1995 Permanent Senate Journal Printed Pages 3060-3069 - South Carolina Legislature Online

Journal of the Senate
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995

Page Finder Index

Printed Page 3050, May 23 | Printed Page 3070, May 23

Printed Page 3060 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(9)Ethics:
Ms. Riddle reported on her application that her campaign expenditures have totaled $91.04.
Ms. Riddle 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; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Riddle meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Riddle qualified and said:
She is a family court practitioner who has handled all aspects of work in that court. She has extensive knowledge in the subject matters addressed by Family Court.
She has an excellent reputation for truthfulness, character, and diligence.
Ms. Riddle is perceived to possess the demeanor and temperament necessary for the bench.
She would be fair and impartial to lawyers and litigants.

The Honorable Abigail Rogers
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 5th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Not Qualified

See the reports of the majority and minority attached.

The Honorable Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr.
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 8th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Saunders was screened on May 5, 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:
Judge Saunders demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Printed Page 3061 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(2)Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Saunders to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Saunders has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.
Judge Saunders' last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1994) was AV.
Judge Saunders did not provide the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant orders or opinions because he has only been on the bench since 1994.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Saunders was admitted to the Bar in 1968. He was a solo practitioner from that time up until his election to the Family Court bench in 1994. He also served as City Attorney for the City of Laurens from 1972 to 1992. He represented the Commission of Public Works as counsel from 1993 to 1994. His practice over the years was general and included civil, criminal, domestic, and administrative law in state and federal courts.
Judge Saunders was employed as a police officer for approximately 3 1/2 years from 1962 to 1965 while attending Presbyterian College.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Saunders' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Saunders 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.
Judge Saunders is married and is the father of daughters.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Saunders 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. Judge Saunders has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Saunders has been a family court judge since 1994.
Judge Saunders was the City Attorney for the City of Laurens from 1972 to 1992. He served as counsel to the Commission of Public Works in Laurens from 1993 to 1994.
Judge Saunders is active in his church and community activities.

Printed Page 3062 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(9)Ethics:
Judge Saunders 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.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Saunders meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Saunders qualified and said:
His competence and knowledge of the law in this area were unquestioned.
His style of holding court is more formal than most judges. Many perceive this as an asset as it shows respect for the litigants.
Judge Saunders has an excellent judicial temperament. He treats attorneys and litigants with courtesy.

The Honorable C. David Sawyer, Jr.
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 11th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Sawyer was screened on May 5, 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:
Judge Sawyer demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
Judge Sawyer serves as an officer and director of Hallman-Scott, Inc., a non- profit corporation chartered by the State of South Carolina. The corporation provides financial assistance to deserving students who live in the Ridge Spring-Monetta school district.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Sawyer to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Sawyer has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.
Judge Sawyer lectured to the newly elected family court judges at their orientation seminar in 1994.
Judge Sawyer's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1992) was AV.

Printed Page 3063 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Judge Sawyer was named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving his services as the attorney for the Town of Batesburg. The action was dismissed by a favorable summary judgment ruling.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Sawyer was admitted to the Bar in 1974.
Judge Sawyer was engaged in the general practice of law from 1974 to 1976. He became a partner in the general practice of law with Billy C. Coleman from 1976 to 1992.
Judge Sawyer served as a Saluda County magistrate from 1974 to 1979. During that time, he served as Chief Magistrate for Saluda County.
In 1975, Judge Sawyer was appointed by the Town Council to serve as Municipal Court Judge for the Town of Batesburg. He served in that capacity until 1982.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Sawyer's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Sawyer 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.
Judge Sawyer is married with 3 children, ages 15, 13, and 6.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Sawyer 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. Judge Sawyer has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Sawyer has been a member of the bench since 1992.
Judge Sawyer was a member of the S.C. Air National Guard from 1970 to 1976.
Judge Sawyer was elected as Mayor of Ridge Spring in 1983 and was re-elected in 1985, 1987, 1989, and 1991.
Judge Sawyer is active in church and community activities.
Judge Sawyer has been the recipient of several awards including:

(1) The Order of the Palmetto (1985); and

(2) Commended by resolution of the House of Representatives for community service (1985).

Printed Page 3064 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(9)Ethics:

Judge Sawyer 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.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Sawyer meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Sawyer qualified and said:
Lawyers that practiced before him were impressed with the efficiency and decorum of his court and feel that he has done an excellent job.
An overwhelming majority of the members of the Bar contacted respect Judge Sawyer for his legal skills, impartiality, judicial temperament, and promptness and industry in his work.
His character, integrity, and reputation are considered excellent.

Gerald C. Smoak, Jr., Esquire
Candidate for the Family Court of the 14th Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Mr. Smoak was screened on May 9, 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:
Mr. Smoak demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
Mr. Smoak is an officer and a 25% owner in the Palmetto Boarding Home, Inc., a residential care facility.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Smoak to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Smoak is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Smoak taught the following paralegal courses for the Technical College of the Low Country:

(a) Estates;

(b) Family Law;

Printed Page 3065 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(d) Litigation; and

(e) Torts.
Mr. Smoak described his legal experience as follows:

(a) 1983 Law clerk for the Honorable William T. Howell

(b) 1984-Present General practice with majority of work in Family Court
1984-1993 and

1995-Present Prosecutor for child abuse and neglect cases for the Department of Social Services
1984-Present Public Defender for the City of Walterboro

1993-Present Conflict attorney for Colleton County Public Defender (including juveniles)
Mr. Smoak estimated that over the last five years, he has appeared in federal court approximately 5 times and in state court approximately 250 times.
Mr. Smoak estimated that over the past five years, his practice has been 15% civil, 25% criminal, and 60% domestic.
Mr. Smoak provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his significant litigated matters. Those matters included:

(a) D.S.S. v. Johnson: This case was significant because it dealt with expert opinion testimony and burden of proof in neglect cases.

(b) Hiott v. Nolind: This case was significant because it hinged on efforts of a disabled natural mother to get custody or unsupervised visitation of her small child.

(c) Hughes v. Hughes: This case was significant because the father was granted custody of the minor children based on the best interests the minor children.

(d) D.S.S. v. New Bethany School for Boys: This case was significant because it received national attention and press on allegations of abuse at the school.

(e) Estate of Myers: This case was significant because the wife had to prove common-law marriage to inherit from her deceased husband.
Mr. Smoak has handled one domestic appeal. It was the D.S.S. v. Johnson matter discussed above.
Mr. Smoak estimated that he serves as a special referee and arbitration judge approximately three times per year.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Smoak's temperament would be excellent.

Printed Page 3066 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(5)Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Smoak 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. Smoak is married with two children, ages 8 and 18 months.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Smoak 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. Smoak has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Smoak ran unsuccessfully for the Family Court in 1994.
Mr. Smoak has been active in professional and civic activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Smoak reported on his application materials that his campaign expenditures have totaled $57.40.
Mr. Smoak 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.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Smoak meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Smoak qualified and said:
He has practiced law predominately in domestic relations law for the past twelve years. He is considered by his peers to be an able and competent attorney in the Family Court.
He is an industrious person and a hard worker.
Mr. Smoak enjoys a good reputation in the local community as an honest and straight-forward person.
He is thought to have a good temperament. Members of the Bar feel that he would be an asset to the Family Court bench.

Printed Page 3067 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

The Honorable R. Wright Turbeville
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 3rd Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Turbeville was screened on May 5, 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:
Judge Turbeville demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
Judge Turbeville reported that he disqualifies himself from matters he or a member of his law firm worked on while Judge Turbeville was a practicing lawyer. He said that in new matters handled by the firm about which he knows nothing, he discloses his prior relationship with the firm on the record and unless the parties agree that his prior relationship with the firm is immaterial, he disqualifies himself.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Turbeville to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
There are no published appellate decisions in which Judge Turbeville has been appealed.
Judge Turbeville's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1992) was BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Turbeville graduated from Wofford College with a B.A. in 1966. He received his Master's Degree in Divinity from Emory University in 1969 and his law degree from U.S.C. in 1977. Judge Turbeville worked as a Methodist minister during law school.
Judge Turbeville practiced with the firm of Land, Turbeville, Parker & Reaves from 1977 to 1992. His practice included domestic relations, personal injury, workers' compensation, real estate, and probate matters.
Judge Turbeville was elected to the family court bench in 1992. He provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant orders.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Turbeville's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Turbeville 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.

Printed Page 3068 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

Judge Turbeville is divorced with 2 adult children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Turbeville 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. Judge Turbeville has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Turbeville was elected to the family court bench in 1992.
Judge Turbeville is active in church and Bar activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Turbeville 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.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Turbeville meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Turbeville qualified and said:
He is considered to be intelligent with an excellent command of the law.
Judge Turbeville is fair to both sides and willing to rule on difficult issues.
The majority of those interviewed felt he was courteous, had good judicial decorum in the courtroom and was a person of very high integrity. He is sincerely interested in the juveniles who appear in his court.
He has good docket control and is well-respected by his peers.

The Honorable Maxey G. Watson
Candidate for Re-election to the Family Court
of the 1st Judicial Circuit
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified

Judge Watson was screened on May 8, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

Printed Page 3069 . . . . . Tuesday, May 23, 1995

(1)Integrity and Impartiality:
Judge Watson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Watson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Watson has been appealed in 14 reported opinions and has been reversed in 5 of those matters.
There is a letter to the editor in the September 20, 1989, edition of the State in which a psychologist who had worked for the Orangeburg Area Mental Health Center for 7 1/2 years praised Judge Watson for "consistently demanding accountability from individual DSS case workers, as well as their supervisors."
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Watson was admitted to the S.C. Bar in 1967.
Judge Watson described his legal experience as follows:

(a) 1967-1970 Mayfield & Watson

(b) 1970-1974 Fogle & Watson

(c) 1974-1975 Private practice
(d) 1973-1975 Part-time Family Court Judge
(e) 1975-1977 Full time Family Court Judge
(f) 1977-Present Family Court Judge, 1st Circuit
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Watson's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Watson 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.
Judge Watson is married with three adult children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Watson 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. Judge Watson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Watson has been a member of the family court bench since 1977.

Printed Page 3050, May 23 | Printed Page 3070, May 23

Page Finder Index

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:11 P.M.