| Printed Page 6710, May 17 | Printed Page 6730, May 17 |

And the third thing besides being courteous and decisive is he should always and even more in our court, we sometimes ask questions that people might reasonably think means we are all already for one side. We aren't, but we're asking those questions, so that lawyer can give us his best case. The trial judge can't do that. A trial judge must observe an appearance of strict impartiality. We play devil's advocate a lot. A trial judge can never play devil's advocate with a lawyer in front of a jury.

If that's necessary, he should either send the jury out or he should recess and let you go to chambers and argue it. So it's not the same on a trial court as it is in an appellate court.
Q. At the appellate level, how is an ex parte communication most likely to occur?
A. I'll give you the same answer. I follow the rules on that. Let me say on ex parte communications in particular that rather than you taking my word for it, of course, I'm going to say I never have ex parte communication and so forth to this committee. I would like the lawyers of South Carolina to answer that question.

The lawyers of South Carolina graded me in 1985 in a confidential survey. I don't know who answered those questions or what their answers were, but hundreds of lawyers were surveyed, and so you're not just getting the opinion of the guy who lost the case in front of me and thinks I'm a terrible judge or the guy who won a case in front of me and thinks I'm the greatest judge on the bench.

When a lawyer tells you I'm the greatest judge on the bench, just follow the rule I was told to follow by an older judge when I first went on. He said, "You're going on the bench now. Things are going to change. You'll never lose a case again and you'll never have an honest conversation with a lawyer." Okay. But the lawyers here, it was a confidential survey, it was not conducted by the Bar or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court commissioned it, but it was done by an independent, outside auditing agent that is skilled and experienced in conducting these kinds of surveys.

Let me, if I may, tell you what else they -- the lawyers said about me on that. They said I was the best judge in terms of knowledge and application of the law. They said that I was best in terms of awareness of recent legal developments in the law. I was up to date. That I was not influenced by political consideration. The press often expresses concern that members of the General Assembly elect us and some of them are lawyers who appear before us, but the lawyers said I was the best judge in terms of not being influenced by political considerations.

Senator -- no, I won't say that. And they said that I was the best lawyer in not being influenced by the identity of the lawyers involved in the case. I'm not going to comment on what the lawyers said. You give it whatever value you think it is, but I think it's a better answer than mine because I would be -- I try to be honest, but I'm not as objective as other people are and you might think I was being a little self-serving. My short answer is I follow the Rules. And, again, I won't cite the Canons on that, but there are very specific requirements in the Canons.
Q. Thank you. In the area of pledges, have you sought the pledge of any legislator prior to this screening?
A. I have not.
Q. Have you sought a pledge which is conditioned upon your advancement through the screening process?
A. I have not. The statute -- this committee knows it. I'm not telling you anything, but perhaps other people in the room don't know it. You passed a statute on that. That's the rule. Whether I agree with that rule or not, I am going to follow that rule.

You also gave us, and very helpfully I might say, an interpretive letter last August amplifying on what that statute means. It had been amended and there is some question about what the amendment meant. You made it clear what the amendment meant. You have determined -- you, the General Assembly, have made the rule. That's what the people elect you to do. They don't elect Randy Bell or anybody else to do. That's the rules. I follow the rules.
Q. And --
A. And I state to the committee under oath that I have not done that.

In some cases I know who it is because they'll call me and say I talked to so and so, but in most cases, I don't know who they've talked to. I notice some people have written Letters to the Editor about it. So there are people who are saying to the General Assembly what they know about my qualifications. Some of them are also giving their opinion, but people have called me, lots of people have called me and said I'm glad you're running, how can I help and the first thing I say is you can help by not even appearing to be asking for a vote right now. There will be a time when the rules will allow us to do that, and you can do it then, but don't do it now and don't say wink, wink, I'm not asking for a vote, but I expect you to recognize that Judge Bell is this, that and the other.

Okay. I told them don't do those kind of things. Is that helpful to me? No. It's hurting me because they're talking to Members of the General Assembly, they know the rules. This committee knows the rule. What will they say? The people supporting Bell are breaking the rules, so I told them don't do that. To my knowledge, none of them have broken that rule.

I've also told them that there is going to be a day coming soon when we can do that and I hope they will work their hardest when they talk to legislators down there, but we're going to play the game by the rules.
Q. Those contacts that are being made now are not at your -- you haven't initiated any?
A. If you ask me has someone said I want to help, can I do so, I say yes. If you ask me, Lawyer A, will you talk to Legislator Y, I have not. I'm having trouble with old so and so, I know you were his campaign treasurer, straighten him out. I have not said anything that expresses that directly or I hope would even remotely suggest that. I don't want that kind of help.
Q. Our records show that you have no expenditures on this campaign?
A. Okay, I have filed as you note two reports with Senator Leatherman and Representative Neilson. I'm required to do that by law. Both of them show zero. That doesn't mean I haven't spent anything, just so there is no misimpression.

My main expenses have been phone calls. I have -- and I'm amazed at this, I thought I was probably over the $100 mark by now, but the breakup of Ma Bell has really made the competition in a deregulated communications industry, it's amazing how cheap you can call people. I made lots of calls. I know I've made over hundred. My phone bill so far -- these are things that have been billed to me. I'll get some more that I've already made, but haven't been billed and I'll disclose those when I'm required to.

The phone calls, $74.31; fax, 51 cents; copying, I've done some of that and I can give you a reasonable estimate although that hasn't been billed to me yet, so I don't know the exact figure, that's about $10. Those have been my expenses so far.

Thank goodness, judges can run for office in South Carolina and not have to spend anymore money than that. A former student of mine is a judge in Texas where they're all popularly elected and I won't tell you how much she had to spend, but it was in six figures.
Q. Thank you, judge. That's all the questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the members?
A. Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: The next candidate is E.C. Burnett, III. Judge Burnett, will you raise your right hand.
E.C. BURNETT, III, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Judge, your last screening was November 17, 1993 and that was for reelection to the seat you currently hold. Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data questionnaire?
JUDGE BURNETT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it correct?
JUDGE BURNETT: A couple of minor things. You misspelled my wife's name. I have to stay out of as much Dutch as I can. It has no E on it. You know, only potato has an E on it. I think that would be the only corrections I would make, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: That's a wise suggestion. Do you have any objection to our making the Summary a part of the record?
JUDGE BURNETT: No, sir, I do not.
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be done at this time.

1. E. C. Burnett, III
Home Address: Business Address:
200 Burnett Road P. O. Box 1742
Pauline, SC 29374 Spartanburg, SC 29304

2. He was born in Spartanburg, South Carolina on January 26, 1942. He is presently 52 years old.

4. He was married to Jami Grant on August 24, 1964. He has three children: Curry, age 28 (Milliken & Company); Sharon B. West, age 25 (elementary school teacher); and Jeffrey G., age 22 (Roebuck Greenhouses).

5. Military Service: U. S. Army, 1966; Reserve Service, Active and Inactive, 8/66-3/86; Major; SN05321457; Honorable Discharge, 3/14/86

6. He attended Wofford College, 1960-1964, B.A.; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1966-1969, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
During the past five years, he has met or exceeded the minimum judicial education requirements.

9. Taught or Lectured: South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Spartanburg- Cherokee Legal Secretaries' Association

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1969-1976: Private Law Practice, Criminal, Workers' Compensation
1976-May, 1980: Spartanburg County Probate Court Judge
May, 1980 - September, 1981: Resident Family Court Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit
September, 1981 - Present: Resident Circuit Court Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:He has never applied for rating in Martindale-Hubbell and is unaware that he is now listed.

15. Percentage of litigation:
He has served as a Circuit Court Judge during the past 13 years.

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
He has served as a Circuit Court Judge during the past 13 years.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) State v. Trotter. (Not reported) Criminal defense of charge of violation of Drug Act. Defense of entrapment successfully presented.
(b) Warren v. Aetna. (Not reported) Action against life insurance carrier for payment of proceeds on alleged forged change of beneficiary form. Forgery established by handwriting expert witness, and carrier was required to pay proceeds even though payment had previously been made to the wrong beneficiary.
(c) Barron v. Levitz Furniture Co. (Not reported) Wrongful death action. Driver of defendant's motor vehicle was not an employee of defendant. Employee-passenger delivering goods had suffered a broken arm and had enlisted the assistance of a friend to drive. Agency relationship established at Coroner's inquest. Case settled.
(d) Capell v. Hammett. (Not reported) Action in trespass. Defense of adverse possession. Testimony established no record owner of the property at issue. Factual dispute as to the use of property by litigants. After verdict for plaintiff, new trial was granted to defendant. Case settled.
(e) Lawter Estate. (Not reported) Proof in solemn form of will. Deceased had been treated by psychiatrist prior to and after date of execution of will. Lucid intervals of deceased at the time of execution established. Property passed to heir who had cared for deceased. Will found valid.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Allen v. Foss, 255 S.C. 336, 178 S.E.2d 659 (S. C. Supreme Court, 1/14/71).

20. Judicial Office:
1976-May 1, 1980 - Spartanburg County Probate Judge (Elected) Probate of Deceased Estates
May 1, 1980-September 17, 1981 - Judge, Family Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit (Elected) Juvenile and Domestic Relations
September 17, 1981-Present - Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit (Elected) General Jurisdiction Civil and Criminal Litigation, Administrative Agency and Magistrate Court Appellate Jurisdiction

21. Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a) Bernadette M. Durkin v. Kevin Hansen, et al.

(b) Audrey W. Moffitt v. Patrick Beckett, et al.
(c) Sandra L. White v. Stouffer Foods, 91-CP-11-536
(d) T. Travis Medlock, etc. v. 5.91 Acres, etc., 91-CP-4715091
(e) James Laughter v. Health Insurance of Vermont, 92-CP-42-2552

22. Public Office: February-June, 1978, Spartanburg County Clerk of Court (appointed as a result of indictment of sitting Clerk of Court); 1973- 1974, Member, South Carolina House of Representatives from Spartanburg County (Elected)

32. Sued: James E. Loftin, an inmate of the S. C. Department of Corrections, brought suit against him in May of 1982. The suit was dismissed in May of 1983.

39. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Typing $20.00 2/24/94
Postage $58.00 2/24/94

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; American Bar Association, Judicial Administration Division

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
None

2. Positions on the Bench:
Spartanburg County Probate Court: 1/76-5/80
Seventh Judicial Circuit Family Court: 5/80-9/81
Seventh Judicial Circuit: 9/81-present

10. Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He has not used his judicial office to further any interests.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies - Spartanburg County Sheriff's, Spartanburg City Police, SLED and FBI are all negative. The Judgement Rolls of Spartanburg County are negative. Federal Court records show no judgements or criminal actions against you.

There were two civil actions brought against you. One action was a habeas corpus dismissed in 1985. The other was brought against you and a number of South Carolina court officials alleging some civil rights violations and was dismissed in 1989. Does that sound correct?

I've always had a great interest in serving there, but it caused me to think very greatly about it and caused me, not to lessen the enthusiasm I have for service on the Circuit Court, but rather to take an opportunity that was available, a rare opportunity available, to use the experience I have gained as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and as a Family Court judge on the Seventh Circuit and for the past 13 plus years as a Circuit Court judge to bring that wealth of experience to use on the appellate level and it resulted in a change of my position and changed my mind.
Q. We're all entitled to do that.
A. Indeed, we are. Thank you.
Q. That's certainly true. Why do you want to be on the Supreme Court? What appeals to you about that position?
A. I have served a very long time as a trial judge and, of course, have tried all types of cases, civil and criminal. I have, in addition to that, had

So I have had an occasion to do that and found such an enjoyment in that intellectual exchange and such an enjoyment in the preparation of the opinions that I would render. And then I had an opportunity to share on the appellate court with Judge Bell and Judge Littlejohn joining a panel of theirs some few months ago, to sit and work in that environment and just found such an excitement, if that could be the correct word to use, such an excitement in that kind of environment and the kind of exchanges you can have there with the lawyers who come there that I think that I would find a regeneration of my spirit in the work and application of all that I have learned could be well placed in continuing to see our appellate jurisdiction grow and improve.
Q. Was the time you just spoke of when you served on the panel with Judge Bell and Justice Littlejohn, was that your only opportunity to serve as an acting --
A. That's correct.
Q. -- appellate justice?
A. That's correct.
Q. Previously, in November, you were asked your opinion of the attributes of judicial -- a good judicial temperament and as it related to being on the Circuit bench. You were asked the question in terms of how you related to the lay people in your court and how you related to the attorneys that appeared before you. What is your opinion of that proper temperament and demeanor for an appellate court judge?
A. Hardly could be a great deal different. I think that all parties whether they be lawyers presenting appeals or lawyers trying a case, they are all representing some litigant. True, in trial court, the litigants are there actively involved in the process.

In addition to the trial courts, you have jurors and you have witnesses who are not parties to it and I think all of those parties are entitled to the utmost of my attention, the utmost of my abilities, the utmost of my courtesies, the utmost of my concerns, as I recognize that this case belongs to those litigants and not to a particular lawyer and certainly not to a member of the jury, but to show courtesy, concern and caring coming from a preparation in the facts of the case and knowledge of the case, so that I can appear to a litigant or a lawyer on appeal as having enough interest in it that I have studied it and have an awareness of the issues

| Printed Page 6710, May 17 | Printed Page 6730, May 17 |