| Printed Page 1630, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 1650, Mar. 14 |

The Joint Committee found that, while Ms. Clifford has had little experience in the civil law arena, she has extensive criminal experience with sophisticated matters and has the experience to be a knowledgeable and effective circuit court judge.

Ms. Clifford has served as an assistant solicitor for the ninth judicial circuit since 1991. Her work has involved prosecuting criminal charges in general sessions court, handling drug seizure and forfeiture cases in the court of common pleas, and appellate practice. She says that she handles a wide variety of cases, but predominately serious felonies such as burglary, criminal sexual conduct, armed robbery, murder, and drug offenses. She describes her current monthly caseload as between 300 and 400 warrants. She describes her work as approximately 15 to 20% civil over the last five years, with much of her civil experience involving forfeiture cases. Ms. Clifford testified that in the last two years she has taken only one civil case, a forfeiture matter, to trial, but that she has handled numerous civil matters that did not go to trial.

Ms. Clifford worked as an assistant Attorney General from 1984 to 1991. Her responsibilities included handling criminal appeals, representing state agencies and boards, and acting as an administrative hearing officer.

Ms. Clifford worked as a staff attorney with Piedmont Legal Services from 1983 to 1984. Her responsibilities included the representation of clients in adoption, custody, divorce, support, termination of parental rights and child removal matters, as well as employment, food stamp, housing, and social security cases. She testified that she did not appear in the court of common pleas during this time, as much of her work involved administrative matters and appellate practice.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The input the Joint Committee received from its surveys and from the Bar indicate that Ms. Clifford's judicial temperament would be good. There was some question raised by anonymous survey respondents as to Ms. Clifford's ability to be open-minded and see both sides of an issue, but no one came forward to testify on this issue and the Joint Committee found no first hand information of any potential problems with temperament. The Joint Committee is satisfied that Ms. Clifford has the qualities required for service on the bench.

Ms. Clifford was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry. In fact, the Joint Committee's investigation revealed that Ms. Clifford is clearly a very hard worker who takes her commitments seriously.

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Clifford appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

7. Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Clifford has managed her financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Ms. Clifford has worked in the public sector all her professional career. She belongs to numerous professional organizations and consistently volunteers her time for Bar and other professional endeavors.

9. Ethics:

Ms. Clifford testified that she has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening; or
(d) used the resources of the solicitor's office for her campaign.

Ms. Clifford also testified that she understood the new Joint Committee rule requiring her to wait forty-eight hours after the draft report is released before she may begin seeking commitments.

Ms. Clifford testified that she has spent $302.89 on her campaign and has filed reports with both the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

10. Miscellaneous:

The Joint Committee did not receive any complaints or statements in opposition to Ms. Clifford's election.

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Mr. DuTremble was screened on February 2, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

1. Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Mr. DuTremble's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Mr. DuTremble demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. On the issue of ex parte communications, Mr. DuTremble stated that ex parte communications are "absolutely inappropriate." He testified that his current practice is to draft a letter to opposing counsel advising them any time he has any communication with the court.

On the issue of recusal, Mr. DuTremble testified that he would have an absolute obligation to look into the matter and would recuse himself if there were any question of impropriety. He said that he believes that judges should take the lead in deciding whether recusal is necessary and that if an attorney asked him to recuse himself he would probably do so. He testified that if the reason a party wanted him to recuse himself was that he was more familiar with one side than the other he would have to take a look at the relationship and the reason for the recusal motion before making a decision. Mr. DuTremble also said that he would not hear a matter in which he held even a de minimis financial interest.

Mr. DuTremble said that there is an absolute prohibition on judges taking gifts and that judges make enough money to buy their own lunches. When questioned about whether he would accept ordinary social hospitality, Mr. DuTremble said that judges should know when to decline such invitations. He said, by way of example, that a judge should not accept an invitation for a golf outing or deep-sea fishing from people who practice before him.

Mr. DuTremble said that if elected he would not retain any interest in cases or property of his law firm and would not continue any other business associations.

The input the Joint Committee received from its survey and from the Bar indicated that Mr. DuTremble is intelligent and knowledgeable. He has complied with all continuing legal education requirements.

Mr. DuTremble's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was a 2.86 out of 4 possible points. Mr. DuTremble was very familiar with when a witness might testify outside the defendant's presence. He also did well on questions about how a juror might ask a question of a witness, Allen charges, the admissibility of expert testimony, and when a judge should declare a mistrial. He was less familiar with the conditions that must exist before a judge issues a temporary restraining order.

Mr. DuTremble's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.

In response to the Chairman's questions about separation of powers and the role of the judiciary, Mr. DuTremble testified that courts have no role in lawmaking and the death penalty is constitutional, but its deterrent effect is diluted by the long appellate process. Mr. DuTremble indicated that he has had some experience with alternative dispute resolution and feels that it will have a positive effect on lowering the cost of litigation. Mr. DuTremble was only passingly familiar with the political abstention doctrine.

3. Professional Experience:

The Joint Committee found that, while Mr. DuTremble has focused on the practice of criminal rather than civil law, he has extensive experience with the type of issues he would encounter as a circuit court judge. Mr. DuTremble has specialized in criminal law and has limited civil experience. He does, however, have some civil experience and has extensive experience with complex criminal matters.

Mr. DuTremble has been a solo practitioner since 1991. From 1989 to 1991, he was an Assistant United States Attorney working on Operation Lost Trust. From 1987 to 1989 he was a solo practitioner with a general practice emphasizing criminal trial work and civil litigation. From 1983 to 1987, he was an Assistant United States Attorney responsible for all criminal prosecutions and appeals in the Charleston office. From 1982 to 1983, he was an instructor at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. From 1979 to 1983, he worked for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, first as an assistant public defender and then as an assistant solicitor. From 1978 to 1979 he was law clerk for the Honorable Julius H. Baggett.

In response to the Joint Committee's request for additional information, Mr. DuTremble estimated that he handles approximately ten federal criminal cases per year and five civil trials per year. He provided the Joint Committee with a list of civil cases that he actually took to trial in recent years. These cases included an action for trespass and malicious injury to property, an action for malicious prosecution, a breach of contract action, a legal malpractice suit, and an EPA debarment. Mr. DuTremble added that he has other civil matters, including a trademark infringement case and a Superfund matter, pending, but they have not yet come up for trial. The Joint Committee is satisfied that, while Mr. DuTremble has not had an extensive civil practice, he does have experience with rather complex civil matters. Mr. DuTremble testified that he prefers criminal matters over civil because civil matters tend to move more slowly.

Most of Mr. DuTremble's trial experience has been in federal court, but he testified, and the Joint Committee agrees, that federal practice is very similar to practice in state court. Mr. DuTremble estimated that over the past five years, 10% of his court appearances have been in state court and the other 90% have been in federal court.

4. Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal anything that would indicate a potential problem with judicial temperament. Throughout the Joint Committee's work with Mr. DuTremble he demonstrated the qualities and character required for a judge of outstanding judicial temperament. Furthermore, the input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar's investigation indicated that Mr. DuTremble has the temperament required for service on the bench.

5. Diligence and Industry:

Mr. DuTremble was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

Mr. DuTremble testified that he would serve a full term if elected and that he had no plans to return to private practice.

6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. DuTremble appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

7. Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. DuTremble has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

8. Public Service:

Mr. DuTremble has worked in the public sector as an Assistant United States Attorney and for the Eleventh Circuit as an assistant public defender and solicitor.

9. Ethics:

Mr. DuTremble testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. DuTremble also testified that he has not made campaign expenditures in excess of $100 and has, therefore, not been required to report expenditures to the House or Senate Ethics Committees.

Mr. DuTremble testified that he understood the new Joint Committee rule requiring him to wait forty-eight hours after the draft report is released before he may begin seeking commitments.

10. Miscellaneous:

The Joint Committee did not receive any complaints or statements in opposition to Mr. DuTremble's election.

Joint Committee's Finding: Legally Qualified

Judge Martin was screened on February 15th, 16th, and 21st, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

1. Integrity and Impartiality:

The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Judge Martin is widely perceived to be compassionate and an ardent believer in the protection of constitutional rights. The Bar described Judge Martin's character as "impeccable" and praised his impartiality and judicial independence.

Judge Martin's testimony indicated that he understood the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges. The Joint Committee did, however, learn of one instance in which the Joint Committee found Judge Martin to have violated the prohibition against ex parte communications. Judge Martin stated that he requires all attorneys involved in a matter to be present before he entertains anything pertaining to the matter. He did not do so, however, in one matter brought to the Joint Committee's attention.

Mr. Daniel Norfleet, a Charleston attorney, filed an affidavit and testified before the Joint Committee alleging that Judge Martin had engaged in ex parte communication in a post-conviction relief matter in which Mr. Norfleet represented the defendant. Judge Martin presided over the initial post-conviction relief hearing in which the state was unable to produce a copy of the transcript from the defendant's trial. The transcript was presumed lost in Hurricane Hugo and there was discussion to that effect on the record. Mr. Norfleet left the courtroom at the end of the hearing and the court proceeded to hear other post-conviction relief matters. Later the same day, the attorney for the state and the assistant solicitor who was a witness in the matter produced a copy of the transcript, and Judge Martin accepted it and discussed the contents of the transcript on the record without Mr. Norfleet present. Judge Martin did not instruct the state's attorney to contact Mr. Norfleet and get him to court or otherwise avoid the ex parte nature of the proceedings.

The Joint Committee reviewed the transcript of Judge Martin's handling of this matter. The transcript clearly indicates that the matter was taken up ex parte and that the court discussed both the reasons for the transcript's disappearance and its content.

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Martin's conduct in this matter likely violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct in that he engaged in ex parte communications about a substantive matter that might have prejudiced the defendant. The Joint Committee recognizes that ex parte communication about a de minimis matter may be appropriate in some circumstances, but in this case the court inquired as to the substance of the transcript and when Judge Martin accepted it for consideration he impaired the defendant's opportunity to require a hearing as to why the transcript had been missing.

On the issue of recusal, Judge Martin testified that if there appears to be a conflict of interest or any suggestion of impropriety he should recuse himself. Judge Martin also testified that he does not accept gifts and does not often accept offers of social hospitality because his presence might be misinterpreted.

Judge Martin testified that none of the six attorneys who wrote letters of reference on his behalf had matters pending before him at the time they wrote the letters.

2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Martin is a man of good character, but has concerns about his level of legal knowledge and ability. The Joint Committee reached this conclusion after listening to Judge Martin's responses to the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions, analyzing his record on appeal, considering input from the Bar, reading transcripts which reflect his reasoning and the rulings that flowed

Judge Martin's score on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions was 1.0 out of 4 possible points. He failed to demonstrate knowledge of basic practice and procedure and the Joint Committee was disturbed by Judge Martin's poor performance on these questions. Judge Martin was familiar with Allen charges, when jeopardy attaches, whether an expert can testify as to legal conclusions, and the impeachment of witnesses with evidence of bad character. Judge Martin was, however, only vaguely familiar with the rule for removal of matters from the docket because of inactivity, when orders may be appealed, appeals from magistrate court, how a juror might pose a question of a witness, res gestae, whether an expert may testify on matters of common knowledge, and whether an expert may testify on ultimate issues. Judge Martin was completely unfamiliar with whether a party may seek inconsistent remedies, damages recoverable without a hearing in a default judgment, whether a witness may testify outside of the defendant's presence, whether it is a necessary prerequisite for the admission of scientific evidence that the theory and general technique be generally accepted in the scientific community, and the use of prior criminal convictions in a civil trial.

Judge Martin's record since his election to the circuit court bench in 1992 was criticized by the Bar, anonymous respondents to the Joint Committee's survey, and witnesses who filed affidavits and testified before the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee's attention was drawn to his record of reversals on appeal. Judge Martin's record on appeal is poor as he has been reversed, in whole or in part, in seven of the eight reported appellate opinions appealed from his decisions. He testified that he has been affirmed in eight unpublished opinions, but the Joint Committee does not search for any candidate's unpublished appellate decisions because they are not included in the computer database in which the Joint Committee conducts its research and they are often based on technical grounds such as situations in which the error was not preserved for appeal. The Joint Committee does recognize that its statistics on the appellate record of Judge Martin and all other candidates do not reflect unpublished appellate decisions. The Joint Committee did not consider this information about Judge Martin's appellate record to be determinative of his fitness for further service on the bench, but used it to help direct the Joint Committee's inquiry concerning his legal knowledge and ability.

The Bar found Judge Martin not qualified and said that it found significant concerns about his knowledge of the law and his ability to overcome this deficiency. The Bar's statistical survey on all current

The Charleston County Solicitor, Mr. David Schwacke filed an affidavit and testified before the Joint Committee. Mr. Schwacke testified that he came before the Joint Committee because he considered it his duty to respond to published reports that he had stopped bringing cases with an identifiable victim before Judge Martin. Solicitors are charged by law with setting the criminal docket in South Carolina courts, and the reports stated that Judge Martin had, in Charleston County, been relegated to driving under the influence and similar matters in criminal court. Mr. Schwacke testified that he had not commented publicly on this matter before coming to the Joint Committee as he believed that Judge Martin's screening was the proper forum for his remarks. The Joint Committee reviewed the following matters brought to its attention by Mr. Schwacke:
(1) State v. Myers: Mr. Schwacke testified that in a pretrial hearing Judge Martin ruled that:

(a) a marine vessel could not constitute a habitable dwelling for the purpose of an arson prosecution; and

(b) the arson indictment be amended to burning of crops and other types of property, a lesser non-included offense.

This case was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court who reversed both rulings. Judge Martin testified that the definition of a marine vessel as a habitable dwelling was an issue of first impression in South Carolina. The Joint Committee agreed and did not find cause for concern in Judge Martin's ruling on that point. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Martin had erred when he allowed amendment of the indictment to include a lesser, non-included offense.
(2) State v. Hazelton: Mr. Schwacke testified that Judge Martin:

| Printed Page 1630, Mar. 14 | Printed Page 1650, Mar. 14 |