| Printed Page 3440, May 9 | Printed Page 3460, May 14 |

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

O God, the Quest of the ages and the Hope of the world, hear our prayer for ourselves, our great State and for all mankind. Remove from our minds all hatred and contempt for those who may not be like us. Guide us, strengthen us, uphold us, protect us as we seek to do the work before us. And bring us to eveningtime unblemished of character, undefeated by temptation - at peace with ourselves, at peace with our fellowmen, and at peace with our God.

With the Psalmist we close our prayer: "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." (Psalm 51:10) Amen.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

The following Bill was read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

S. 1266 -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-310, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OPEN SEASON FOR ANTLERED DEER, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FROM PROVIDING A BREAK IN THE SEASON ON PRIVATE LANDS IN GAME ZONE 4.

At 10:10 A.M. the House in accordance with the ruling of the SPEAKER adjourned to meet at 12:00 Noon, Tuesday, May 14.

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 12:00 Noon.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, Who feeds the birds and clothes the flowers, and Who cares for us even as a father cares for his children, guard us against distrust and anxiety. Cause us to completely understand that "God is our Refuge and Strength, a very present help in trouble" (Psalm 46:1). May we feel Your never failing presence always, and Your undergirding strength enabling us to say confidently: "Where You lead, I will follow." And as You have called us into these unique positions of service, make us totally worthy of this calling.

Favorably hear, good Lord, this prayer made in praise and thanksgiving. Amen.

Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

Rep. KLAUBER moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Dr. W.S. Brockington of Greenwood, which was agreed to.

TO: The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM: F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee
DATE: May 13, 1996

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Date Draft Report Issued:Friday, May 10, 1996
Date and Time Final Report Issued:Tuesday, May 14, 1996 -- 12:00 Noon

Judicial Candidates are not free to seek or accept commitment until May 14, 1996 at 12:00 noon.

The Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. The Joint Committee has carefully investigated the candidates currently set for screening and found, by unanimous vote, 11 candidates qualified for judicial office and, by a split vote, 1 candidate qualified for judicial office. This report details the reasons for the Joint Committee's findings and each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Joint Committee's nine evaluative criteria.

The Joint Committee recently has implemented some changes to its screening format. The Joint Committee has asked candidates offering for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Circuit Court their views on constitutional interpretation and sentencing philosophy. These questions were asked in an effort to provide the members of the General Assembly more information about candidates and their thought processes. These questions should not suggest that the Joint Committee believes that there are right or wrong answers to those questions. The Joint Committee has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office they are seeking. The Joint Committee has attempted to ask each candidate offering for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for his or her experience in the areas of criminal, civil, and domestic law since those are the cases that would generally be heard by members of those courts.

The Joint Committee conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which it questions each candidate on a wide variety of issues. The Joint Committee's investigation focuses on nine evaluative criteria. These evaluative criteria are: integrity and impartiality; legal knowledge and ability; professional experience; judicial temperament; diligence and industry; mental and physical capabilities; financial responsibilities; public service; and ethics. The Joint Committee's investigation includes the following:
(1) survey of the bench and bar;
(2) SLED and FBI investigation;
(3) credit investigation;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) study of appellate record; and
(10) investigation of complaints.

While the law provides that the Joint Committee is to make findings as to qualifications, the Joint Committee views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which, if elected, they will serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Joint Committee inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public it represents as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Joint Committee takes its responsibilities very seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. If you would like to review portions of the screening transcript or other public information about a candidate before it is printed in the Journal, please contact Beth Atwater at 734-4851.

This report conveys the Joint Committee's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Circuit Court and Family Court.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Armstrong was screened on May 7, 1996, 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.

Mr. Armstrong demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. Armstrong has served as a panel member for Leadership Beaufort and Senior Leadership Beaufort. He has also given a presentation to the S.C. Association of Legal Investigators on how to be a more effective witness. In addition, he has been a guest on several T.V. shows in the Hilton Head area regarding criminal law.

Mr. Armstrong published an article titled "Up from the Lowcountry, Who is this New Kid on the Block?", Robert S. Armstrong, Fall Issue, 1993, South Carolina Trial Lawyer Bulletin.

Mr. Armstrong reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Armstrong graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Mr. Armstrong has served as a law clerk to Judge William Howell, as a Public Defender (1983-1985), as an Assistant Solicitor for the 14th Circuit (1985-1990), and as Deputy Solicitor (1990-June 1995). Since July 1995, Mr. Armstrong has been a sole practitioner in private practice.

Mr. Armstrong reported that he had attended CLE's regularly during the last five years. He stated that until last year his focus was on evidence, criminal, and constitutional law. Last year, he began concentrating on civil law.

Mr. Armstrong described his practice from 1990 to 1995 as 10% civil, 72% criminal and 18% domestic. He also estimated that during that five years about 50% of his practice involved matters that went to a jury. Since July of 1995, Mr. Armstrong described his practice as 50% civil, 25% criminal, and 25% domestic. In addition, Mr. Armstrong reported that he has concentrated on civil law CLE's in the last year. In response to the Committee's request for supplemental information, Mr. Armstrong provided the Committee with a more detailed breakdown of his civil experience. Since he entered private practice in July 1995, Mr. Armstrong reported that he has handled cases involving real estate, personal injury, medical malpractice, collection, and probate matters. This information can be found in Mr. Armstrong's public hearing transcript.

Mr. Armstrong provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:

(a) Death penalty case. State v. Elkins, 436 S.E.2d 178 (S.C. 1993).

(b) A reckless homicide case where he was appointed as a special prosecutor in Dorchester County. State v. James McConnell, 449 S.E.2d 778 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994).

(c) A multiple defendant case involving safecracking, burglary, and possession of cocaine. State v. Ernest Williams, et al., (citation omitted).

(e) Rape case involving police officer's new wife. State v. Solomon Anderson, (Citation Omitted).

Mr. Armstrong provided the Committee with one domestic appeal and no civil appeals. The domestic appeal was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Jasper County Department of Social Services v. William Bostic and Jackie Bostic, Op. No. 92-MO-181 (filed July 6, 1992).

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Armstrong's temperament would be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Armstrong 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. Armstrong is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Armstrong 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. Armstrong has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Armstrong is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Mr. Armstrong 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. Armstrong testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

(10) Miscellaneous:

Mr. Armstrong meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

Mr. Armstrong was found qualified by the South Carolina Bar. The Bar reported that "although [Mr. Armstrong] lacks significant civil trial experience, he has extensive trial experience in General Sessions court. He served as a public defender for two years and assistant solicitor for ten years." The Bar also found that Mr. Armstrong "is considered to be intelligent and has a keen sense of fairness and equity." The Bar also reported that "it is believed that he would demonstrate good judicial temperament."

Mr. Armstrong was asked about his general philosophy regarding the power of the General Assembly regarding legislating. The candidate's answer to this question is printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included this response solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Barber was screened on May 7, 1996, 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.

Mr. Barber demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.

Mr. Barber stated that he was an instructor at the U.S.C. College of Applied Sciences. He taught a Business Law course to undergraduate students which primarily covered contracts.

The Joint Committee found Mr. Barber to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

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

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Barber graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1969 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Barber has worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, Internal Security Division from February 1970 to October 1972, the Law Office of Henry H. Edens from October 1972 to August 1977, and Todd & Barber, PC from August 1977 to present.

Mr. Barber described his practice over the past five years as 79% civil, 1% criminal, and 20% domestic. While the Committee initially expressed some concern over Mr. Barber's criminal experience, Mr. Barber was able to document an extensive practice of criminal law, marked by a degree of complexity. This information is provided in the transcript from Mr. Barber's public hearing.

Mr. Barber provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:

(a) Shirley and Jack Curry d/b/a C & T Properties v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 89-CP-10-0676. The case involved an attempt for plaintiffs to recover damages for a taking resulting from the loss of all value and use of their property following implementation of the Beachfront Management Act. Plaintiffs prevailed at trial level and ultimately on appeal to the Supreme Court.

(b) Irwin Lynn Hamby v. Linda Snelson Hamby, 216 S.E.2d 536 (1975). The case involved termination of parental rights of the birth father and the adoption of the child by the mother's husband.

(c) James E. Nash and John D. Medlin, Individually and as Shareholders on Behalf of Andy's Delicatessen, Inc. v. Adnan Shlon, Docket No. 88-CP-40-1390. The case was a shareholder's derivative action where valuation of the business was a key issue. Following the trial, Mr. Barber's client was able to acquire the minority interest and become the sole owner.

(e) State of South Carolina v. Ruby Hiott, et al. A capital murder case wherein Mr. Barber was able to negotiate a plea on behalf of his client.

Mr. Barber provided the Committee with the following civil appeals which he has personally handled:

(a) Otis C. Carter v. South Carolina Department of Public Transportation, ___ S.C. ___, 306 S.E.2d 614 (1993). Case involved whether under S.C. law a business had to be recognizable from the main travelled way to qualify as an unzoned commercial or industrial area for purposes of the Highway Advertising Control Act.

(b) William P. Charping v. J.P. Scurry & Company, Inc., et al., ___ S.C. ___, 372 S.E.2d 120 (Ct. App. 1988). Case involved whether a restriction on a parcel of land was personal and therefore not binding on a subsequent owner.

(c) Betty Fogle Whetstone and Joseph Keels v. Michael K. Whetstone, Op. No. 92-UP-181 (filed December 29, 1992). Case involved the imposition of jail time for criminal and civil contempt relating to a family court action. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.

(d) Rebecca M. Estes v. Roper Temporary Services, Inc., ___ S.C. ___, 403 S.E.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1991). Case involved issues of estoppel and retroactivity of legislation.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Barber's temperament would be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Barber 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. Barber is married and has three children.

| Printed Page 3440, May 9 | Printed Page 3460, May 14 |