the counsel in it?
A. No, I wouldn't. And, in fact, I don't allow them to appear in front of me in the City Court.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. We faced that problem. When I withdrew from the firm, I decided they simply could not appear in front of me and they don't.
Q. Have you -- the reason I ask this next question is I'm not sure it's clear in the PDQ, but have you derived any income from your being a municipal judge?
A. Yes, ma'am.

There was a law firm here in town that if I told you their name, you would be familiar with them and we had a situation where we referred cases back and forth and I apparently referred them more than they did to me and every year they would send me a nice little Christmas gift and when I got to be municipal judge, they called up and said, "Judge, we'd really love to send you something, but it'd look bad," so we don't even do that any more.
Q. Have you -- how have you been introducing yourself to Members of the General Assembly?
A. I'm just saying, "I'm Steve Dennis."
Q. Have you been appearing here? I mean, do you come up here much?
A. I've been here some, but not a lot.
Q. Have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of any legislator?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Have you asked anyone to write any letters on your behalf?
A. Other than those to this committee and to the Bar committee, no others.
Q. Senator McConnell --
SENATOR MCCONNELL: That's all the questions?
MS. MCNAMEE: Yes.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: All right. Any Members of the Committee have any questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Yes.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q. Would you go into a little more detail about the writing of orders? Did you -- tell me how you answered that. I didn't pick up on it that you would have someone else write the others, is that what you said?

I think the judge probably ought to have staff to let him or her prepare their own orders, but there is just not time or money available right now to do that. So given that fact, you've just got to make the best you can in the situation, so I think I would have other lawyers prepare proposed orders.

In fact, I will tell you right now if you review my file, you will find an order in there that's signed, but totally improper. The two lawyers involved put inaccurate things in there and the judge signed it. And then a supplemental order correcting those mistakes was later filed. So it does happen, so you need to be very, very careful reviewing them. But I tell you, I'm sympathetic with the Family Court judges because they work very hard, their time is short. I know many of them take work home at night and over the weekend and review and that's what you've got to do, you've got to put in whatever time it takes to properly review those orders and make modifications.
Q. But you would review them after?
A. Well, certainly. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes, sir. I sign a certain number of orders in my court now and I always take time to read them. My signature is going to be on there.
Q. All right.
A. I think it's important.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Any other questions? Ms. McNamee has --
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. I just had one more and I guess I would like to ask you, Mr. Dennis, to be a -- to look into your crystal ball and the problem of juvenile offenders in crime is such a growing one in South Carolina, I wanted to ask you and everyone else that I ask questions of, if you have any ideas that you'd like to share with the Committee on what can be done with this area here in South Carolina? You're talking to legislators here, so what can be done and what can you as a Family Court judge do and what should be done perhaps legislatively?

During the course of going to the judicial conferences, this comes up frequently. I've talked with judges all over the country about this problem. I'm a parent. Most of us are and most of us are concerned about young people and the environment they're living in and the waste of lives of the people who end up doing all the juvenile crime, and the victims.

I have looked into the eyes of juveniles when I was prosecuting and even now as a City judge, that at the age of 14 or 15, I was convinced weren't going to be turned around. By that age, they were already set in the path they were going to take. If you firmly believe that, I think you've just got to go ahead and protect the public from those people. You've just got to go ahead and as harsh as it is, you've got to make sure that they don't perpetrate those crimes on innocent victims over and over again or at least the least frequently as you can make it possible given what you got to work.

But I've also seen juveniles that I was convinced simply because of their environment or their home life or their particular situation could be saved. You don't have a lot of resources available to help those children frankly. I could tell you some anecdotal stories.

I had a young man that I thought was worth saving in a matter presented and they let him in the Pretrial Intervention Program. Six months went by and Pretrial had never yet gotten in touch with him about coming in and being interviewed. In the meantime, he went out and got in more trouble, so he got kicked out of pretrial.

Now, maybe you'd say that young man ought to have called pretrial himself, but he did all the routine things he was supposed to do to get into that program, so then they got him involved in probation. Probation ordered him to get him some alcohol and drug treatment.

Again, six months went by and no one ever contacted him about getting him involved. He got in more trouble and they sent him out for an evaluation. While he was in the structured environment, he performed marvelously. The teachers loved him. He was well behaved. He was no trouble. The time he got out, he started getting in trouble again. He has a disruptive home life, single parent who works all day, two jobs. Nothing wrong with the parent, but they're just not there. An alcoholic abusive father. The kid could have been saved with some type of program, and I don't know, I'm not an expert in any children, but there is nothing to do with that child except to send him back home where he

The Probation System just does not deal with it. Pretrial doesn't even deal with it. There needs to be some middle ground somewhere where someone really is taking some time and effort for people like that.
Q. You echo some of the frustrations we've heard from Family Court Judges.
A. I'm sure.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Any other questions?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. Let me ask you one, you may have gone over and I apologize for not being here sooner, but on the question of ex parte and lawyers preparing orders for you, will it be your policy or will it not be your policy to require that prior to the submission of that order that that order be shared with opposing counsel?
A. It should always be shared with opposing counsel. It's not only right, but it's a very practical thing to do, too.
Q. What if the lawyers aren't able to agree upon the proposed order?
A. Well, that happens more and more frequently these days. It takes longer to solve the order than to have the hearings sometimes. I think you've just got to get together with the two lawyers, have a little conference, make sure everyone is present, and go back over the situation.

If they still can't agree, then you just have to follow some real formal procedures and get that thing worked out. But I think you ought to follow the informal procedure first.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Any other questions? None. Thank you, sir.
A. Thank you very much.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Our next candidate is Barbara M. Heape. Would raise your right hand, please, ma'am.
BARBARA M. HEAPE, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
SENATOR MCCONNELL: This is your first screening I see?
MS. HEAPE: That's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Thank you. We're delighted to have you here with us today in this cool and comfortable capitol building. Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MS. HEAPE: I have and I hope the Committee doesn't mind, I brought some notes. I think a trial lawyer feels not fully clothed without notes even if you don't look at them, but I'd like to have them with me.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Is the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary is it accurate --

1. Barbara M. Heape
Home Address: Business Address:
4715 Oakhill Road P. O. Box 11549
Columbia, SC 29206 Columbia, SC 29211

2. She was born in Greenville, South Carolina on May 14, 1958. She is presently 35 years old.

4. She is single.

5. Military Service: N/A

6. She attended Clemson University, August, 1976 - December, 1978, transferred to the University of Georgia, January, 1979 - August, 1980, B.A.; and Mercer University Law School, August, 1980 - June, 1983, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has completed over 12 hours of continued legal education a year for the last 5 years. She completed 6 hours of LEPR education from 1990-1992. She attended the Domestic Practice Seminar titled "Hot Tips From the Experts Rides Again" in May of 1992 in order to remain current on domestic issues.

9. Taught or Lectured:
She speaks at the Criminal Justice Academy on a regular basis. She speaks at schools on a regular basis. She taught a Child Abuse Seminar at Excelsior Elementary School in Union, South Carolina in March of 1990. She taught a subject titled "What is the APA and How Has it Changed?" at a CLE sponsored by the S. C. Attorney General's Office in November of 1991. She prepared the materials

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
She was in private practice with the firm of Funderburk and Derrick from 1983-1985. She had a general practice with a heavy concentration in domestic and personal injury law. She was in private practice with James L. Mann from 1985-1989. She had a general practice with a heavy concentration in domestic, personal injury and worker's compensation law. She accepted a position as an Assistant Attorney General in March of 1989. From 1989 through September of 1993, her job duties included acting as sole or lead counsel in the preparation and prosecution of criminal cases and attorney grievance matters and representing various state agencies in a variety of matters from day-to-day legal advice to complex litigation. In September of 1993, she was promoted to the State Grand Jury Division where she is responsible for the general prosecution caseload.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:She has been rated a BV for the 1994 Martindale-Hubbell.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 10-20
State - 100+
Other - 25 Administrative Trials including Attorney Grievance prosecutions, Engineering Board prosecutions and hearings before regulatory agencies

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 25%
Criminal - 75%
Domestic - 5%

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) As an Assistant Attorney General, she handled the criminal investigation of the Patriot's Point Marina and Hotel Development Project which resulted in the indictment and prosecution of one of the developers and a public official.
(b) State v. Addison. This case was a criminal prosecution for the crimes of Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree and Grand Larceny of a Motor Vehicle. The Defendant was convicted on all counts and was sentenced to life imprisonment and consecutive sentences of 30 years, 10 years and 10 years.
(c) As the attorney for the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, she has been involved in several cases in various courts defending the new breath-alcohol testing device known as the BAC DataMaster. As a result of this litigation, the courts have accepted that the BAC DataMaster does perform a chemical test as required by state law and is scientifically reliable.
(d) While in private practice, she handled numerous routine domestic cases involving divorce, child custody, property division, alimony, etc., but the most unusual one was the case of Cox v. Cox which involved a dispute between the parties regarding a foreign Divorce Decree and accompanying Property Settlement and Support Agreement. The issues of divorce, custody, support, alimony, occupation of the residence, debts, insurance, real property, personal property, and medical bills were originally resolved by an Order from the Dominican Republic. Her client had relied on the Order and had remarried. There were also several children of the parties affected by the divorce. They prevailed on all issues except alimony due to her client's remarriage.
(e) While in private practice, she handled numerous cases in which the wife was granted a divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty. In 1987, she represented a husband in the case of Fontenot v. Fontenot who had suffered two years of

| Printed Page 5180, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5200, Apr. 28 |