Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 12:00 Noon, the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:
Beloved, a wise man in the long ago wrote these words in the Book of Proverbs, Chapter 3, (v.6) (NRSV):
"In all your ways acknowledge Him, and
He will make straight your paths."
Let us pray.
"Lord God of Heaven and earth, we thank You for the warning and safety signs along the highways: signs that tell us what lies ahead, signs that remind us we should use our common sense in driving (like "watch out for ice on the bridge"); signs that tell us when to "stop" and when to "go"; signs that tell us how "fast" is "safe"... and signs that tell us where to go for help.
But there are pitfalls that have no signs... moral and spiritual hazards!!
Only character and conscience can save us from catastrophe in life's wilderness.
These, with faith, are gifts of God!
Help us to realize that clear thinking precedes noble living, and that mankind's fundamental premise must be faith and trust in the living God, as recorded in Proverbs, "Acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths."
Amen.
TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
Judicial Screening Committee
DATE: February 5, 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
Representative F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Senator John R. Russell
Representative Ralph W. Canty
Representative William Douglas Smith
Representative L. Hunter Limbaugh
Date Draft Report Issued: Friday, February 2, 1996
Date and Time Final Report Issued: Tuesday, February 6, 1996 -- 12:00 P.M.
Summary Chart
The following charts include a list of all candidates. If the candidate has a "*" symbol under a category (i.e. Legal Ability), that symbol indicates that the Joint Committee expressed concern about the candidate in that area. The placement of a "*" symbol is not, in and of itself, an indication of a candidates' failure to comply with the Committee's established criteria.
The following candidates' performance on the practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations:
Jean H. Toal
Ralph K. Anderson, Jr.
William L. Howard
Wallace K. Lightsey
John W. Kittredge
James A. Spruill, III
Timothy L. Brown
Bobby H. Mann, Jr.
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, 43 candidates qualified for judicial office and, by a split vote, 2 candidates 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.
Since the Joint Committee issued its last report in June of 1995, the Joint Committee 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. Candidates for the Circuit Court were asked to provide evidence of their experience in civil and criminal law. Finally, candidates for the Family Court were asked to detail their level of practice in five areas of domestic law. Those areas are divorce and equitable division, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice. The Joint Committee feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the court for which they offer. In assessing each candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions, the Joint Committee has placed candidates in one of three categories: failed to meet expectations, met expectations, or exceeded expectations. The Joint Committee feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
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) court schedule study;
(10) study of appellate record;
(11) court observation; and
(12) 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.
The Joint Committee expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.
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 Michael Couick or John Hazzard at 212-6610.
This report conveys the Joint Committee's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, and Family Court.
[1] Senator Saleeby did not participate in the screening nor determination of qualification of this candidate.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Ervin was screened on December 11, 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. It was concerned by Judge Ervin's contacting persons who he felt might be called to testify regarding his opponent's temperament.
The Joint Committee learned of Judge Ervin's contact of Supreme Court personnel. The nature of Judge Ervin's contact, according to him, was to discern whether the individuals had filed affidavits about Justice Toal's candidacy. However, Judge Ervin stated that he did not attempt to compel any witness to testify against Justice Toal. While the Committee is concerned about an improper appearance in Judge Ervin's actions contacting potential witnesses, Judge Ervin's actions did not constitute a breach of the law.
The Committee warns all candidates that the contacting of persons who may potentially be witnesses before the Committee is fraught with peril. The best course of action is to avoid any communications which could be perceived as being directed toward affecting such a person's recollections or appearance before the screening committee.
Judge Ervin 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.
The Joint Committee learned of an allegation that Judge Ervin may have mislead the Committee during his December 11, 1995 hearing about a contact made by Dwight Drake and Tim Rogers concerning his Supreme Court candidacy. After interviewing those involved, the Joint Committee determined that there was no intent on the part of Judge Ervin to mislead the Joint Committee regarding his conversations with Mr. Drake and Mr. Rogers. The Joint Committee finds Judge Ervin's, Mr. Drake's, and Mr. Rogers' statements to be consistent.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Ervin has taught the following law-related courses and continuing legal education programs: Eminent Domain; Appellate Practice in South Carolina; South Carolina Circuit Bench/Bar Update; Criminal Practice in South Carolina; What Goes on in the Jury Room?; and the Workers' Compensation Section;
Judge Ervin has written the following published books and articles:
(a) Ervin's South Carolina Requests to Charge - Civil (1994);
(b) Ervin's South Carolina Requests to Charge - Criminal (1994);
(c) What Does 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' Really Mean?, South Carolina Lawyer July/August 1994.
The Joint Committee found Judge Ervin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Ervin graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1977 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Ervin has had a general practice of law, including domestic and civil litigation; Assistant Solicitor for the Tenth Judicial Circuit from 1978 to 1979; Town Attorney for Honea Path, SC; Special Prosecutor for Solicitor William T. Jones, Eighth Judicial Circuit in 1981; Administrative Law Judge appointed July 2, 1984, to South Carolina Industrial Commission; Resident Circuit Court Judge for the 10th Judicial Circuit, qualified February 1, 1985, serving continuously since.
Judge Ervin listed his most five significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) Andrew Lavern Smith v. State of South Carolina. 90-CP-04-1073. Cert. denied by the South Carolina Supreme Court on January 19, 1995; cert. denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 5, 1995, 115 S.Ct. 2285 (1995).
(b) Baker v. Champion Tooling and Machinery Co., Inc. 93-CP-04-521, Westlaw Opinion Number 720065 (1993).
(c) In re: Investigation of the death of Melinda Renee Snyder, The State v. John Doe. Filed under seal in York County General Sessions. (1992).
(d) Bridgette C. Allen, Personal Representative of the Estate of Malcolm Gregory Allen, Plaintiff v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company and South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation. 91-CP-11-253 (1992).
(e) Earl L. Taylor, Plaintiff v. First Citizens Bank and Trust Company of South Carolina, Defendant. 93-CP-04-572 (1993).
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Ervin's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Ervin 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 Ervin is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Ervin 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 Ervin has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Ervin has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Ervin 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.
Judge Ervin testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Ervin 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:
Judge Ervin meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Ervin qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Ervin "was in private practice until 1984, including service as an Assistant Circuit Solicitor and Municipal Attorney. He was appointed to the South Carolina Industrial Commission in 1984 and was elected Resident Circuit Judge for the Tenth Judicial Circuit in 1985 where he has served to the present. He is respected by the members of the Bar for his legal skills, impartiality, judicial temperament, and promptness and industry in his work as Circuit Judge. His character, integrity, and reputation are considered excellent."
Judge Ervin was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Judge Ervin's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Judge Ervin was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Judge Ervin's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
[1] Senator Saleeby recused himself from all consideration of Justice Toal's candidacy, and did not participate in the Joint Committee's investigation, public hearing, or decision-making phases of Justice Toal's screening.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
The Joint Committee conducted its investigation of Justice Toal's qualifications and held its first public hearing concerning her qualifications on December 12, 1995. The Joint Committee's policy and practice is to leave the record of its public hearings open until the release of its screening report so that, if necessary, it may later address issues important to its investigation. The Joint Committee left the record of Justice Toal's December 12th public hearing open pursuant to this policy, and unanimously decided to hold additional public hearings on January 23 and 24, 1996, so that it could consider specific allegations raised first in its written survey questionnaire process,[2] and later in telephone calls made to Joint Committee members and staff.
[2] The survey process has been used for every candidate for the bench since 1994.
The Joint Committee realizes that judicial screening is a constitutionally sensitive process and that its screening of Justice Toal presents very complicated questions of privilege and separation of powers. Because of the specificity of the allegations it received, the Committee had no choice but to sift through and determine what is true and what is false. At its meeting on December 12, 1995, the Joint Committee authorized its staff to investigate several specific allegations and granted the Chairman and Vice-Chairman the power to utilize the Joint Committee's subpoena power to compel key, and up to then uninvolved, persons to assist the Joint Committee in reviewing the allegations. At subsequent meetings, each and every member of the Joint Committee reviewed each allegation contained in each affidavit received during the investigatory process. Without dissent, this Committee scheduled additional hearings.
Because many of the persons subpoenaed were employees of the South Carolina Supreme Court or the South Carolina Judicial Department, the Joint Committee, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's outside counsel met, corresponded, and discussed each branch's interest in this constitutionally sensitive area, with the result being a December 14, 1995 order from the Court allowing for the full cooperation of its employees under certain conditions designed to protect the independence of the Supreme Court's decision-making prerogative. Further, the committee proceeded to inquire into specific conversations or matters only upon comment of the Justice or Justices involved. The Joint Committee wishes to thank the Supreme Court, and in particular its Chief Justice, Ernest Finney, for the extraordinary cooperation it has given the Joint Committee in the Joint Committee's attempt to achieve a balance between (1) the Court's constitutional mandate of providing a judicial forum for the citizens of South Carolina; and (2) the General Assembly's constitutional mandate to provide a public forum through which the citizens can comment on the qualifications of candidates for their judicial offices.
The Joint Committee sifted through each of the allegations, rumors, and innuendo brought to its attention and determined that only one issue remained after the first hearing on December 12, 1995, that should be considered in additional public hearings. This issue was whether Justice Toal's treatment of Supreme Court and Judicial Department employees has been in keeping with the applicable standards of behavior.
While the Committee's consideration of allegations of Justice Toal's mistreatment of employees is unique as to whom the alleged behavior was directed, it is not unique in that the Joint Committee has historically found judicial temperament and outwardly directed conduct to be very important, regardless of whether the behavior at issue is directed at litigants, lawyers, or staff.
This Committee has encountered difficulty in determining a fair standard by which to evaluate interpersonal communication between a member of the judiciary and court staff. The determination of such a standard is not made difficult by any lack of legal commentary on or case analysis of judicial behavior, but is complicated, as it would be in any situation where one must evaluate another human being's conduct, by the desire to balance this Committee's duty to screen judicial candidates with each individual member's desire to not appear hypocritical, narrow-minded, or unfair. While Justice Toal is certainly not a peer by virtue of her singular elevation to the South Carolina Supreme Court, of any member of the Joint Committee, she is a peer of us all in that we are all human beings.
Human nature argues for us to turn away from issues such as those implicated by this screening and leave them to be worked out, if there is a need, by the parties involved, but the Joint Committee decided that it cannot default to human nature. This matter is important, not only because of the General Assembly's constitutional mandate to elect judges, but also because there can be no more important aim of government than to ensure that its citizens respect their system of justice. Furthermore, Justice Toal deserves and should have every expectation that the aim of these proceedings is not only to establish a violation of the applicable standards of conduct if such a finding is warranted, but is also to sweep away allegations, rumors, and innuendo so that any continued service on the Supreme Court would not be marked by whisper or slur. In short, the Joint Committee's hearings were the only opportunity the General Assembly and Justice Toal had within the next ten years to ensure that the public will respect this Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
The Joint Committee believes that public employees are a valuable resource whether such public employees are Associate Justices of the Supreme Court or typists in a word processing pool. The Joint Committee was confronted with what was apparently a lack of any sufficient alternative for its hearing process to air allegations of employee mistreatment. While it would have undoubtedly been a less publicly-charged method for this airing out of concerns to have been conducted within the confines of an employee grievance hearing or agency management meeting, the latter allegedly did not occur or was not successful in this situation.
The Joint Committee's inquiry during its public hearings was not designed to prove Justice Toal qualified or not qualified for re-election to the South Carolina Supreme Court. It was instead an attempt to lay before the Joint Committee all facts relevant to the allegations presented, including an examination of the motive, bias, or prejudice of any person appearing before the Joint Committee. The witnesses were posed questions both friendly and not so friendly to Justice Toal in an attempt to ensure both sides were fairly aired. Counsel for Justice Toal had the opportunity to review an outline of the testimony expected of witnesses, and to provide counsel for the Joint Committee with objections and proposed questions. In fact, in order to preserve and protect Justice Toal's right to confront these witnesses, her attorneys provided Joint Committee counsel with over 100 questions and areas of interest. Joint Committee counsel posed these questions of the witnesses on behalf of counsel for Justice Toal.
Justice Toal and her attorneys repeatedly expressed confidence in the fairness of the Joint Committee's process, and Justice Toal testified that she had no information that the members or staff of this Committee were engaged in anything other than an attempt to comply with the General Assembly's constitutionally mandated function.
The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee is concerned with a letter that Justice Toal apparently wrote to the State Parole Board regarding a convicted capital offender. Justice Toal indicated that "someone in government" contacted her about the inmate and that she expressed her observation of the inmate while he was out on work release, but does not recall writing a letter of recommendation. The transcript from the inmate's parole hearing included discussion that the Board of Parole had received a letter from Justice Toal. (Transcript attached, excerpt at page 493 of the Transcript of the Proceedings of the Joint Committee). While the Joint Committee found no such letter in the Board's files, it was advised by Board personnel that the Board's files were routinely purged after each hearing. Further, the Committee was unable to locate any attorney who recalled representing the capital offender in the parole hearing and, therefore, found no copy of the letter in a private attorney's file.
Justice Toal's position is that such a letter would be appropriate if sent in response to a request from the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon or some other agency involved in the matter. The Joint Committee received affidavits from a high ranking Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon official and the probation and parole agent involved in the matter. These affidavits indicate that it is never the Department's policy or practice to seek input from appellate court judges and that there was no exception made in this case. The parole agent who conducted the Department's parole investigation said that he has never been in contact with Justice Toal about anything. Furthermore, the Department does not authorize the inmate or his attorney to seek letters of recommendation on the Department's behalf. According to the Department, it is entirely up to the inmate or his attorney to obtain letters of recommendation for a parole hearing.
The Joint Committee is not in accord with Justice Toal's view of the law regarding the ability of a judge to write a letter of recommendation (even if there was evidence that some governmental entity had sought her opinion). Justice Toal offers, as support of her interpretation of the law, commentary to Judicial Canon of Conduct 2(B) that was not adopted in South Carolina. The commentary to South Carolina's version of Canon 2(B) is more restrictive than the version cited by Justice Toal, and appears to prohibit a judge from writing letters to an inmate's parole board. Furthermore, the South Carolina Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct issued a 1994 opinion interpreting Canon 2(B) to prohibit a judge from writing letters of recommendation for probation.
The intent behind Canon 2(B) is to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting judges from using their offices to sway others. The public controversy over this matter reinforces the need for Canon 2(B). In its investigation, the Committee found that some of the individuals opposing the inmate's parole perceived Justice Toal's letter as a serious complication of their effort to keep the inmate incarcerated.
The screening Committee encourages all judges to comply with the South Carolina commentary. Further, it appreciates Justice Toal's grasp of the impact of her contact with the Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon and her determination not to do so again (see affidavit of the Honorable Jean H. Toal at page 493 of Transcript of the Proceedings of the Joint Committee).
Justice Toal demonstrated in her testimony before the Joint Committee an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and several other ethical considerations important to judges, such as ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal. Justice Toal's husband, brother, and cousin are all attorneys, and she stated that she recuses herself from cases involving them or the firms with which they are affiliated and from cases involving her former law firm.
Justice Toal is co-executor and co-trustee of trusts created under her father's will. The major asset of her father's estate was his interest in the family's sand mining business, Columbia Silica Sand Company. Justice Toal is a shareholder of the company, sits on the company's board of directors, and serves as the Secretary of the corporation. The Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct recently issued an opinion stating that such involvement in a company does not violate the Canons of Judicial Conduct's prohibition against a judge's participation in entities that might conflict with the judge's judicial responsibilities.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Justice Toal's legal knowledge and ability to be outstanding. Justice Toal is unquestionably very intelligent and has a keen aptitude for the law. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Justice Toal has taught, lectured, and written on a variety of legal topics, and is noted for her legal scholarship.
Justice Toal reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating was AV when she was elected to the bench in 1988.
(3) Professional Experience:
Justice Toal was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1968.
Since her admission to the South Carolina Bar, Justice Toal has been an associate with Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone in Greenville (1968-70), and an associate and partner with Belser, Baker, Barwick, Ravenel, Toal & Bender (1970-88).
Justice Toal estimated that in the five years immediately prior to her election to the Supreme Court in 1988, she was in federal court approximately 50 times and in state court approximately 140 times. She also had appeared approximately 100 times for administrative trials.
Justice Toal stated that for the five years preceding her election to the Supreme Court in 1988, 57% of her practice was civil, 20% was criminal, and 23% was domestic. Justice Toal reported that 18% of her practice was non-litigation, and that 50% of the matters she handled went to a jury.
Justice Toal described her five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Fox v. Scholer and Bruckner, C.A. No. 81-300-0 (D.S.C. 1981). The case involved a 7 count complaint alleging medical malpractice, alienation of affections and criminal conversation, intentional infliction of emotional harm, conspiracy, and fraud. Justice Toal was the sole counsel for Defendant Bruckner. After a 2 week trial, a verdict was returned for Defendants.
(b) Eslinger v. Thomas, 324 F. Supp. 1329 (D.S.C. 1971), 470 F. Supp. 886 (D.S.C. 1972), aff'd and rev'd, 476 F.2d 225 (1973). Case involved female law student who was denied employment as a Senate Page because of her sex. The Fourth Circuit held the practice unconstitutional. Justice Toal participated in various trials and motion hearings in this action.
(c) State v. Larry Portee, Fifth Judicial Circuit, General Sessions, 1980. Death penalty case involving murder during the commission of an armed robbery. Shortly before trial, the death penalty was abandoned and after 2 days of trial, a plea to voluntary manslaughter was offered and accepted.
(d) United States v. Adams, et al., U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 1981, Judge Simons presiding. Case involved allegations of embezzlement from the Fort Jackson Post Exchange. The defendant who Justice Toal represented received a jury verdict of not guilty after a 2 and one-half week trial.
(e) Owen Martin v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), C.A. No. 3-86-539-16 (D.S.C. 1986). The case involved personal injury resulting from the derailment of an Amtrak passenger train in Hamlet, N.C. The case was settled for an amount exceeding 1 million dollars.
Justice Toal listed five of the civil appeals she personally handled prior to her election to the Supreme Court:
(a) Lindsay v. National Old Line Insurance Co., 262 S.C. 621, 20 S.E.2d 75 (1974). This decision set forth rules for construction of the "Retaliatory Statute" which involves license fees and taxes paid by a foreign life insurance company and also set forth South Carolina's approach to retroactive legislation.
(b) Peterkin v. Peterkin, 293 S.C. 311, 360 S.E.2d 311 (1987). This case involved an important analysis by the South Carolina Supreme Court of the doctrine of transmutation.
(c) Tall Tower, Inc. and SCETV v. South Carolina Procurement Review Panel, (Tall Tower I), 294 S.C. 225, 363 S.E.2d 683 (1987); Charleston Television, Inc. v. S.C. Budget and Control Board, (Tall Tower II), 296 S.C. 444, 373 S.E.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1988), rev'd, 301 S.C. 468, 392 S.E.2d 671 (1990). These appeals all arose out of a procurement protest filed by Charleston Television, Inc. whereby it challenged SCETV's award of a long-term television tower lease to Tall Tower, Inc. These cases provided significant new analyses of state administrative law, scope of judicial review, rules of state procurement, and separation of powers.
(d) Catawba Indian Tribe v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 498, 106 S. Ct. 2039, 90 L. Ed.2d 490 (1986), 740 F.2d 305 (4th Cir. 1984); 718 F.2d 1291 (4th Cir. 1983). This case represented the third largest eastern Indian land claim. The case involved federal Indian Law, constitutional issues, and state property law. The case has now been settled by legislation adopted by the United States and the State of South Carolina in 1993.
(e) Able v. S.C. P.S.C, 290 S.C. 409, 351 S.E.2d 151 (1986). This case analyzed the requirements of the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act regarding the fact-finding at the administrative level and is frequently cited.
Justice Toal listed the following criminal appeals which she has personally handled prior to her election to the Supreme Court:
(a) State v. Sachs, 264 S.C. 541, 216 S.E.2d 501 (1975). This case set forth a major restatement of the law of search and seizure in South Carolina.
(b) State v. Hyman, 276 S.C. 559, 281 S.E.2d 209 (1981). State v. Linder, 276 S.C. 304, 278 S.E.2d 335 (1981). These cases set forth detailed rules regarding the State's death penalty statute. Justice Toal participate in the submission of an amicus curiae brief which discussed from a legislative perspective issues regarding proportionality in sentencing and other issues.
(c) Downey v. Peyton, 451 F.2d 236 (4th Cir. 1971). A habeas corpus proceeding for a state prisoner. This decision set forth guidelines for when the "jury room may be invaded" to determine whether the jury received extra trial information.
Justice Toal described her five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) State v. Larry Gene Bell, 302 S.C. 18, 393 S.E.2d 364 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 227, 112 L. Ed.2d 182 (1990).
(b) State v. Stacy Ford, 301 S.C. 485, 392 S.E.2d 781 (1990).
(c) Sangamo Weston, Inc. v. National Surety Corp., 307 S.C. 143, 414 S.E.2d 127 (1992).
(d) Foster v. S.C. Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 306 S.C. 519, 413 S.E.2d 31 (1992).
(e) Ost v. Integrated Products, Inc., 296 S.C. 241, 371 S.E.2d 796 (1988).
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee has historically viewed good judicial temperament as a very important and necessary quality in all candidates for judicial office. The Joint Committee was presented with allegations that Justice Toal's behavior towards Supreme Court and other judicial department employees has at times been inappropriate. The Joint Committee was troubled by these allegations and thoroughly investigated them as is outlined in the first part of Justice Toal's section of this report. The Joint Committee's benchmark for behavior and questioning were the ordinary rules of civility upon which reasonable minds could agree.
The allegations of inappropriate behavior fell generally in three categories:
(1) There was testimony that Justice Toal has on occasion directed her temper at Supreme Court and Court Administration employees in a manner that was out of proportion to the precipitating event. Clyde Davis, Clerk of the Supreme Court, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 343-344, 345-346, 348-350, 354-356, 358-360, 361); Susan Widener, Law Clerk to Chief Justice Finney, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 331-332, 333-338); Brenda Shealy, Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Court, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 368-371, 374-375); Betsy Stevenson, Supreme Court employee, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 377-378, 379, 383, 384-385); and Andy Surles, Assistant Director of Court Administration, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 315-317, 318-323) each testified to an occasion or occasions when Justice Toal directed her temper at them. Other witnesses, such as Louis Rosen, former Director of Court Administration, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 287-289, 291-292, 293-294, 296-297, 299-301, 310-311) and former Chief Justice Chandler, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 411-412, 413-416) testified to hearing first-hand accounts of incidents when Justice Toal lost her temper with employees.
(2) There was testimony that Justice Toal has directed profanity at employees of the Supreme Court and Court Administration in a manner that was pointed at the employee as a damnation. Clyde Davis testified (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 343, 345-346, 354-356) to Justice Toal's direction of profanity at him and at other employees as a damnation. Betsy Stevenson also testified (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 377-378, 383, 384-385) that Justice Toal had directed profanity at her.
(3) There was testimony that Justice Toal has on occasion treated employees of the Supreme Court and Court Administration in a manner that was demeaning, belittling, and embarrassing. H. Lee Smith, former Assistant Director of Court Administration, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 281-283, 284-285), Andy Surles, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 318-321, 322, 327-328), Betsy Stevenson, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 376-377, 379-380, 383-384), Brenda Shealy, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 368-371), and Clyde Davis, (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp. 362) all recounted an instance or instances when they felt demeaned, belittled, or embarrassed by Justice Toal's treatment of them.
Clyde Davis, Clerk of the Supreme Court and supervisor of approximately 18 of the Supreme Court's approximately 50 employees, testified that Justice Toal's "rude and demeaning" treatment of his employees was regular and unpredictable enough that it affects the way he and his employees do their jobs. He testified that he and his staff are constantly on edge for fear of being "jumped on" by Justice Toal for anything, whether or not they make a mistake. Unfortunately, Davis never brought his concerns to Justice Toal's attention. He testified that unlike each of the other Justices whom he had served, Justice Toal, based on prior history, could not be approached with constructive criticism. Louis Rosen, former Director of Court Administration, also testified that Justice Toal's treatment of employees had a negative effect on some employees in Court Administration, and said that it had grown into a big problem by the time he resigned in 1995.
George Markert, Director of Court Administration (Transcript of 1/23/96 pp.251-270 ); Fran Trapp, former law clerk to Justice Toal, (Transcript of 1/24/96 pp. 440-452); Jennifer Aldrich, former law clerk to Justice Toal, (Transcript of 1/24/96 pp. 452-460); and Catharine Griffin, former law clerk to Justice Toal, (Transcript of 1/24/96 pp. 460-469) all testified that they had never seen Justice Toal exercise her temper, direct profanity at anyone, or act in a way that was belittling, demeaning, or embarrassing. The individuals who testified on Justice Toal's behalf were primarily former law clerks, staff attorneys, and employees who work in the basement of the Supreme Court building. There was testimony about tension between the Clerk's office and Justice Toal's secretary and law clerks, and between several Court Administration employees involved on the automation project and Justice Toal.
Justice Toal testified that many of the employees who had offered criticisms of her were involved in the areas of the Court that needed expansion and modernization. She indicated that she directed her highly charged nature to the demands of modernization and the lapses in performance she encountered in these employees so that she could correct the inertia normally inherent in bureaucracy. The Joint Committee agrees it is sometimes appropriate to apply pressure, but the adage that it's possible to object without being objectionable applies here.
Justice Toal testified that public employees are a valuable public resource and that she has an obligation to preserve and improve staff morale. She also said that it was important to respect all persons, and to respect the differences between different stations in life. Justice Toal indicated that some of the criticisms of her were legitimate, and that she would improve. She also apologized to any employees she treated inappropriately.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Justice Toal was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation indicated that she is extremely diligent and industrious.
Justice Toal is married with two children, ages 23 and 14.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Justice Toal appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibilities:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Justice Toal has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Justice Toal has served on the Supreme Court since 1988. She served on the South Carolina Commission on Human Affairs from 1972 to 1974, and in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1975 to 1988.
Justice Toal is active in professional and community activities, and has received numerous awards and recognitions for her achievements.
(9) Ethics:
Justice Toal 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.
Justice Toal testified that she is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Justice Toal testified that she is aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Justice Toal meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Justice Toal qualified. The Bar reported:
[Justice Toal] is uniformly regarded by those contacted for her excellent integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament, including her diligence, work ethic, and preparation in all matters. She has been active in public service. As a member of the Supreme Court she has been very active as a lecturer and participant in many legal and judicial education programs. She has authored a large number of opinions which articulate and reflect the high standards of that Court. She was described as outstanding, excellent, and superior as a Justice. The persons contacted about Justice Toal uniformly reported their opinions that she has brought credit to the Supreme Court, reflected excellence in her membership on the Court, and demonstrated those attributes of fairness and equality to the people of South Carolina and the Bar of this state.
Justice Toal was asked about her general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Justice Toal's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of her public hearing held on December 12, 1995. The Joint Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Joint Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any of these questions.
Justice Toal was asked about her general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Justice Toal's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of her public hearing held on December 12, 1995. The Joint Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Joint Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any of these questions.
We believe that Justice Toal is sincere in her apologies and has accepted any meritorious criticisms constructively.
Also, we feel it necessary to clarify what could be interpreted as a difference between Justice Toal's intent and her words. In her closing statement to the Committee, Justice Toal couples her apology with a rather negative commentary of some court employees' performance. While we are concerned that this coupling appears to be a shifting of blame for her behavior, we believe that this commentary is in fact indicative of Justice Toal's "hard-charging" nature and overwhelming commitment to an efficient, well-run judicial system. We also believe that her commitment to such a judicial system has, at times, blinded Justice Toal to the tenor and effect of her behavior. We believe that Justice Toal is sincerely committed to improving her relationships with Judicial Department personnel, and we believe that Justice Toal will abide by her commitment to re-examine and re-evaluate her means and methods of accomplishing her goals of improving the efficiency of our Court system. An open mind to improvement is an attribute for any member of the bench, and Justice Toal seems committed to that course.
Glenn F. McConnell
F. G. "Greg" Delleney
John R. Russell
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Anderson was screened on December 11, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows and are, in part, based on Judge Anderson's February 2, 1995 screening:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
Judge Anderson reported that he has been named as a defendant in several cases. In Annie M. Timmons v. [all members of the South Carolina House of Representatives and the South Carolina Senate], 3:CV-80-1640, the last entry in the file is an Order dated October 13, 1982, staying the case for six months in order to allow the plaintiff to petition to reopen it or it would be dismissed; the records at the District Court indicate that the defendants were never served. In U.S. v. Keefe, 4:CV-80-2472, Judge Anderson was a judgment creditor due to a Family Court Order giving him an award of attorney's fees in the sum of Two Hundred Fifty and No/100 ($250.00) Dollars. In Jasper Buchanan v. Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Sidney Tyson and Donald J. Zelenka, 3:CV-82-401, an inmate brought a Pro Se habeas corpus action. The case was dismissed and records indicate the defendants were never served. Robert L. Wilson v. City of Greenville, Mayor William Workman, Ralph King Anderson, Jr. ..., 6:CV-86-2730, involved a civil rights action relating to a local sign ordinance. The action was dismissed and records maintained indicate that the defendants were never served. Jasper Buchanan v. Richard Riley, Travis Medlock, William Leeke, Woodrow Lewis, Donald Zelenka, Ralph King Anderson, Jr. ..., 3:CV-86-1444, involved a Pro se action brought by an inmate of the State Corrections Department. The defendants were never served and judgment was entered for all defendants. In Donald J. Strable v. Clyde N. Davis, Jr., Clerk of Court, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Chief Justice, The Honorable George T. Gregory, Honorable Julius B. Ness, former Chief Justice, Honorable Cameron B. Littlejohn, former Chief Justice, Honorable Elijah Curran Burnett, Circuit Judge, Honorable James Edward Moore, Circuit Judge, Honorable Tommy L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Judge, Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Circuit Judge, Honorable Frank P. McGowan, Jr., Circuit Judge, CV:89-1533, a Pro Se action was brought against numerous judges. The case was summarily dismissed by Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge. The case was appealed to the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals resulting in a per curiam dismissal on February 1, 1990. Jerry Lee Bruce v. Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Ferrell Cothran, Sharon N. Odom, Ray E. Chandler, Harold Detwilder and R. Wright Turbeville, CV:4:91-3572(H), involved a Pro Se action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Judge Anderson was never served and the case was summarily dismissed. Finally, Phillip R. Pyett v. Judge Ralph Anderson, Dudley Saleeby, Jr. and John DeBerry, CV:8:92-283-17K, involved a Pro Se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The case was summarily dismissed.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Anderson has lectured extensively on civil, criminal, and ethical matters at various Bar and judicial conferences. Judge Anderson has written numerous materials for use at Judicial/Legal seminars and is the author of NUTS AND BOLTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW. Judge Anderson also reported that he will be the chief editor of a trial manual to be published by the Bar.
The Joint Committee found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Anderson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1959 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Judge Anderson began his career in private practice in Columbia in 1959. He later moved to Florence in 1960, where he remained in private practice until his election to the Circuit Court in 1979.
Judge Anderson provided the Joint Committee with significant orders/opinions which he described as follows:
(a) State v. Jonathan Dale Simmons, ___ S.C. ___, 427 S.E.2d 175 (1993) rev'd ___ U.S. ___, 129 L.Ed.2d 133, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (1994). Death penalty case with numerous issues relating to death penalty law and criminal law in general. Defendant received the death penalty and the verdict was affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court. Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court.
(b) State v. Thomas Lee Davis, 309 S.C. 304, 422 S.E.2d 133 (1992) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 L.Ed.2d 263, ___ S.Ct. ___ (1993). Death Penalty case in which the defendant received the death penalty and the S.C. Supreme Court affirmed. The court specifically affirmed Judge Anderson's rulings regarding: (1) what is a deadly object; (2) Miranda Rights; and (3) Physical Torture.
(c) Joey M. Oliver, as GAL for Bradford Michael Oliver v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 309 S.C. 313, 422 S.E.2d 128 (1992). Case involved litigation issues under the S.C. Tort Claims Act.
(d) State v. James Russell Cain, 297 S.C. 497, 377 S.E.2d 556 (1988) cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1010, 111 L.Ed.2d 764, 110 S.Ct. 3254. Death Penalty trial in which the defendant received the death penalty. The verdict was affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court and certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
(e) Alvin Davis v. South Carolina, (Docket Number 85-CP-40-1771). The case involved an administrative mistake which resulted in Davis, a convicted criminal, being released without serving his jail time. Davis was arrested 10 years after his original conviction. Judge Anderson's order dealt with "numerous due process and constitutional issues". The State dismissed its intent to appeal Judge Anderson's order (which presumably found for Davis).
(f) Dillon County School District Number Two v. Lewis Sheet Metal Works, Inc., et al., 286 S.C. 207, 332 S.E.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1985) cert. denied 288 S.C. 468, 343 S.E.2d 613 (1986). Case involved the application of the Statute of Limitations to a roofing case.
(g) Columbia East Associates, A Limited Partnership v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 299 S.C. 515, 386 S.E.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1989). Action by a shopping center against the defendant supermarket alleging violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Anderson has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Anderson 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.
Judge Anderson testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Anderson 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:
Judge Anderson meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
Judge Anderson was found qualified by the South Carolina Bar. The Bar reported that Judge Anderson "has a very strong work ethic and has a reputation of keeping long, rigorous hours." The Bar found Judge Anderson to be "well prepared in all matters that come before him," and reported that "Judge Anderson is well respected for his analytical ability. He is intelligent and is considered a legal scholar. He has the ability to grasp the issues quickly and is able to rule from the bench promptly, appropriately citing the applicable law." The Bar found Judge Anderson to be "an individual of unquestioned character and integrity." The Bar also reported that Judge Anderson's "decisions are not influenced by the identities of the litigants or their counsel" and that "members of the Bar interviewed indicated that they had received a fair trial any time they had appeared before him."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Gray was screened on December 14, 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.
Judge Gray demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Gray reported that he was named as a defendant in Jerry Screen v. Cassandra Green et al., 92-CP-06-96. The case was about a minor's claim in a structured settlement. Judge Gray stated that he represented one of the parties to the structured settlement.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Gray has lectured at the, New Family Court Judges Orientation on "Handling Pro Se Litigation" in July 1995.
The Joint Committee found Judge Gray to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Gray graduated from South Carolina State University Law School in 1963 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Gray practiced with Ernest A. Finney before he was drafted in 1963, part-time from 1965 to 1971, full-time until Justice Finney's election to the bench, and then with associates until July 1992.
Judge Gray described his practice before being elected Family Court Judge as 50% civil, 25% criminal, and 25% domestic.
Judge Gray provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) S.R. Barton et al. vs. Dept. Of Housing and Urban Development. Case tried in U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Cite not available.
(b) State v. Freeman Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(c) Finney & Gray vs. S.C. Public Services Authority, 284 S.C. 397, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(d) Joseph Johnson vs. Henderson, 279 S.C. 132, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(e) American Bankers vs. L.C. Frederick, Op. No. 2030, at trial level.
Judge Gray has handled a the following civil appeals:
(a) S.C. Insurance Co. vs. White, 301 S.C. 133, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(b) Suburban Propane Gas Company vs. DesChamps, 298 S.C. 230, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(c) S.R. Barton et al. vs. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Court of Appeals.
(d) Joseph Johnson vs. Henderson, 279 S.C. 132, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(e) Elijah Montgomery vs. Social Security Administration, U.S. District Court.
Judge Gray has handled the following criminal appeals:
(a) In re Shaw, 274 S.C. 534, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
(b) State v. Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, ___ S.E.2d ___ (___).
Judge Gray considers the following to be his most significant orders or opinions:
(a) Patricia Ann Freeman vs. Ashby O. Freeman, Docket No. 92-DR-08-2717, Op. No. 95-UP-222 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995).
(b) Norman Henslee vs. Victoria S. Henslee, Docket No. 93-DR-08-1449.
(c) Franklin H. Shaefer vs. Stephanie Ann Shaefer, Docket No. 93-DR-10-8988.
(d) Susan Newman vs. John Lee Newman, Docket No. 93-DR-43-2139.
(e) Susan L. Jessen vs. Eric C. Jessen, Docket No. 93-DR-1924, Op. No. 95-MO-183 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1995).
In response to a request of the Joint Committee, Judge Gray provided the following additional professional experiences as indicative of his trial practice prior to his service as a Family Court Judge:
(a) Barton v. Department. This case involved a condemnation action by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(b) State v. Poinsett. A criminal action challenging the legality of service of a warrant on a Sunday.
(c) Finney & Gray vs. S.C. Public Service. Condemnation Action.
(d) Johnson v. Henderson. Negligence case in which an auto struck a child riding a moped. The case was appealed on the basis of an incorrect verdict being entered. The Supreme Court reversed.
(e) American Bankers vs. Frederick. Agency case wherein the Plaintiff alleged that the agent caused loss of business because of his actions.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Gray had engaged in an active trial practice in the trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication. He has also served with distinction as a Family Court Judge in South Carolina.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Gray's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Gray 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 Gray is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Gray 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 Gray has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Gray served in the U.S. Army from 1962-1965. He received a Honorable Discharge.
Judge Gray is active in professional activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Gray 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.
Judge Gray testified that he is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Gray 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:
Judge Gray meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Gray qualified for service on the Court of Appeals. The Bar reported that Judge Gray has "an excellent work ethic and reputation for diligence which has apparently served well in control of his docket and timely issuance of orders. He is respected for his fairness, ability to recognize issues, and evenhanded disposition of matters before him. Judge Gray is of unquestioned character and integrity. Members of the Bar interviewed were unanimous that he is fair and not influenced by litigants or counsel. In general, he is well thought of by attorneys who have appeared before him."
Judge Gray was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. The candidate's actual response to each of these questions is included in Judge Gray's transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Judge Gray was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. The candidate's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of Judge Gray's public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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. Hinds was screened on December 19, 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.
Mr. Hinds demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Hinds to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hinds' Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Hinds graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1963 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since graduating from law school, Mr. Hinds worked as an associate with Fulmer, Barnes & Berry from 1963 to 1964. He worked with C. Clayton Grimes until 8 years ago. His firm is now Hinds, Cowan, Strange, Greer & Lumpkin.
Mr. Hinds described his practice over the past five years as 90% civil and 10% criminal.
Mr. Hinds provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Hinds v. United Insurance Co. of America, 248 S.C. 285, 149 S.E.2d 771 (1966). Insurance company must accept or reject application within a reasonable period of time.
(b) State v. Murrell's Inlet Camp & Marina, Inc., 259 S.C. 404, 192 S.E.2d 199 (1972). Issue was ownership of land and what lands covered by tides that the State could claim.
(c) Hoffman v. Cohen, 262 S.C. 71, 202 S.E.2d 363 (1974). Case involving condominium issues raised by the Horizontal Property Regime Act.
(d) Doyle v. South Carolina State Highway Department and the United States of America, 441 F. Supp. 701 (1977). Admiralty case involving wrongful death. Importance was that Ferry was recognized as a dangerous instrumentality.
(e) Faust v. South Carolina State Highway Department and the United States of America, 721 F.2d 934 (1983). Follow up to Doyle. Important in that South Carolina did away with the dangerous cable ferry.
Mr. Hinds has handled the following civil appeals:
(a) Hinds v. United Insurance Co. of America, 248 S.C. 285, 149 S.E.2d 771 (1966).
(b) Brave v. Blakely, 250 S.C. 353, 157 S.E.2d 726 (1967).
(c) State v. Murrell's Inlet Camp & Marina, Inc., 259 S.C. 404, 192 S.E.2d 199 (1972).
(d) Hoffman v. Cohen, 262 S.C. 71, 202 S.E.2d 363 (1974).
(e) Faust v. South Carolina State Highway Department and the United States of America, 721 F.2d 934 (1983).
Mr. Hinds stated that he has never handled any criminal appeals.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Hinds has engaged in an active trial practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Hinds' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Hinds 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. Hinds is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Hinds 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. Hinds has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Hinds has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Hinds 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. Hinds testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Hinds 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. Hinds meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Hinds qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Hinds "has been a practicing attorney with a well-rounded general practice and extensive experience in the area of civil litigation as well as commercial and real estate transactions. He has also practiced previously in the criminal court. Mr. Hinds is highly respected by his peers and enjoys an excellent reputation in the community. His ethics, honesty, and integrity are above reproach. It is perceived that he would demonstrate excellent judicial temperament without bias in favor of or against any particular litigant."
Mr. Hinds was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. Hinds' actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of Mr. Hinds' public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Mr. Hinds was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Hinds' answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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
Judge Howard was screened on December 11, 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.
Judge Howard demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Howard has taught numerous CLE courses, new judge classes, and conferences for the SC Defense Attorneys' Association.
The Joint Committee found Judge Howard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Howard graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Howard had a general practice including civil defense, criminal defense, domestic law, plaintiff tort, workers' comp, real estate, trust and will preparation from 1973 to 1988. Further and while in private practice, Judge Howard had an extensive appellate practice. Judge Howard was elected a Circuit Court Judge in 1988.
Judge Howard was appointed as an acting judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals in August 1994 and served until June 1995.
Judge Howard provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders or opinions which he listed as follows:
(a) State v. Susan Smith, June 1995. Order proscribing publication of mental competency report.
(b) In re the Estate and Last Will and Testament, John D. Muller. Jr. The Evangelical Lutheran Charities Society of Charleston, South Carolina vs. South Carolina National Bank as Trustee of the Charitable Testamentary Trust Created Under the Last Will and Testament of John D. Muller, Jr., 91-CP-10-2766, January 3, 1995.
(c) W.O. Thomas Jr., et al. v. Cooper River Park and Playground Commission, et al., 93-CP-10-1647, November 17, 1995; Order after Petition for Reconsideration, December 16, 1994.
(d) John and Lorna Osborne, Eric Staton, and L.E. Spence vs. Glen P. Carver, Claude Surface, C&S Properties of Beaufort, Inc. and Standard Federal Savings & Loan Association, 87-CP-07-1491.
(e) Charles M. Condon, as Solicitor, Ninth Judicial Circuit vs. All that certain lot, et al, 91-CP-10-1410.
Judge Howard listed civil and criminal appellate opinions he has handled as follows:
(a) Southern Contracting v. H.C. Bryon Const., ___ S.C. ___, 450 S.E.2d 602 (Ct. App. 1994).
(b) Jefferies v. Phillips, ___ S.C. ___, 451 S.E.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1994).
(c) Wright v. Marlboro County School District, ___ S.C. ___, 452 S.E.2d 12 (Ct. App. 1994).
(d) Sanders v. Emery, ___ S.C. ___, 452 S.E.2d 636 (Ct. App. 1994).
(e) Pearson v. Church of God, Op. No. 2336 (Ct. App. 1995).
Judge Howard provided the following criminal appeals he has authored:
(a) State v. Guess, Op. No. 2332 (Ct. App. 1995).
(b) City of Columbia v. Moore, Op. No. ___ (Ct. App. 1995).
(c) State v. Sammie Brown, Op. No. 2338 (Ct. App. 1995).
(d) State v. Brownlee, Op. No. 2313 (Ct. App. 1995).
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes Judge Howard's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Howard 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 Howard is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Howard 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 Howard has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Howard was a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves from September to December 1973. He was honorably discharged.
Judge Howard has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Howard 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.
Judge Howard testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Howard 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:
Judge Howard meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Howard qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Howard "has significant experience in the judicial system having served as Circuit Court Judge since July 12, 1988, for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. He also was appointed as Acting Judge for the Court of Appeals from August 1994 until June 1995. He is respected by an overwhelming majority of members of the Bar contacted for his impartiality, judicial temperament, legal skills, promptness, and industry in his work as Circuit Court Judge. He is an individual of impeccable character and integrity. He received excellent ratings for his courtroom demeanor and temperament. The overwhelming majority of those contacted felt that Judge Howard has brought credit to the Circuit Court Bench and the Court of Appeals through his professional behavior in the courtroom, and has demonstrated through his personal demeanor and behavior the type of attributes which represent fairness and equality to the people of South Carolina and the Bar of this state."
Judge Howard was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Judge Howard's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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. Huff was screened on December 11, 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.
Mr. Huff demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
In 1994 a matter was brought before the State Ethics Commission regarding an advertisement during Senator Ryberg's runoff race in 1992. The matter was concluded after another defendant filed a Statement of Organization and Campaign Disclosure Form.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Huff provided that he has given the legislative updates for the Family Law Section of the Trial Lawyers Association in 1989, 1990, and 1992, a seminar on SC Insurance and tort law update to Professional Education Systems, and a lecture to the Bar Association on the new Adoption statute and Equitable Apportionment statute in 1986.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Huff to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Huff's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Huff graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1975 and was admitted to the Bar in 1977 after taking the Bar Exam three times.
Since 1977, Mr. Huff has been a sole practitioner with a general civil practice with an emphasis in domestic litigation, tort litigation, limited criminal defense work, and real estate.
Mr. Huff described his practice over the past five years as 15% civil, 10% criminal, and 75% domestic.
Mr. Huff provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Barnes v. Barnes, 276 S.C. 519, 280 S.E.2d 538 (1981). Family Court appeal which established that living in separate rooms in same home does not constitute living separate and apart.
(b) City of Aiken, SC Municipal Association, and SCE&G v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc., Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc, and the South Carolina Public Service Authority, 90-CP-02-377 (1990). Case dealt with the issues of territorial assignment, franchises and annexation of assigned areas.
(c) Edens v. Estate of Lillie S. Matthews, pending. Case addresses application of Dead Man Statute and enforcement of an oral contract.
(d) Perry v. Greenlawn Memorial, et al. Case dealt with spouse's right to control burial over the deceased's remains.
(e) Trenton Aviation v. Connelly, Case involved liability of county run airport to privately owned plane that was negligently tied down.
Mr. Huff listed the following five appeals that he has personally handled:
(a) Mills v. Mills. Supreme Court 1988.
(b) Espinosa v. Espinosa, Court of Appeals 1991.
(c) Seigler v. Seigler, Court of Appeals 1993.
(d) Ngyuen v. Uniflex, 312 S.C 417, 440 S.E.2d 887 (1994).
(e) Bazzle v. Huff, Court of Appeals 1995.
Mr. Huff has handled no criminal appeals.
In response to a request of the Joint Committee, Mr. Huff provided the following additional professional experiences as indicative of his appellate practice:
(a) City of Aiken v, Aiken Electrical Cooperative, Inc., et al., 305 S.C. 466, 409 S.E.2d 403 (1991).
(b) Berry v. Ianuario, 286 S.C. 552, 335 S.E.2d 250 (1985).
(c) Army Navy Bingo Garrison No. 2196 v. Plowden, 281 S.C. 226, 314 S.E.2d 250 (1984).
(d) Barnes v. Barnes, 276 S.C. 519, 280 S.E.2d 538 (1981).
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Huff had engaged in an active trial and appellate practice in the courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Huff's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Huff 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. Huff is married and has one child.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Huff 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. Huff has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Huff is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Huff 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. Huff testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Huff 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. Huff meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Huff qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Huff "has been a practicing attorney with a well-rounded general practice. He has both family court and civil trial experience. In recent years, he has gained appellate court experience. Representative Huff had difficulty with the South Carolina Bar exam and missed passing by one point on his first two tries. He was successful on the third try. This may be the source of concerns, particularly during the previous candidacy of 1993, that he lacked the necessary scholarship. It does not appear to be a concern of most of those interviewed now, the large majority of whom considered him to be a hard working, honest attorney."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Lightsey was screened on December 11, 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.
Mr. Lightsey demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Lightsey reported that he owns a part interest in the family business, Mid-State Distributors, Inc. Mr. Lightsey testified, however, that if elected he would not serve as an officer or director of the business.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Lightsey has lectured extensively on appellate and ethical issues to various Bar conferences and educational and business groups.
Mr. Lightsey has authored or edited the following articles:
(a) Chairman and Contributing Author, SOUTH CAROLINA JURISPRUDENCE, Libel and Slander (1993);
(b) Contributing Author, SOUTH CAROLINA JURISPRUDENCE, Appeal and Error (1992);
(c) Lightsey, A Critique of the Promise Model of Contract, 26 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 45 (1984);
(d) Note, Disengaging Sales Law from the Sales Construct: A Proposal To Extend the Scope of Article 2 of the UCC, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 470 (1982).
The Joint Committee found Mr. Lightsey to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Mr. Lightsey has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Lightsey graduated cum laude from Harvard University Law School in 1983 and was admitted to the Bar in 1986.
Mr. Lightsey served as executive editor of the Harvard Law Review from 1982 to 1983.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Lightsey has clerked for Judge Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals from 1983 to 1984, Chief Justice Burger of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1984 to 1985, and has been employed as an Associate and Member of the firm of Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham since 1986.
Mr. Lightsey described his practice over the past five years as 96% civil, 2% criminal, and 2% domestic.
Mr. Lightsey provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Weston et al. v. Carolina Research & Development Foundation, et al., 303 S.C. 398, 401 S.E.2d 161 (1990). Case established the doctrine that a private foundation which receives and directs the expenditure of public funds is subject to the disclosure provisions of FOIA;
(b) Upchurch et al. v. The New York Times Co. d/b/a The Spartanburg Herald et al., 431 S.E.2d 558 (S.C. 1993). Case involved allegation of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Spartanburg Herald. South Carolina Supreme Court directed verdict for Defendant because there could be no cause of action for an article that was not about them;
(c) Gamble v. Stevenson et al., 305 S.C. 104, 406 S.E.2d 350 (1991). Wreck case in which one defendant cross-claimed against other 2 defendants and received a substantial verdict for punitive damages against them. On appeal, the S.C. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the punitive damage award and set forth the standards which now govern judicial review of punitive damages in South Carolina;
(d) Multimedia Publishing Co. et al. v. Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District et al., 774 F. Supp. 977 (D.S.C. 1991), aff'd, 991 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1993). Case involved plaintiff's First Amendment right to place newsracks in the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport. Trial judge ruled for newspaper and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed;
(e) Woven Electronics Corp. v. The Advance Group, Inc., 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6004 (4th Cir. 1991). Case involved misappropriation of trade secrets.
Mr. Lightsey has personally handled the following appeals:
(a) Horn v. Davis Electrical Constructors, currently pending in the South Carolina Supreme Court. Prior History: 302 S.C. 484, 395 S.E.2d 724 (Ct. App. 1990), aff'd in part & rev'd in part, 307 S.C. 559, 416 S.E.2d 634 (1992), on remand, 440 S.E.2d 398 (Ct. App. 1994). Case involved questions of whether employee has a cause of action when doctors place restrictions on activity that make employee incapable of performing his job, and whether Court has discretion of ordering reinstatement as a remedy.
(b) Weston v. Greenville County School District, settled on appeal after briefing to S.C. Supreme Court in 1992. Issue was whether a public body's conducting an election by secret ballot violated the FOIA;
(c) Shoaf v. Warlick, 298 S.C. 415, 380 S.E.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1989). Case involved issues of whether a person who is an officer and director of a corporation occupies a fiduciary position, whether that duty was breached for selling stock at a premium, and whether plaintiffs were equitably estopped from attacking the sale.
(d) Republic Textile Equipment Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 293 S.C. 381, 360 S.E.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1989). Case involved issue of whether Insurance company should be held responsible for the negligence of an insurance agency in explaining and handling an insurance policy;
(e) Ex parte the State-Record Co., in re Access to Family Court Records, settled on appeal after briefing to the S.C. Supreme Court in 1988. Child custody and support action involving Joe Morrison. Issue was whether there was a compelling reason to order the entire record sealed and whether there may have been a less restrictive alternative to completely sealing the entire record.
Mr. Lightsey has handled no criminal appeals, but reported to the Joint Committee that he drafted the opinions in the following criminal appeals:
(a) United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985).
(b) United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1984).
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Lightsey has engaged in an active trial and appellate practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Lightsey's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Lightsey 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. Lightsey is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Lightsey 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. Lightsey has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Lightsey is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Lightsey 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. Lightsey testified that he is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Lightsey testified that he is aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Lightsey meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Lightsey qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Lightsey "has a superior academic record as evidenced by his undergraduate and law school achievements, and members of the Bar rate him very high on legal knowledge. Mr. Lightsey has a wide range of legal experience from his multi-faceted practice and is well-prepared and industrious. His character and integrity are unquestioned. His analytical skills are sound. No one interviewed considered his lack of past judicial experience to be a hindrance to his prospective judicial service."
Mr. Lightsey was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. The candidate's actual response to each of these questions is included in Mr. Lightsey's transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Mr. Lightsey was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Lightsey's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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. Shine was screened on December 13, 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.
Mr. Shine demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Shine stated that he has served as moderator at several Government Law Section seminars of the S.C. Bar, and has conducted agency-wide training on Federal standards of conduct and conflicts of interests laws for the U.S. General Services Administration.
Mr. Shine published "A Perspective on Title 18 U.S.C. Section 207(g)," in the Ethics Newsgram of the United States Office of Government Ethics (vol. 3, no. 4, August 1986).
The Joint Committee found Mr. Shine to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Shine's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Shine graduated from the Harvard University School of Law in 1974 and was admitted to the South Carolina Bar later in the same year. Mr. Shine was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1975.
Since graduating from law school, Mr. Shine has worked as an attorney with the Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Air Force from 1974 to 1976, the City of Charleston from 1976 to 1977, Walter Bilbro and Associates, P.A. from 1977 to 1978, Chapman and Shine, P.A. from 1978 to 1979, District of Columbia from 1979 to 1980, United States General Services Administration from 1980 to 1987, the Attorney General's Office, Chief Deputy Attorney General from 1987 to 1993, and State Budget and Control Board, General Counsel, from 1993 to present.
Mr. Shine described his practice over the past five years as 85% civil and 15% criminal.
Mr. Shine provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Gilstrap et al. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 423 S.E.2d 101 (S.C. 1992). Case involved the legality of Budget and Control Board plan to reduce the budget based on growth of individual agency budgets.
(b) Belton v. The State of South Carolina et al., 443 S.E.2d 554 (S.C. 1994). Case involved application of the State's Whistleblower Statute involving alleged retaliation by a state agency.
(c) Coble et al. v. The State of South Carolina et al., S.C. Supreme Court (Nov. 15, 1994). Case involved the legality of the Confederate Battle Flag being flown above the State House dome.
(d) Myers et al. v. Patterson et al., 434 S.E.2d 841 (S.C. 1993). Case involved the authority of the General Assembly to apply prospectively the collection of a state gasoline tax to pay bond indebtedness from Hurricane Hugo.
(e) Brown v. South Carolina State Board of Education et al., 301 S.C. 326, 391 S.E.2d 866 (1990). Case involved the application of administrative due process to the revocation of a teaching certificate.
Mr. Shine has handled the following civil appeals:
(a) Gilstrap et al. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 423 S.E.2d 101 (S.C. 1992). Case involved the legality of Budget and Control Board plan to reduce the budget based on growth of individual agency budgets.
(b) Belton v. The State of South Carolina et al., 443 S.E.2d 554 (S.C. 1994). Case involved application of the State's Whistleblower Statute involving alleged retaliation by a state agency.
(c) Coble et al. v. The State of South Carolina et al., S.C. Supreme Court (Nov. 15, 1994). Case involved the legality of the Confederate Battle Flag being flown above the State House dome.
(d) Myers et al. v. Patterson et al., 434 S.E.2d 841 (S.C. 1993). Case involved the authority of the General Assembly to apply prospectively the collection of a state gasoline tax to pay bond indebtedness from Hurricane Hugo.
(e) Brown v. South Carolina State Board of Education et al., 301 S.C. 326, 391 S.E.2d 866 (1990). Case involved the application of administrative due process to the revocation of a teaching certificate.
Although Mr. Shine has not handled any direct criminal appeals, he has provided the Joint Committee with five Post Conviction Review matters that he has handled which have proceeded to appellate review:
(a) Cartrette v. State, 448 S.E.2d 553 (S.C. August 15, 1994). Case submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.
(b) Ford v. State, 442 S.E.2d 604 (S.C. March 21, 1994). Submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.
(c) Langford v. State, 426 S.E.2d 793 (S.C. February 1, 1993). Submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.
(d) Clark v. State, 434 S.E.2d 266 (S.C. July 12, 1993). Submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.
(e) Richardson v. State, 426 S.E.2d 795 (S.C. February 1, 1993). Submitted to S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Shine has engaged in an active trial and appellate practice in the South Carolina courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Shine's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Shine 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. Shine is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Shine 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. Shine has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Shine served on active duty as a Captain with the U.S. Air Force from 1974 to 1976. Mr. Shine received an honorable discharge.
Mr. Shine is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Shine 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. Shine testified that he is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Shine testified that he is aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Shine meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Shine qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Shine "has been a practicing attorney, primarily in the governmental area. He is presently serving as general counsel to the State Budget and Control Board where he provides legal services in diverse areas such as public finance, personnel law, real estate, procurement law, and tort litigation. Mr. Shine is highly respected by his peers and well thought of generally in the community. His reputation for character, integrity, and ability is excellent. He would serve without bias and with an excellent judicial temperament."
Mr. Shine was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Shine's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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
Judge Simmons was screened on December 12, 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.
Judge Simmons demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Simmons reported that he has lectured at CLE programs for the Greenville Bar, at the S.C. Bar's "Law School for Non-Lawyers", and at Bridge the Gap. He has also lectured law school classes at U.S.C., appeared as a television panelist to discuss different legal topics, and teaches part time in the Paralegal program at Greenville Technical College. Judge Simmons has also lectured at S.C. Bar meetings.
Judge Simmons stated that he has written the following articles:
(a) Tips for Non-Jury Practice, S.C. Lawyer, May/June 1993;
(b) Contributing writer for South Carolina Jurisprudence published Summer 1995;
(c) Article for U.S.C Law School Alumni Magazine published in Spring 1993;
(d) "Drafting Enforceable Non-Compete Agreements," S.C. Bar (May 1995);
(e) Mortgage Foreclosures; A S.C. Primer, S.C. Lawyer (Spring/Summer 1995).
The Joint Committee found Judge Simmons to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Simmons reported that while in private practice he was never rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Simmons graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Simmons has served as a law clerk for C. Victor Pyle from 1982 to 1983, an attorney/partner with Carter, Smith Law Firm from 1983 to 1985, a partner in Wilkins, Nelson, Kittredge, and Simmons from 1986 to 1989, and has served continuously as Master-In-Equity since 1989.
Prior to his appointment as a Master-in-Equity, Judge Simmons described his practice over the previous five years as 55% civil, 5% criminal, and 40% domestic.
Judge Simmons provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Owens v. Ruth Construction Co. Workers' Compensation case that involved significant medical and psychological issues. The case was settled for the plaintiff while on appeal to the Supreme Court.
(b) Momani v. Van Surdam, 296 S.C. 409, 373 S.E.2d 691 (Ct. App. 1988). The significance of this case was that it clarified the exact standards of Rule 60 of the S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff could not file an independent action to attack a prior judgment. On appeal, the trial judge was reversed and Mr. Momani's action was allowed to proceed.
(c) Malone v. Malone, 88-DR-23-32. Divorce and custody action. It involved extensive economic evaluations and significant amounts of psychological testimony concerning the best interests of the minor children.
(d) Bolden v. Dan River, Inc., 88-CP-23-1513. Complicated and novel issue concerning post-traumatic-stress disorder. The Workers' Compensation Commission found that coverage existed and the case was settled on appeal for in excess of $100,000.
(e) Ramella v. Ramella, J.R. No. 110041. Divorce action involving millions of dollars in assets most of which was tied up in closely held corporations. The case required extensive work with CPA's in valuating assets. The case was settled shortly before trial.
Judge Simmons listed the following civil appeals he has personally handled:
(a) Arvai v. Shaw, 286 S.C. 357, 334 S.E.2d 297 (Ct. App. 1985).
(b) Momani v. Van Surdam, 296 S.C. 409, 373 S.E.2d 691 (Ct. App. 1988).
(c) White v. Snell, 299 S.C. 406, 385 S.E.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1989). Judge Simmons handled the case at the trial level and through preparation of Appellate briefs. Judge Simmons became a Master-In-Equity prior to the case being argued on appeal.
Judge Simmons has not handled any criminal appeals, but has held terms of Post Conviction Relief cases and General Session cases.
Judge Simmons described his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
(a) First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, ___ S.C. ___, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). The case involved interpretation of the road closure statute (Section 57-9-10). On appeal, the decision to close the road was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
(b) Culler v. Blue Ridge Electric Co-op, Inc., ___ S.C. ___, 422 S.E.2d 91 (1992). Wrongful discharge case involving an employee who claimed he was terminated for failing to join a PAC membership program at Blue Ridge Electric. The case was decided against the employee and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
(c) Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority v. City of Easley, et al., ___ S.C. ___, 426 S.E.2d 649 (1993). The case involved interpretation of the legislative enabling act that established the Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of $2,000,000.
(d) Spinx Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., ___ S.C. ___, 427 S.E.2d 649 (1993). This case involved interpretation of environmental hazards liability insurance coverage. The decision was affirmed by the S.C. Supreme Court.
(e) ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 92-CP-23-4197-R. This case involved novel issues concerning accountant liability to third-party investors. The case is currently on appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Simmons had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil, domestic, and appeals courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Simmons's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Simmons 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 Simmons is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Simmons 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 Simmons has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Simmons has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Simmons 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.
Judge Simmons testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Simmons 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:
Judge Simmons meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Simmons qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Simmons "is rated very high on legal knowledge, impartiality, and judicial temperament. Judge Simmons is well-prepared, industrious, and personable. His analytical skills are sound. His character and integrity are unquestioned. He is active and well thought of in the community. While he is young, those interviewed believed that his experience as a practicing attorney, Master-in-Equity for Greenville County, and Special Circuit Court Judge would qualify him for the position of Court of Appeals Judge."
Judge Simmons was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Judge Simmons's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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. Stilwell was screened on December 19, 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.
Mr. Stilwell demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations of importance to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Stilwell currently owns 100% of the interests in his law firm which is organized as a professional association. He testified that if he is elected, he would divest himself of any interest in ongoing cases and would dissolve the professional association as soon as possible. Mr. Stilwell also owns a one-half interest in a building which is currently rented to an engineering firm. He testified that he does not plan to divest himself of this interest, but would recuse himself on any matter involving a tenant or his partner who owns the other one-half interest.
Mr. Stilwell is the secretary and a member of the board of directors in a closely-held corporation which owns, manages, and rents residential property in Greenville. Mr. Stilwell testified that he is not active in the management of this property, and the company is in the process of winding up its affairs.
Mr. Stilwell reported that there is currently a suit against him pending for review in the South Carolina Supreme Court. The case is styled "Brenda Wilson, Plaintiff v. James Mosely, James Fayssoux, Samuel Stilwell, and Tom Bozeman, jointly and individually" and involves an allegation of professional negligence or malpractice. All defendants were granted summary judgment by the Circuit Court and the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
2. Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and from the Bar indicated that Mr. Stilwell is very intelligent and knowledgeable. Mr. Stilwell's law school record was outstanding, as he was an associate editor of the Law Quarterly and chief justice of the Society of Wig and Robe.
In past years, Mr. Stilwell has taught the legal portion of real estate law to prospective real estate broker/agents, and while he has not been a presenter at CLE seminars, he has participated in numerous conferences in recent years dealing with subjects of legal significance, new developments in the law, and related subjects before diverse groups, such as the Solicitor's Association, the South Carolina Textile Manufacturer's Association (on the subject of the 1991 Ethics Act).
Mr. Stilwell's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Stilwell to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Stilwell was sued along with others by a former client regarding a real estate title dispute. Mr. Stilwell was granted summary judgment, but the client has filed pro se notice of intent to appeal. The Joint Committee did not find merit in this lawsuit and sees no cause for concern.
3. Professional Experience:
Mr. Stilwell listed his five most significant litigated matters as follows:
(a) Gathings v. Robertson (367 S.E.2d 423, Ct. of Appeals, 1988). This case involved complicated civil litigation in which two or three separate component parts were proceeding at virtually the same time.
(b) Cass v. Nannarello (262 S.E.2d 924, 1980). The practical significance of the case, as distinguished from the legal significance, is that one should sue for specific performance in a real estate contract unless the concurrence of the broker is obtained before allowing a prospective purchaser out.
(c) Howard v. Mutz (434 S.E.2d 254). The significance of this case was that it answered a question as to the scope of review on appeal to the Circuit Court from a decision of the Probate judge under the new probate code.
(d) Baker v. Pelham Precision Springs (Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion Number 94-UP-247; Heard October 4, 1994, Filed October 25, 1994). This case involved a conflict between a mandatory buy-sell agreement executed by the two shareholders of a corporation and the corporation.
(e) Metro Mobile, C.T.A. -- Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity before the Public Service Commission to provide cellular telephone service in the Greenville-Spartanburg market.
Mr. Stilwell listed five civil appeals which he has personally handled as follows:
(a) David L. Hines v. Hendricks Canning Company and U.S. Fire Insurance Company; Supreme Court of South Carolina, January 8, 1975. 211 S.E.2d 220.
(b) South Carolina State Highway Department v. Joe Freeman and Wayne Freeman; Supreme Court of South Carolina, January 30, 1975. 211 S.E.2d 561.
(c) The Cass Co. v. Ann G. Nannarello and William S. Toussaint; Supreme Court of South Carolina, February 20, 1980. 262 S.E.2d 924.
(d) Glenn D. Bentrim v. Patricia Ann Bentrim; Court of Appeals of South Carolina; heard April 16, 1984, decided July 6, 1984. 318 S.E.2d 131.
(e) John M. Gathings v. Robertson Brokerage Company, Inc.; Court of Appeals of South Carolina; heard January 8, 1988; decided March 14, 1988. 367 S.E.2d 423.
Mr. Stilwell has handled two criminal appeals.
Mr. Stilwell's practice has been approximately 50% civil, 10% criminal, and 40% domestic over the past five years. He has appeared in state court approximately thirty to forty times a year for the past several years. In response to the Joint Committee's request for a list of matters he actually took to trial over the past several years, Mr. Stilwell provided the Joint Committee with a list of fifteen matters which included three family court appearances, eight appearances in the court of common pleas, two appearances in probate court, one appearance before a master-in-equity, and one South Carolina Supreme Court appeal.
Mr. Stilwell testified that he chose to limit his criminal practice because he could not have practiced criminal law and devoted time to his service in the Senate and to the practice of other types of law. Mr. Stilwell said that he prefers the general practice of law and did not want to specialize.
The Joint Committee also recognized Mr. Stilwell's willingness while in the Senate to lend his experience and leadership to very complex legal matters. For example, Mr. Stilwell has in recent years served as a conferee on the 1991 Ethics Act and government restructuring. He also served on the reapportionment subcommittee.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Stilwell has engaged in an active trial and appellate practice in the courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
4. Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Stilwell's temperament would be excellent.
5. Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Stilwell 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. Stilwell is married and has four children.
6. Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Stilwell 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. Stilwell has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
8. Public Service:
Mr. Stilwell is active in professional and community activities.
9. Ethics:
Mr. Stilwell 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;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening; or
(d) used Senate staff or other resources to campaign or prepare his application materials.
Mr. Stilwell 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.
Mr. Stilwell 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. Stilwell meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Stilwell qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Stilwell "possesses intellect, as evidenced by his law school academic achievements and comments of members of the Bar. Mr. Stilwell has a wide range of legal experience from his multifaceted practice. His reputation for integrity and excellent temperament is recognized by colleagues. His work in the South Carolina General Assembly has gained strong praise from individuals across political lines. He has used his legal knowledge to assist the legislature in areas that touch the legal community. No one interviewed considered his lack of past judicial experience to be a hindrance to his prospective judicial service.
Mr. Stilwell was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Stilwell's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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. King was screened on December 13, 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.
Mr. King 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. King is a member of the NationsBank (Sumter) Advisory Board which is a local advisory board for the bank.
Mr. King is Vice-President of Carolina Professional Title Services which is a title insurance agency.
Mr. King reported being sued personally or professionally in the following cases:
(a) Moore v. S.C. Bar, et al. (1980). Suit arose out of an article in "The Transcript," and was decided in favor of the Bar. Mr. King was sued because he was Chairman of the House of Delegates of the South Carolina Bar.
(b) King v. Shorter. Suit on a note which resulted in a counterclaim against Mr. King for breach of fiduciary duty. Case was decided in Mr. King's favor and the counterclaim was dismissed.
(c) McLeod v. McLeod. Suit by dissenting stockholders in a corporate merger against the Board of Directors and legal counsel. Mr. King was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. King has served as a teacher for a business law course at Sumter Area Technical College, a program moderator for a S.C. Bar CLE, and as a lecturer on mechanics liens for a Stewart Title Company seminar.
Mr. King published 2 Comments in the S.C. Law Review. Cohabitation as a Denial of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 17 S.C.L.R. 292 (1965), and Search and Seizure - A Constitutional Standard for South Carolina, 17 S.C.L.R. 687 (1965).
The Joint Committee found Mr. King to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. King's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. King graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1966 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Mr. King has practiced law in Sumter with Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen since his graduation from law school. He is currently a partner with the firm.
Mr. King described his practice over the past five years as 98% civil and 2% criminal.
Mr. King provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Gardiner, Ingemi, and D'Angelo v. Northern Engineering and Plastics, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Civil Action Nos.: 3:92-3492-0, 3:93-816-0, and 3:93-817-0. Sexual harassment case against employer under the Civil Rights Act. Defendant/Employer prevailed on all counts.
(b) Ervin Brunson v. Sumter County, U.S. District Court. Inmate brought suit for personal injuries sustained while incarcerated in Sumter County Jail.
(c) United States Department of Justice v. Sumter County, U.S. District Court. Litigation with Department of Justice over how members of Sumter County Council were elected.
(d) Beasley v. Bingham, Case No. 94-CP-14-181. Debt Collection and Attachment action. Defendant argued that attachment of equipment was improper in that attachment statutes were unconstitutional because they failed to give the Defendant any pre-seizure notification. Trial judge found the statutes unconstitutional.
(e) United States Department of Agriculture v. Young's Food Stores, Inc.. Attempt by Department of Agriculture to have Defendant debarred from bidding on procurement contracts.
(f) Young's Food Stores, Inc. v. Dorothy McLeod and Dorothy McLeod v. E.B. McLeod, et al., 91-CP-43-268. Suit for valuation of dissenting shareholder's stock after approval of a merger and consolidation of the company. Second suit was by dissenting shareholder against Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty.
Mr. King reported the following five appeals he has personally handled:
(a) Genesco, Inc., v. Palmetto Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. and Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 274 S.C. 446, 263 S.E.2d 34 (1979). Plaintiff sought injunction against building a Hardee's. The Master who heard the case denied the request for an injunction because no harm was shown. The Circuit Court reversed. The Supreme Court reinstated the Master's finding.
(b) Rogers v. United States of America and Sumter County, 397 F.2d 12, 302 F. Supp. 699, 426 F.2d 311. A suit for injuries sustained by an inmate after being released from custody into the care of a third party. Court found no liability on the Defendants and was affirmed on appeal.
(c) McCarty v. Sumter Music and Amusements. Action challenging the location of video game machines.
(d) Weible v. Weible. Civil suit for conversion by son against his father and a counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jury returned verdict for father on his counterclaim. Verdict was reversed on appeal.
(e) Briggs v. Richardson, 288 S.C. 537, 343 S.E.2d 653 (1986). Action to have a constructive trust placed on real estate. Trial judge found for defendant and decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Mr. King provided supplemental information at the Joint Committee's request that gives representative criminal cases that Mr. King has handled throughout his legal career. Despite the fact that his current practice is almost exclusively civil, the Joint Committee is satisfied, based on this supplemental information that Mr. King's past criminal practice is sufficient for a Circuit Court judge candidate.
The Joint Committee determined that, in the course of his legal career, Mr. King had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. King's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. King 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. King is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. King 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. King has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. King served as a first lieutenant in the United States Army and the South Carolina National Guard. Mr. King was honorably discharged in 1966.
Mr. King is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. King 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. King testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. King 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. King meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. King qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. King "possesses the academic background, the intellect, and the experience necessary to serve in this position. He has a wide range of legal experience in a very successful law practice. His reputation for integrity, even handedness and excellent temperament is recognized by his colleagues at the bar. Mr. King has held several offices with the South Carolina Bar, including his election as President, and is presently serving as President of the Sumter County Bar. He has received the endorsement of the Sumter County Bar, the Lee County Bar, the Clarendon County Bar, and the Williamsburg County Bar, which is indicative of the reputation he enjoys with his colleagues. No one interviewed considered lack of past judicial experience to be a hindrance to his prospective judicial service."
Mr. King was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. King's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in deliberation of this candidate.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Alford was screened on December 19, 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 Joint Committee investigated and dismissed, for lack of any evidence, allegations that Judge Alford had involvement in third party efforts to bolster his candidacy prior to the issuance of this report.
Judge Alford 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Alford stated that he has served as a speaker for several Judicial CLEs and a three-day session for new Probate Judges. Judge Alford has lectured on the following topics: Conducting a Jury Trial; Probate Court Jurisdiction; Trusts and Annual Update of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Probate Courts. He has spoken to the South Carolina Bankers' Association about the new Probate Code, to a CLE seminar about claims procedures in probate estate in light of Tulsa Professional Services v. Pope, and has served as a moderator for a CLE seminar for attorneys and CPA's on the South Carolina Probate Code.
The Joint Committee found Judge Alford to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Alford's most recent Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV (1991).
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Alford graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1971 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Alford was associated with another attorney in the general practice of law from 1971 to 1977, opened his own law practice from 1977 to 1979, served as Probate Judge for York County from 1979 to 1992, and has served as a Family Court Judge from 1992 to present. In the practice of law, Judge Alford participated in criminal, civil, domestic relations, probate, and property cases, and his caseload was evenly divided in these areas of law.
Judge Alford provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Berry B. Jones and Peggy W. Jones v. James Overcash and Snap-On Tools. The first civil trial Judge Alford handled from start to finish. The key issue during trial was whether a statute required reduced speed and caution on a dirt road with only one home, but which is scraped by the county, when passing.
(b) State v. Janie Sadler. The first murder case that Judge Alford handled from start to finish. The key issue in this case was whether self-defense was available to a woman who shot her boyfriend with whom she lived. The jury believed that the defendant acted in self-defense and found her not guilty.
(c) State v. Leroy Golden. Rape case involving 14 and 12 year old defendants and a 9 year old victim. The defendants who were tried in General Sessions Court rather than Family Court were found guilty. The jury however recommended mercy thus obviating the necessity of a sentence of life imprisonment.
(d) State v. Lovant Voltair Washington. Breaking and entering case where the issue was whether opening a screen door going onto a screened back porch with only a mop on it constituted breaking and entering with the intent to commit a crime. The jury found the defendant not guilty.
(e) Lillian Love Nance, Executrix of the Estate of Alice Hardee Love v. S.C. Tax Commission. Cited by S. C. Tax Commission and Attorney General's Opinions. Judge Alford was not listed as an attorney of record in this case. It was the first case he worked on after law school and he did research and helped prepare the appeal. It was a case of novel impression in SC and is the leading case on the inclusion of totten or custodial type trusts in estates for estate tax purposes.
Judge Alford provided the Joint Committee with the following five civil appeals:
(a) Eugene Patterson v. J.R. Bogan and Ernest Kerr, 261 S.C. 87, 198 S.E. 2d 586. This was an action for malicious prosecution tried in Union County. Judge Alford represented the plaintiff who prevailed at trial ($20,000 verdict) and on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Judge Alford had to levy execution and advertise a sale of property before the judgment was paid.
(b) Jesse C. Johnson, Fire Marshal of the State of South Carolina v. Melvin L. Roberts, South Carolina Court Opinion No. 20460, 1977. Melvin L. Roberts installed several self-service gas stations which were operated by inserting one dollar bills. There was no attendant required. The S. C. Fire Marshal sought to close these gas stations because there was no attendant. After a lengthy trial, the Circuit Court ruled that the S.C. Fire Marshal was not entitled to an injunction. In a landmark case, the S.C. Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court. The U. S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
(c) James C. Cloniger v. Lamar W. Cloniger, 261 S.C. 603, 193 S.E. 2d. 647. Judge Alford is not listed as an attorney of record in this case, but did most of the work in research and preparation of the appeal including the record on appeal and the brief.
(d) Margaret Patrick Wright v. W.M. Patrick, 262 S.C. 434, 205 S.E. 2d 175. This case involved an alleged contract to make a will. Judge Alford got a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor after a lengthy trial in York County. Judge William Rhodes granted judgment N.O.V. to the defendants. Judge Alford appealed and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Judge Rhodes.
(e) The Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Ida Walker Wood, et al, 334 F.Sup. 1124. Judge Alford is not listed as an attorney of record in this case, but did most of the research and preparation of briefs for the attorney with whom he was associated. This case involved the construction of a will. The wife and children of the deceased sought a construction that would close the class of heirs so that they could borrow money to pay debts and keep the real property in the estate out of foreclosure. This was the only chance they had, but the Federal District Court of South Carolina ruled otherwise and the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Judge Alford described the following orders as his most significant:
(a) McKibben v. Estate of Blanche Crenshaw, Case No. 91ES4600344. First jury trial ever held in the York County Probate Court. Plaintiffs contested a will alleging mental incapacity and undue influence. A verdict was directed for the defendant on the issue of mental incapacity, and the jury found for the defendant on the issue of undue influence.
(b) In the Interest of Gregory Kente Neely, a minor 16 years of age, 94-JU-46-7 through 94-JU-46-12; and In the Interest of Schafig Azim El-Amin, a minor 15 years of age, 94-JU-46-1 through 94-JU-46-6. These cases involved waiving the juveniles to General Sessions to stand trial on charges of murder, armed robbery, etc. This was the second case where cameras were allowed into family court in York County.
(c) The State-Record Co., Inc. and the Greenville News, Intervenors. In re: SCDSS v. Susan Smith, et al., 88-DR-44-11. The media attempted to have the sealed file in the above case opened. The Order discusses the development of the law as to openness in the Courts. The Order was not appealed.
(d) Mark Glenn v. Sandra Glenn, 94-DR-46-464. The case involved a number of issues including: divorce, custody, visitation, division of marital property, attorney's fees, and substantial expert testimony.
(e) Billy B. Davis v. Barbara B. Davis, 93-DR-46-1896. This case involved decree of separate maintenance and includes a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and unusual features of equitable distribution of marital property.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Alford's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Alford 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 Alford is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Alford 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 Alford has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Alford served in the United States Air Force from 1960 to 1964. He received an honorable discharge.
Judge Alford was elected Probate Judge for York County 4 times from 1979 to 1992.
Judge Alford is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Alford 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.
Judge Alford testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Alford 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:
Judge Alford meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Alford qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Alford "possesses good knowledge of the law and is highly regarded as a tireless worker by those who have worked with him in the Family Court and previously in his years as Probate Court judge." The Bar also found that "Judge Alford has excellent character, integrity, and reputation. He is considered to be fair and impartial to litigants and attorneys. Most of those surveyed considered his judicial temperament to be good."
Judge Alford was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Judge Alford's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Judge Alford was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Judge Alford's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
[1] Delleney did not participate.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Armstrong was screened on December 12, 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.
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.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Armstrong to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
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, 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 over the past five years as 90% criminal and 10% domestic. He also estimated that during the previous five years about 50% of his practice involved matters that went to a jury. The Committee expressed some concern over Mr. Armstrong's lack of civil experience. However, Mr. Armstrong reported that he has concentrated on civil law CLE's in the last year. Also, 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, 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).
(d) Murder and rape case involving testimony of daughter and circumstantial evidence. State v. Emiah Anderson, (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 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 Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
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 December 18, 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.
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 also provided to the Committee that he was charged with public intoxication in 1966 after a friend ran a red light and was stopped by police. Mr. Barber stated that he was charged with public intoxication even though he never left the car or had a conversation with the police officers.
Mr. Barber also provided that he was charged with driving under the influence in 1968. Mr. Barber was stopped in Holbrook, Arizona by a police officer who noticed a cooler in the back seat. Mr. Barber was then charged with driving under the influence even though Mr. Barber states that he was denied an opportunity to take a breathalyzer and a blood test. After posting a $100 bond, Mr. Barber and his friends remained in Holbrook for several days until they could appear in court. After appearing in court, Mr. Barber states that the judge dismissed the charge and refunded their money.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
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.
(d) Parkway Advertising Corporation v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Future Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., The County of York, South Carolina. The case involved attempt by two companies to erect billboards on adjoining property in York County. The litigation was a very complicated matter involving state statutes, regulations, and county ordinances. The Court authorized Mr. Barber's client to construct the structure.
(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.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Barber 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. Barber has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Barber is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Barber 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. Barber testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Barber 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. Barber meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Barber qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Barber "is considered to be an intelligent, diligent, hardworking lawyer. He is generally respected by members of the legal community. Although some questioned his temperament, he was perceived by most as someone who could maintain a sense of decorum when others around him were losing theirs. Thus, it was opined that he would likely display good judicial demeanor. His character and integrity were not questioned by those surveyed."
Mr. Barber was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. Barber's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Mr. Barber was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Barber's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in deliberation of this candidate.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Breeden was screened on December 19, 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.
Judge Breeden demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Breeden was sued in a malpractice case in 1978 for non-disclosure of a lien on real estate. The court found for him on the basis of no attorney-client relationship, thus no duty to disclose.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Breeden has made addresses on legal issues to civic clubs and the Association of Mortgage Lenders.
The Joint Committee found Judge Breeden to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Breeden is listed in Martindale-Hubbell as Master in Equity with a BV rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Breeden graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Breeden has worked as a general practitioner with an emphasis on real estate law from 1973 until 1978. Judge Breeden left the law firm of Jenrette, Wheless, McInnis and Breeden to become an Assistant Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor from 1978 to 1980. From 1981 to 1988, he was County Attorney and part-time Master in Equity for Horry County. From 1988 to the present, Judge Breeden has been a full time Master in Equity for Horry County. Since that time, Judge Breeden has also served as Special Referee for several cases in Georgetown County.
Judge Breeden provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders as follows:
(a) South Carolina Federal Savings Bank v. Thornton-Crosby Development Company
(b) Preferred Savings Bank v. Abdo Elkholy
(c) Peoples Federal Savings And Loan Association and Loyal Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Myrtle Beach Retirement Group, Inc.
(d) Paul's Electric Service, Inc. v. South Seas, Inc.
(e) The Landing Development Corp. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 329 S.E.2d 423 (1985).
At the request of the Joint Committee, Judge Breeden provided a number of representative civil cases that he handled prior to his appointment as a Master-in-Equity. Judge Breeden also provided affidavits of former associates at the Solicitor's Office who stated that Judge Breeden had tried a number of cases while at the Solicitor's Office.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Breeden, before being appointed a Master-in-Equity, had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication. The Committee also acknowledged that Judge Breeden had handled many difficult civil matters during his sixteen year tenure as a Master-in-Equity.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Breeden's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Breeden 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 Breeden has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Breeden is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Breeden 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.
Judge Breeden testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Breeden 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:
Judge Breeden meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Breeden qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Breeden "has been a practicing attorney in private practice involved in civil and criminal litigation as well as commercial and real estate transactions. He was Assistant Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor for two years. He was county attorney for Horry County for seven years as well as part-time Master-in-Equity. He has been full-time Master-in-Equity for Horry County for eight years, and as Master-in-Equity he has presided over a multitude and wide gambit of civil litigation. Judge Breeden is respected for his intelligence and his ability to grasp issues quickly. He has excellent judicial temperament which he exercises without bias in favor of or against any particular position or litigant. He has unquestioned character and enjoys an excellent reputation in the community. His ethics, honesty, and integrity are above reproach."
Judge Breeden was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Judge Breeden's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Judge Breeden was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Judge Breeden's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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. Brogdon was screened on December 19, 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.
Mr. Brogdon 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Brogdon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Mr. Brogdon met the expectations of the Committee regarding the practice and procedure questions asked in his prior screening, he was given the option of incorporating his performance on those questions into the present screening.
Mr. Brogdon's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Brogdon graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1977 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
After graduation from law school, Mr. Brogdon joined the firm of William H. Seals, P.A.. He remained with that firm until Mr. Seals death when he acquired the firm changing the name to Seals and Brogdon and finally to James E. Brogdon, Attorney at Law, P.A..
Mr. Brogdon reported to the Committee that he attended a week long seminar on mediation and became a Certified Mediator.
Mr. Brogdon described his practice over the past five years as 40% civil, 10% criminal, and 50% domestic.
Mr. Brogdon provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Lewis v. The Florence Morning News - a Workers' Compensation case.
(b) Dove v. Ansel Edwards and Dorothy Edwards - Family Court custody dispute.
(c) Shelley v. Shelley - Divorce action.
(d) Samaha v. Miller - Civil car wreck case.
(e) Rogers v. Byrd, et al. - Libel and slander action.
Mr. Brogdon provided the Committee with additional information regarding his practice of the law, including his work as the Marion County Attorney and a description of two recent automobile accident cases handled by him.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Brogdon had engaged in an active trial practice in the courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Brogdon's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Brogdon served in the United States Army Reserves from 1974-1988 and was honorably discharged with the rank of Captain. Mr. Brogdon also served in the S.C. National Guard from 1978 to 1980.
Mr. Brogdon is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Brogdon 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. Brogdon meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Brogdon qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Brogdon "is highly respected by his peers and well thought of by the non-legal community. His character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding. It is perceived that he would demonstrate excellent judicial temperament without bias in favor of or against any particular position or litigant. He has considerable experience in all areas of the law and possesses a strong work ethic while still serving his country and community with distinction."
Mr. Brogdon was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. Brogdon's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in deliberation of this candidate.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Cofield was screened on December 18, 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.
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield was once sued in magistrate's court by Ursula Lain, an expert witness, to recover her expert's fee. Mr. Cofield stated that the dispute arose because of Ms. Lain's scheduling conflicts that required her lengthy deposition to be taken in 2 parts. Ms. Lain sued for her fee after the first part of her deposition had been taken, but before her testimony had been completed. The suit was dismissed with prejudice when the fee was paid.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Cofield has served as a speaker at a continuing educational program on automobile accident litigation, has participated in a CLE seminar on ethics sponsored by S.C. Defense Trial Attorneys, and has presented numerous programs to clients on topics such as Insurance Law, Tort Reform, and Premises Liability.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Cofield to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Cofield's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Cofield graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his admission to the Bar, Mr. Cofield has clerked for the Honorable Walter T. Cox, III, from 1982 to 1984 and has been a partner with Barnes, Alford, Stork and Johnson since 1984. Mr. Cofield's practice has been primarily litigation.
Mr. Cofield described his practice over the past five years as 98% civil and 2% criminal. Mr. Cofield provided additional information to the Committee regarding his criminal practice experience. This information can be found in the transcript from Mr. Cofield's public hearing.
Mr. Cofield provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Gary Seigler v. George Disposables, 92-CP-32-2956. Civil Trial with complicated issues of discovery, and numerous causes of actions and defenses.
(b) Powell v. Eldercare, 87-CP-40-4642. Negligence action with complicated medical testimony and numerous witnesses.
(c) William Robertson v. Carolina Production Enterprises, Federal Action Number 3:CV-87-0000494. Case by a Workers' Compensation Carrier seeking to recover on a third party action against a premises owner. Issue was whether the plaintiff was a statutory employee of the defendant premises owner.
(d) Brazell v. Brown, 87-CP-40-4529R. Automobile/Negligence action with a complicated medical history and expert testimony.
(e) Claytor v. Piana, 93-CP-46-467. Negligence action with complex medical issues and testimony. Presently on appeal.
Mr. Cofield provided the Committee with five civil appeals he has personally handled as follows:
(a) Davis v. Blizzard, 88-MO-070 (Ct. Appeals). Auto Accident case. Issues were whether directed verdict was properly denied and whether jury was properly recharged on issue of contributory negligence.
(b) Espinal v. Blackmon, et al., 298 S.C. 544, 381 S.E.2d 921 (Ct. App. 1989). Auto accident case. Issue was whether there was personal jurisdiction over defendant since the service of process was improper.
(c) Corner v. Eastern Contractors, Inc., 90-MO-116 (Ct. App.). Auto accident case. Issues were whether the judge properly charged the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk and whether the verdicts were inconsistent.
(d) Kareem Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 403 S.E.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1991). Auto accident case. Issue is whether same jury that decides liability issue in bifurcated trial must also decide issue of damages.
(e) Mr. Cofield also included two cases that had been argued on appeal, but have not been decided. Claytor v. Piana, Starnes v. MTM Hardwicke.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Cofield had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Cofield's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Cofield is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Cofield 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. Cofield meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Cofield qualified. In regard to Mr. Cofield's experience, the Bar reported that Mr. Cofield "was a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Walter T. Cox, III, Circuit Court Judge (now of the Court of Military Appeals) when Judge Cox was primarily involved in criminal matters arising in post-conviction review cases involving the death penalty. He has been an associate and partner in a law firm heavily involved in general civil litigation. His practice has consisted of experience in federal court frequently and in state court on a weekly basis. He has made occasional appearances in the Court of Appeals, Workers Compensation Commission matters, Bankruptcy Court, Family Court, and Magistrate's Court." The Bar further reported that Mr. Cofield "is considered to be intelligent, knowledgeable in the law, and a hard worker. He is considered to be an effective trial lawyer and has a good demeanor and attitude. His integrity and character are considered to be excellent, and it is believed that he would have a good judicial temperament."
Mr. Cofield was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Cofield's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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/(Majority)
Unqualified (Minority: Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Senator John R. Russell, Rep. Hunter Limbaugh)
Mr. Dillard was screened on December 15, 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.
Mr. Dillard demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
In 1994 a suit was brought by an unknown half-blood to share in after discovered assets of the Estate of a Great Aunt of which Mr. Dillard was Executor and which was closed in 1981. Case settled by distribution of assets.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Dillard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. However, his performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions did not meet expectations. The Committee was concerned by Mr. Dillard's lack of knowledge in most areas of civil law.
Mr. Dillard has not had a Martindale-Hubbell rating since he has been associated with the Spartanburg County Public Defenders Office.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Dillard graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Dillard has been associated with Robert C. Lake, Jr., from 1973 to 1981, been a sole practitioner from 1981 to 1986, and a public defender since 1986.
Mr. Dillard described his practice over the past five years as 100% criminal.
Mr. Dillard provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) State v. Richard Longworth - Death Penalty Trial. This case involved the killing of two (2) college students at a local movie theater.
(b) State v. Terrance Wheeler - Murder trial. This case involved death in a drive-by shooting.
(c) State v. William Hunnicutt - Trial for burglary, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest. Jury found defendant guilty of simple assault and resisting arrest.
(d) State v. Sole Dowlington - Trial for murder. Jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
(e) State v. Johnnie Sanders - Trial for armed robbery. After two (2) day trial, jury found defendant not guilty.
Mr. Dillard has not handled any appeals since he was in private practice.
Mr. Dillard was asked to provide the Joint Committee with his civil trial and motion practice during his private practice. Mr. Dillard provided the Joint Committee with two cases he handled in 1983. Mr. Dillard also reported that he had handled other personal injury, workers' comp, and property cases during his twelve plus years in private practice
While the Joint Committee determined that Mr. Dillard had engaged in an active criminal trial practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication, the Committee is very concerned by the candidate's lack of civil experience or civil continuing legal education.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Dillard's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Dillard 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. Dillard is married and has one child.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Dillard 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. Dillard has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Dillard is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Dillard 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. Dillard testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Dillard 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. Dillard meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Dillard not qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Dillard was considered by members of the Bar "to be honest with a good temperament who is generally well liked by other members of the Bar. It was believed that Mr. Dillard would strive to be impartial. However, the depth of his legal experience, his industry, and the quality of his preparation in some of the cases he has handled were questioned."
Mr. Dillard was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. Dillard's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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. DuTremble was screened on December 18, 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.
Mr. DuTremble 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. DuTremble was a legal instructor at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy in 1983.
The Joint Committee found Mr. DuTremble to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Mr. DuTremble met the expectations of the Committee regarding the practice and procedure questions asked in his prior screening, he was given, and he accepted, the option of incorporating his performance on those questions into the present screening.
Mr. DuTremble's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. DuTremble graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1978 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
From 1978 to 1979, Mr. DuTremble served as a law clerk to Circuit Court Judge Julius H. Baggett. From 1979 to 1980, Mr. DuTremble served as Assistant Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Lexington. He was Assistant Prosecutor in Lexington from 1980 to 1983. From 1982 to 1983, Mr. DuTremble served as a legal instructor with the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. He was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Charleston from 1983 until 1987 and 1989 to 1991. Mr. DuTremble was a sole practitioner from 1987 to 1989, and from 1991 to the present. His practice has mainly involved criminal law, with some civil litigation, and he currently specializes in white collar criminal defense.
Mr. DuTremble described his practice over the past five years as 10% civil and 90% criminal.
Mr. DuTremble provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) U.S. v. Polowichak, 783 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. 1985), largest seizure of marijuana in S.C. history.
(b) U.S. v. Henry Hamilton, 850 F.2d 1038 (4th Cir. 1988), largest heroin ring in Charleston.
(c) U.S. v. Luther Taylor, 993 F.2d 382 (4th Cir. 1993), first conviction at trial in Operation Lost Trust.
(d) U.S. v. Brantley, 777 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1985), conviction of corrupt Sheriff of Jasper County.
(e) U.S. v. Southwire Corp., (1993) (not reported), defense of the largest environmental crime case brought in the District of South Carolina.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. DuTremble had engaged in an active trial practice in the trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. DuTremble's temperament would be excellent.
(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 is married and has two children.
(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 is active in professional and community activities.
(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 testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. DuTremble 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. DuTremble meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. DuTremble qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. DuTremble "has extensive experience as assistant United States Attorney, an Assistant Solicitor, and Assistant Public Defender, as well as a civil and criminal advocate in private practice. He is intelligent, knowledgeable in the law, and a hard worker. He is considered to be an excellent and effective trial lawyer. He has a good demeanor and sense of humor. It is believed that he would have a good judicial temperament."
Mr. DuTremble was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. DuTremble's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in the deliberation of this candidate.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Ms. Jones was screened on December 19, 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.
Ms. Jones demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Ms. Jones has been a Family Court Lecturer for the SC Bar, CLE Division. She has also been a Reserve Officers Training Instructor and a Solicitor's Office Training Team Instructor.
Ms. Jones was co-author of "Synopsis of Selected Statutes Relating to Child Abuse and Neglect" South Carolina Children's Code (G11-G19).
The Joint Committee found Ms. Jones to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Jones was given a Martindale-Hubbell rating BV in 1985.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Jones graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1980 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since her graduation from law school, Ms. Jones has practiced in Family Court, including being the Supervisor of Family Court Lawyers from 1983 to 1987, and briefly went into private domestic and civil practice with the office of Kermit King from 1987 to 1988. Since 1988, Ms. Jones has primarily practiced in General Sessions court and is currently an assistant solicitor in the Fifth Circuit Solicitor's office.
Ms. Jones described her practice during the previous five years as 100% criminal. The Committee expressed concern over Ms. Jones' limited civil experience during the previous five years, but noted that she did practice primarily in the civil law area for at least one year from 1987 to 1988.
Ms. Jones provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(a) State v. Duane Mitchell - First DNA case tried in Richland County General Sessions, Co-counsel, Counsel who examined experts and had evidence of DNA admitted into evidence for the first time in Richland County.
(b) State v. Rantley Johnson, 427 S.E.2d 718 (1993) - Sole counsel and cited in South Eastern Reporter System.
(c) State v. John Allen Butler - First murder case Ms. Jones tried as sole counsel, January 27 and 28, 1992.
(d) Co-counsel on five death penalty cases, including - State v. Elmore, 332 S.E.2d 762, 286 S.C. 70, Cert. Gr. and vacated. Elmore v. South Carolina, 106 S.Ct. 1942, 476 U.S. 1101 90 L.Ed.2d 353, appeal after remand 386 S.E.2d 769, 300 S.C. 130, cert. den. 110 S.Ct. 2633, 110 L.Ed. 652 reh. den. 111 S.Ct. 9, 111 L.Ed. 824. State v. Freddie Singleton, 326 S.E.2d 153, 284 S.C. 388, cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 2356, 471 U.S. 1111, 85 L.E.2d 863.
(e) State v. Hartpence - The first criminal sexual conduct with minor case Ms. Jones tried. Defense counsel was John Delgado. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence pursuant to Rule 23 on March 16, 1987.
In regard to civil appeals, Ms. Jones handled one appeal in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court for another attorney who was not available for the argument. The other attorney had written the brief. Ms. Jones also wrote one Appellate Brief while employed at Kermit King's office, but the matter was settled before argument.
The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Jones had engaged in an active trial practice in General Sessions court, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes Ms. Jones to be capable of exhibiting excellent temperament.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Ms. Jones 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.
Ms. Jones is single.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Jones 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. Jones has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Jones is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Jones 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.
Ms. Jones testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Jones testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Jones meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
Ms. Jones was found qualified by the South Carolina Bar. The Bar reported that "those interviewed perceived her to be bright, hardworking, and diligent. She was considered quite knowledgeable of the criminal law by some of the members contacted." The Bar found that "Ms. Jones was described as a meticulous and no-nonsense lawyer who strived for perfection." The Bar also reported that "although well regarded by her peers, some describe her as impatient and expressed concern about her temperament. Others were concerned about the limited nature of her experience in civil matters."
Ms. Jones was asked about her general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. The candidate's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of her public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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
Judge Kittredge was screened on December 13, 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.
Judge Kittredge 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Kittredge has given numerous lectures on family law topics to the members of the Bar and to interested civic groups.
Judge Kittredge published The Inevitability of Police Discretion in the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association magazine in approximately 1978.
The Joint Committee found Judge Kittredge to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Judge Kittredge's Martindale-Hubbell rating while in private practice was BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Kittredge graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Kittredge clerked for federal Judge William W. Wilkins from 1982 to 1984, and was a partner with the firm of Wilkins, Nelson & Kittredge from 1984 to 1991 where he had a litigation practice. Judge Kittredge has served as a Family Court judge since 1991.
Judge Kittredge served as a part-time Assistant Solicitor from September 1984 to July 1985 and for a brief period in 1986.
Judge Kittredge described his practice over the last five years of his practice as 25% civil, 2 to 5% criminal, and 65% domestic.
Judge Kittredge provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) State v. Floyd McDuffie (1985). Case involved a highly publicized robbery and murder. Defendant was convicted of armed robbery and manslaughter and sentenced to jail.
(b) State v. Donnie Robinson (1985). Prosecution for armed robbery and kidnapping. Defendant was convicted on all counts and given a life term.
(c) Stogner v. City of Mauldin, 84-CP-23-680. Challenge of the City of Mauldin's zoning ordinance. Judgment was given to the City of Mauldin at the close of evidence.
(d) Collins Music v. Terry, et al., 87-CP-23-2982. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unfair trade practices. Judgment for Plaintiff was appealed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
(e) First Baptist Church of Mauldin vs. City of Mauldin, 90-CP-23-955. Action by Plaintiff to close a road located on its property. Judgment was entered for Plaintiff and affirmed on appeal to Supreme Court.
Judge Kittredge listed five civil appeals he personally handled as follows:
(a) Collins Music v. Terry, 303 S.C. 358, 400 S.E.2d 783 (Ct. App. 1991). Issue on appeal was whether the award of punitive damages by the trial court was proper.
(b) S.C. Tax Commission v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 305 S.C. 183, 407 S.E.2d 627 (1991).
(c) Watson v. Watson, 291 S.C. 13, 351 S.E.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1986). Issues concerned the propriety of trial judge's award of child custody, child support, attorney's fees and temporary alimony to respondent.
(d) Burns v. Burns, 293 S.C. 1, 358 S.E.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1987). Questions on appeal included the following: Did the trial judge's award of custody constitute an abuse of discretion? Was trial judge correct in sustaining evidentiary objections? Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to include a section of the Final Order in the transcript of record?
(e) Lineberger v. Lineberger, 303 S.C. 248, 399 S.E.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1990). Issues concerned trial court's definition of and distribution of marital property
(f) Bible v. Bible, 89-MO-320 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Dec. 15, 1989). Issues on appeal were whether trial court had jurisdiction over marital litigation even if parties did not satisfy divorce residency requirement and whether court properly awarded temporary alimony, attorney's fees, and other costs.
Judge Kittredge listed his five most significant orders as follows:
(a) In re Andrea W. - Judge Kittredge found an anti-picketing ordinance unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against the juveniles to whom it had been applied.
(b) Allen v. Coggins - Custody case involving the right of a custodial parent to move with the child to another state.
(c) Skelton v. Skelton - Case involving right to pursue alimony in a subsequent action.
(d) Mitchell v. Mitchell - Case involving sizable marital estate with issues of asset valuation and equitable apportionment.
(e) Doe v. Corey B. - Adoption case wherein biological father intervened and sought custody.
At the Joint Committee's request, Judge Kittredge provided the Joint Committee with a representative list of civil cases that he handled prior to being elected a Family Court judge. The list of cases, which were incorporated into the transcript of his public hearing, indicate that Judge Kittredge had an active civil practice. Judge Kittredge also provided information that as a part-time Assistant Solicitor he was assigned 237 criminal cases. This information indicates that Judge Kittredge has a strong criminal court background.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Kittredge, before his election as a Family Court judge, had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil, criminal, and domestic courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Kittredge's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Kittredge has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Kittredge 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.
Judge Kittredge testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Kittredge 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:
Judge Kittredge meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Kittredge qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Kittredge "has a reputation of intelligence and diligence. During his practice prior to election to the Family Court, those who practiced with him in the civil courts referred to his work as impeccable and straightforward. During his tenure on the Family Court, lawyers appearing before him have reported favorably on his impartiality and diligent handling of the court docket. In addition, they have reported an improvement in the docketing and scheduling system for which Judge Kittredge is given credit. He is reported to have an excellent work ethic and a strong understanding of human affairs. He is also viewed as having an intelligent understanding of the legal issues presented in his court."
Judge Kittredge was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Judge Kittredge's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in the deliberation of this candidate.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Nicholson was screened on December 15, 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.
Mr. Nicholson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Nicholson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Nicholson's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Nicholson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Nicholson has worked as an attorney with Fogle & Watson in 1973, with Fogle & Nicholson in 1975, with J.C. Nicholson from 1975 to 1978, Nicholson & Williams from 1978 to 1981, the Greenville County Solicitor's Office in 1982, Epps & Krause from 1982 to 1985, Epps, Krause & Nicholson from 1985 to 1994, and Epps, Nicholson & Stathakis since 1995.
Mr. Nicholson described his practice over the past five years as 50% civil, 25% criminal, and 25% domestic.
Mr. Nicholson provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Circuit Court case - Defendant was the S.C. Department Highway Department. Verdict for Plaintiff of $350,000.
(b) Circuit Court case - Personal injury case which resulted in a verdict of $17,000.
(c) Lucille Vaughn et al. vs. SC Highway Department, 386 S.E.2d 297 (S.C. 1989). Case involved a defective intersection.
(d) Circuit Court case - Medical malpractice case. Case was significant because the judge allowed 3 of the doctor's former patients on the jury because the defendant was out of strikes.
(e) General Sessions - Death penalty case. Mr. Nicholson prosecuted the defendant who received a life sentence.
Mr. Nicholson provided the Joint Committee with 5 appeals that he has personally handled as follows:
(a) Mona Grove vs. SC Department of Education, Supreme Court (1993). Appeal of a Workers' Compensation case. Issue was whether carpel tunnel syndrome was a compensable as an accident or whether it is an occupational disease;
(b) Donna Lynn Williams vs. Ted Robert Williams, Supreme Court (1993). Issues included whether evidence supported finding of adultery and whether judge erred in not applying tender years doctrine.
(c) Marlene Duncan vs. Springs Industries, Supreme Court (1993). Appeal of Worker's Compensation case. Issue was whether carpel tunnel syndrome was an compensable accident or an occupational disease.
(d) Herbert Lamar McCrider vs. America House Spinning et al., Supreme Court (1993). Appeal of Worker's Compensation case. Issue was whether Commission erred in finding that no injury occurred to plaintiff.
(e) Donna Byers vs. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 435 S.E.2d 23 (1992). Wrongful discharge case. Issue was whether there was a factual dispute which would preclude the trial judge's grant of summary judgment for the defendant.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Nicholson had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Nicholson's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson is married and has four children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Nicholson served as an active duty Air Force Captain from 1965 to 1970 and in the Air National Guard from 1970 to 1988. He retired as a Lt. Colonel.
Mr. Nicholson is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Nicholson qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Nicholson "enjoys an excellent reputation for even temperament, honesty, and work ethic. Lawyers working with and those appearing against him have reported favorably on his ability and diligence in the handling of legal matters. None have commented negatively upon his ability or integrity. Mr. Nicholson is regarded by those interviewed as being courteous and industrious in the performance of his duties."
[1] Representative Limbaugh did not vote.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified/(Majority)
Unqualified (Minority: Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Senator John R. Russell)
Ms. Reddix-Smalls was screened on December 13, 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 reveal some evidence that raised questions.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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, Ms. Reddix-Smalls did not fully answer the Committee's Personal Data Questionnaire on a timely basis.
The Joint Committee is also concerned about an incident in which an associate of Ms. Reddix-Smalls' attended the public hearing of another candidate despite admonitions given to each candidate about such activity. Ms. Reddix-Smalls denied any prior knowledge about her associate's plan to attend the public hearing. The Committee feels that Ms. Reddix-Smalls and other candidates should take responsibility for informing the people with whom they discuss their screening of the Committee's rules prohibiting a candidate or anyone associated with a candidate from attending the public hearings prior to that candidate's screening.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls stated that she taught Constitutional Law and Administrative Law at South Carolina State University from 1991 to 1993, and has taught Criminal Justice/Police Procedures at Midlands Technical College for one year.
The Joint Committee found Ms. Reddix-Smalls to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls has never applied for a Martindale-Hubbell rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1976. Ms. Reddix-Smalls was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in 1977 and the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
After her graduation from law school, Ms. Reddix-Smalls was in private practice with Mordecai Johnson from 1978 to 1979 and she served as Executive Director of Carolina Regional Legal Services from 1978 to 1987. Ms. Reddix-Smalls was an associate with John Roy Harper from 1988 to 1989 and Edwards and Associates from 1989 to 1991. Presently, she is a partner at Reddix-Smalls and Carter, which was formed in 1991.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls described her practice over the past five years as 60 to 75% civil, 10 to 15% criminal, and 30% domestic.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(1) County-wide annexation, secession attempt case combined with voting rights issues. Franklin v. Campbell (U.S. Federal District Court) #95-1370.
(2) School Secession and Desegregation case in Williamsburg County. (U.S. District Court)
(3) Case involving appeal of sale of heirs property, requesting partition in kind or by allotment. Cox v. Frierson, 90-CP-21-1170, S.C. Supreme Court, verdict pending.
(4) Capital offense murder case. State v. Belin, (Citation Omitted)
(5) Death penalty case involving minor defendant. State v. Brunson, (Citation Omitted)
(6) Case involving DJJ incarceration of special needs student. Appeal pending. State v. Ellison, (Citation Omitted)
(7) Fraud case, involving mortgage of elderly woman's property by her son. Shepherd v. First American Mortgage Co., (Citation Omitted)
(8) Truth in Lending, Fraud, Financing and Mortgage Disclosure case. Thomas v. Delta Mobile Homes, (Citation Omitted)
(9) Banking disparities in lending and financing case. Settled for plaintiff prior to trial. McFadden v. Bank of Clarendon, 2-92-0737
(10) Federal mortgage disclosure requirements case. McQueen v. FHA, 4:92-1064-21 (U.S. District Court)
(11) Breach of warranty, breach of contract, and attorney's fees case. Trial August 1995; motion for reconsideration pending. Carter v. Rogers, 93-CP-40-4716.
(12) Bad faith claim involving insurance company which refused to pay proceeds when plaintiff's spouse killed in barroom brawl. Williams v. Fidelity Life and Guaranty, 93-CP-33-44, (U.S. District Court)
(13) Taxpayers' suit challenging validity and correctness of a local property millage levy. Tisdale v. Williamsburg County School District, (Citation Omitted)
(14) Standing and jurisdiction case involving plaintiff demands for an accounting by a non-profit organization. Montgomery v. State Conference of Branches, et al., (Citation Omitted)
(15) Divorce and disability benefits case involving Agent Orange and Agent White victim spouse. Thomas v. Jailette, (Citation Omitted)
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided the committee with seven cases involving appeals which she has personally handled:
(a) Cox v. Frierson, 90-CP-21-1170 (S.C. Supreme Court-Circuit Court)
(b) Davis v. Davis, 92-DR-40-2456 (Supreme Court-Family Court). Divorce and child support case.
(c) Mapp v. Mapp, 92-DR-40-6187, S. C. Supreme Court. Separate maintenance, alimony, and equitable distribution case.
(d) Shepherd v. First American Mortgage Co., (citation omitted), S.C. Supreme Court. Mortgage rescission case.
(e) Tisdale v. Williamsburg County, 90-CP-45-09. Challenge of tax levy by taxpayers group.
(f) Franklin v. Campbell, remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to the District Court for appeal to the 4th Circuit.
(g) Pee Dee Fed. Savings Bank v. Crawford, (citation omitted), Supreme Court.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided, at the Joint Committee's request, a supplemental list of 17 matters representative of her civil practice. Ms. Reddix-Smalls also detailed her civil motion and criminal practice. This information was incorporated into the record and is located in the transcript of Ms. Reddix-Smalls public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Reddix-Smalls has engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls stated that she was cited for contempt of court by a probate judge in Florence County in 1986. Ms. Reddix-Smalls further stated that she would now have handled the matter differently.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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. Reddix-Smalls has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Reddix-Smalls unqualified. The Bar reported that Ms. Reddix-Smalls is "perceived to be a bright lawyer with a wealth of legal experiences who zealously pursues the interests of her clients. Although well regarded by some members for the enthusiasm with which she pursues certain issues, others opined that she was unnecessarily confrontational and difficult to deal with. Her temperament was questioned by most. Some expressed the opinion that she interjected the issue of race into legal matters in which race was not an issue. Several years ago this candidate was the subject of a contempt order."
Ms. Reddix-Smalls was asked about her general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Ms. Reddix-Smalls's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of her public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there are correct answers to these questions.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Saunders was screened on December 13, 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.
Judge Saunders 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.
(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 was rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell in 1994, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Saunders graduated from Wake Forest Law School in 1968 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Saunders worked as a sole practitioner from 1968 to 1994, served as City Attorney for the City of Laurens from 1972 to 1992, and represented the Commission of Public Works from 1993-1994. Judge Saunders described his practice as general and included civil, criminal, domestic, and administrative law practice. Judge Saunders was elected to the Family Court Bench in 1994.
Judge Saunders described his practice over the five years prior to his service on the bench as 40% civil, 25% criminal, and 35% domestic.
Judge Saunders provided a supplemental response to the Joint Committee's request for five of his most significant litigated matters and five civil appeals which he personally handled. This response is noted in the transcript of Judge Saunders' public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Saunders had engaged in an active trial practice in the courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Saunders' temperament has been and would continue to 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 has three 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 active in professional and community activities.
Judge Saunders was employed as a police officer from 1962 to 1965 while attending Presbyterian College.
(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.
Judge Saunders testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Saunders 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:
Judge Saunders meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Saunders qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Saunders "has served on the Family Court bench for slightly more than a year" and that "he is respected by members of the Bar for his impartiality and judicial temperament." The Bar found that "Judge Saunders possesses good knowledge of the law and has excellent character, integrity, and reputation." The Bar also reported that "he is considered to be fair and impartial to litigants and attorneys."
Judge Saunders was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Judge Saunders' actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Judge Saunders was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Judge Saunders' answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
[1] Mr. Delleney did not vote.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Williams was screened on December 18, 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.
Mr. Williams 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Williams' Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Williams graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1979 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Williams has practiced law as an associate of J.C. Nicholson, Jr. from 1979 to 1980, as a partner in the firm of Marshall, Nicholson and Williams from 1980 to 1981, as a partner in the firm of Nicholson and Williams from 1981 to 1982, as a sole practitioner from 1982 to 1984, as a senior partner in the firm of Williams and Houser from 1984 to 1992, and as a deputy solicitor in the First Judicial Circuit since 1992.
Mr. Williams described his practice over the past five years as 35% civil, 35% criminal, and 30% domestic.
Mr. Williams provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Rothrock v. McCall Thomas Engineering Company, Inc. This was a slander and tortuous interference with a contract action.
(b) Reed v. Medlin, ___ S.C. ___, 281 S.E.2d 125 (1981); ___ S.C. ___, 328 S.E.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1985). Wrongful death action where plaintiff's husband was burned to death at highway patrol roadblock.
(c) Joseph Broughton v. Seaboard Airline Railroad. Negligence action involving a car-train accident. Difficult issues of contributory negligence.
(d) Dixie Kemmerlin v. Roy Campbell, M.D.. Malpractice action where for the first time a local physician was sued by a local attorney.
Mr. Williams described the following appeals that he has personally handled:
(a) Reed v. Medlin, ___ S.C. ___, 281 S.E.2d 125 (1981); ___ S.C. ___, 328 S.E.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1985).
(b) Nancy B. Evans v. Dan W. Evans, Op. No. 88-MO-018 (filed February 29, 1988). Appeal of a domestic action involving issues of custody, visitation, support, and property action.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Williams has engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Williams' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Williams 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. Williams is single and has no children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Williams 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. Williams has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Williams served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1965 to 1976. He attained the rank of E-7. He was honorably discharged in 1976.
Mr. Williams is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Williams 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. Williams testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Williams 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. Williams meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Williams qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Williams "has extensive trial experience in Common Pleas and General Sessions Court. He presently serves as the Deputy Solicitor of the First Judicial Circuit. He is considered honest and intelligent. He has an excellent work ethic. Mr. Williams is considered courteous in the courtroom and is well regarded among members of the Bar. It is believed that he would have good judicial temperament."
Mr. Williams was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. Williams' actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Mr. Williams was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Williams' answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses 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
Judge Spruill was screened on December 19, 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.
Judge Spruill 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Spruill states that he has lectured Guardian Ad Litem training programs and the training programs for battered women volunteers.
Judge Spruill has written the following articles:
(a) Survey of Articles I-VII of the proposed draft for a revised South Carolina Constitution, 22 S.C.L.R. 50 (1970).
(b) Automobile Insurance - Omnibus Exclusion, 20 S.C.L.R 855 (1968).
Judge Spruill reported that his last Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV.
The Joint Committee found Judge Spruill to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Spruill graduated cum laude from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1970 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Spruill has clerked for U.S. District Judge Robert W. Hemphill from 1970 to 1971, worked as an associate to Frank L. Taylor from 1971 to 1973, been a partner in the firm of Griggs, Spruill and Harris from 1974 to 1989, and served as a Family Court Judge since 1989.
Judge Spruill provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders as follows:
(a) Shake vs. Darlington County DSS, 306 S.C. 216, 410 S.E.2d 923. Termination of Parental Rights action.
(b) Christy vs. Christy, ___ S.C. ___, 452 S.E.2d 1. Case involved issues of whether the husband was entitled to a reimbursement for overpayment of alimony, income taxes paid on the wife's behalf, and a return of a sewing machine.
(c) Kochenower vs. Kochenower, 93-DR-11-889. Divorce action on the ground of one year's continuous separation with issues of child custody, child support, division of property, alimony, and attorney's fees.
(d) Fulghum v. Fulghum, 90-DR-23-1963. Divorce action on the grounds of adultery and physical cruelty with issues of child custody, alimony, child support, division of property, and attorney's fees and suit money.
(e) Easley v. Easley, 94-DR-34-664. Divorce action on the ground of adultery with issues of child custody, child support, alimony and division of property.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
Judge Spruill reported in his application that during the summer of 1990, DSS abuse and neglect workers in Chesterfield County complained that he had been uncivil to them. Judge Spruill does not agree but hopes that time has smoothed the difference.
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Spruill's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Spruill 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 Spruill is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Spruill 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 Spruill has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Spruill served as an active duty lieutenant in the U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1967 and in the active reserves from 1967 to 1970. Judge Spruill states that he chose to go on a standby category after his reserves obligation and does not know his exact status now but assumes that he has been discharged.
Judge Spruill has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Spruill 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.
Judge Spruill testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Spruill 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:
Judge Spruill meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Spruill qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Spruill "has been a Family Court Judge for six years and has demonstrated excellent judicial temperament. He is intelligent and able to grasp the issues quickly. Judge Spruill is an individual of unquestioned character and integrity. His decisions are not influenced by the identity of the litigants or their counsel. Members of the Bar interviewed indicate that they have received fair trials at times they appeared before him."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Brown was screened on December 18, 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.
Judge Brown 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Judge Brown's last rating in Martindale-Hubbell was AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Brown graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar in 1974.
From 1974 to 1993, Judge Brown practiced law in Winnsboro, S.C. He had a general practice which consisted of criminal, civil, social security, real estate, and bank law.
Judge Brown served as City Recorder for Winnsboro from 1976 to 1980.
Judge Brown provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders as follows:
(a) Kennington v. Kennington, 94-DR-29-587. Divorce/ Custody.
(b) Graham v. Graham, 93-DR-40-4485. Divorce and Equitable Distribution.
(c) Stanton v. Stanton, 94-DR-40-2824. Custody.
(d) Heydt v. Heydt, 94-DR-40-0566. Divorce and Equitable distribution.
(e) Atkinson v. Atkinson, 93-DR-12-390. Divorce and Equitable Distribution.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Brown's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Brown 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 Brown is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Brown 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 Brown has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Brown was a member of the S.C. Army National Guard from 1969-1975 and was honorably discharged.
Judge Brown has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Brown 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.
Judge Brown testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Brown 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:
Judge Brown meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Brown qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Brown "has extensive and broad experience in Family Court and possesses a strong working knowledge of the law of Family Court. The majority of those interviewed felt that he is a good worker and well-prepared in court and that he would have a good judicial temperament. Mr. Brown is perceived as having good character, integrity, and reputation."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Ms. Jefferson was screened on December 18, 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.
Ms. Jefferson 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Ms. Jefferson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Ms. Jefferson's performance on the practice and procedure questions in her prior screening met the Committee's expectations, she was given, and she accepted, the option of incorporating her previous answers to those questions into the present screening.
Ms. Jefferson has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Jefferson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1989 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Ms. Jefferson worked as a law clerk for the Honorable Richard E. Fields from 1989 to 1990 and as an attorney with McFarland and Associates since 1990. Her trial practice at McFarland and Associates focuses on the following areas: Domestic Relations, Civil Litigation, Probate Law, Real Estate, and Criminal Law.
Ms. Jefferson described her practice over the past five years as 49% civil, 2% criminal, and 49% domestic.
Ms. Jefferson provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(a) Blake v. County of Charleston. Complex civil rights case involving practices of the Charleston County Police Department.
(b) Hymes v. Khoury. Auto accident case.
(c) In re The Estate of Joseph J. White, Jr., et al. Probate Court case where the principal issue was the paternity of the 2 year old minor child of the decedent.
(d) Ashby v. Ashby. Divorce action involving custody issues, equitable distribution, adultery, child support, and attorney's fees.
(e) Thompson v. Polite. Visitation dispute. Case was finally submitted to mediation where an amicable agreement was reached.
The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Jefferson had engaged in an active trial practice in the family courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Jefferson's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Ms. Jefferson 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.
Ms. Jefferson is single and has no children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Jefferson 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. Jefferson has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Jefferson is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Jefferson 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.
Ms. Jefferson testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Jefferson testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Jefferson meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Jefferson qualified. The Bar reported that "although Ms. Jefferson has been out of law school only six years, she has displayed both intellectual and practical knowledge beyond her years. Several attorney interviewees commented that they call upon her for advice even though she is their 'junior.' She is a mature individual with an even temperament. She is sensitive towards differing points of view. She is committed to 'giving back' something to the community."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Landis was screened on December 15, 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.
Mr. Landis 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Landis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Landis' Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Landis graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1980 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Landis has worked as a part-time public defender from 1980 to 1984, a sole practitioner from 1980 to 1984, with the firm of Williams and Landis from 1984 to 1989, with the firm of Dennis, Dennis & Landis from 1989 to 1993, and as a sole practitioner since 1993.
Mr. Landis has served as a Municipal Judge for the Town of Moncks Corner from 1987 to the present.
Mr. Landis described his practice over the past five years as 10% civil, 5% criminal, and 85% domestic.
Mr. Landis provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Betty C. Francis vs. Edward Francis. Domestic action with issues of divorce, child custody, visitation, child support, alimony, and equitable division of property. Ms. Francis prevailed both at the trial level and on appeal to the Supreme Court.
(b) Wayne Dalton Corp. vs. Acme Door et al., 394 S.E.2d 302 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990). Civil action concerning personal guarantees and novations.
(c) Purdie vs. Smalls, 293 S.C. 216, 359 S.E.2d 306 (___). Case involving definition and clarification of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
(d) Dave Creech vs. Melissa Creech. Custody action where father was granted sole custody even though mother was the primary caretaker.
(e) John T. Motte vs. Lucy C. Motte. Domestic matter with issues of custody, equitable division, alimony, child support, visitation, attorney's fees, and divorce.
Mr. Landis listed five domestic appeals that he has personally handled as follows:
(a) Purdie v. Smalls, 293 S.C. 216, 293 S.E.2d 306 (1987). Case involving definition and clarification of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
(b) Sherman v. Sherman, 414 S.C. 809, 307 S.E.2d 280 (1992). Issues were whether trial judge erred in awarding attorney fees, and in the award of child support in excess of the child support guidelines.
(c) Wilkerson v. Staton, (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 14, 1995). Not reported. Issue was whether trial judge erred in requiring that children be listed as co-owners of a retirement account as opposed to being named co-beneficiaries of said account.
(d) Dawson v. Dawson, (S.C. Ct. App. filed Mar. 8, 1993). Not reported. Appeal of a divorce action.
(e) Norton v. Norton, (S.C. Ct. App. filed Apr. 28, 1993). Not reported. Issues included apportioning equitable distribution, valuation of assets, spousal support, and attorney's fees.
Mr. Landis testified that divorce and equitable distribution of property cases comprised 43 to 44% of his domestic practice, child custody 43 to 44%, adoption 1 to 2%, abuse and neglect 10%, and juvenile justice 1 to 2%.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Landis had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Court, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Landis' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Landis 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. Landis is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Landis 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. Landis has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Landis is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Landis 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. Landis testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Landis 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. Landis meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Landis qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Landis "has trial experience in Family Court and has done an outstanding job as Municipal Judge for the Town of Moncks Corner since 1987. He displays good character and abilities in his law practice and in his duties as municipal judge."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Query was screened on December 15, 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.
Mr. Query 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. Query reports that he has been sued twice. One suit was filed by a business creditor regarding a retail lease and purchase agreement, and was settled before trial. The other suit involved an accident in which his twelve year old son and a playmate removed a gun from a closet and the playmate was seriously injured when the gun accidentally discharged.
Mr. Query currently is a member of the Board of Directors of Cessco, Inc., a family-owned business.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Query reported that he has taught on the criminal law perspective of substance abuse at the Fenwick Hall Seminar for several years.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Query to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Query's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Query graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1971 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
He was associated with Uricchio, Howe, and Krell from 1971 to 1974. He was a sole practitioner ("O. Grady Query, Attorney at Law") from 1974 to 1988. From 1988 to 1992, Mr. Query was a partner in Uricchio and Query, P.A. He has practiced as "O. Grady Query, P.A." since 1992.
Mr. Query has served as judge for the Folly Beach Municipal Court since 1985.
Mr. Query described his practice over the past five years as 50% civil, 20% criminal, and 30% domestic.
Mr. Query provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Glass v. Dow Chemical Workers' compensation case with full appellate review of statutory employee exemption.
(b) Botany Bay Marina v. Great American, Inc. State court trial on insurance coverage and unusual policy language with review by the Fourth Circuit.
(c) Rogerson v. Rogerson Broad domestic appeal on issues of support, equitable distribution, alimony, and marital property.
(d) Lybrand v. Merrill Lynch Arbitration resulting in significant award for mismanagement of holdings of an orphan.
(e) U.S. v. Smith; Smith v. Southern Railway Series of criminal cases involving a contractor and invoices submitted by agreement under false categories. Involved complex issues of discovery, grand jury, constitutional law, and elements of malicious prosecution.
Mr. Query listed the following appeals he has personally handled:
(a) Rogerson v. Rogerson, Family Court (domestic)
(b) Glass v. Dow, Court of Common Pleas, S.C. Court of Appeals, 447 S.E.2d 209 (civil)
(c) Botany Bay v. Great American U.S. District Court, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, (unpublished) (civil)
(d) Lybrand v. Merrill Lynch, Arbitration N.A.S.D., Court of Common Pleas, S.C. Court of Appeals (civil)
(e) Fagan v. Asheville Savings and Loan Court of Common Pleas, S.C. Supreme Court (domestic and civil appeals)
At the request of the Joint Committee, Mr. Query provided a list of representative domestic cases that he has handled. The cases were incorporated into the record of Mr. Query's public hearing and were printed in the transcript of his public hearing.
Mr. Query described his Family Court practice as 90% divorce and equitable distribution cases, child custody cases more than 50%, no adoption cases, occasional abuse and neglect case, and 30% generic domestic law.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Query had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Court, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Query's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Query 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. Query is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Query 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. Query has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Query is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Query 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. Query testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Query 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. Query meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Query qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Query "has extensive experience in Family Court, as well as in Common Pleas and General Sessions Court. He presently serves as Municipal Court Judge for the City of Folly Beach and is doing an outstanding job in this capacity. In the course of his work as Municipal Judge he has presided over many cases involving young people, and he has a keen interest in how the law impacts the lives of juveniles. He is intelligent, industrious, and wise. He displays humility and good humor in his law practice and in his duties as Municipal Judge. He is patient and has an even temperament. Judge Query articulates a strong sense of purpose regarding public service which he has demonstrated in his career."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Soderlund was screened on December 18, 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.
Mr. Soderlund 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Soderlund to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Soderlund has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Soderlund graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1974 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Mr. Soderlund worked as an associate with the firm of Smoak, Howell, Bridge & Moody from 1974 to 1975 and as a sole practitioner since 1976.
Mr. Soderlund described his practice over the past five years as 20% civil, 10% criminal, and 70% domestic.
Mr. Soderlund provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) FAMILY COURT - Mr. Soderlund represented the wife in an action for a divorce on the grounds of adultery while demanding other marital relief. The case is significant in that the Court held that the admitted misconduct from years earlier was sufficient to establish the grounds for divorce, as the wife had no prior knowledge and there was no cohabitation after the admissions were first made by the husband. No appeal was taken.
(b) MUNICIPAL COURT - Mr. Soderlund was appointed to represent the defendant who was charged with assault (2 counts) and disorderly conduct under a city ordinance.
(c) COMMON PLEAS COURT - Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., and Sheldon Solomon and Florence Solomon - November 18, 1985 - Mr. Soderlund was co-counsel representing the Solomons personally. This case involved a suit by Ludwick against the defendants alleging wrongful termination of employment without a written contract. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial Court's ruling (321 SE2d 618 (Ct. App. 1984)). Certiorari was granted by the State Supreme Court and after hearing this case, the Supreme Court, on November 18, 1985, restated that termination at will remained the law, but carved out an exception that stated, "an at will employee could not be discharged in derogation of a clear mandate of public policy." This case was remanded for retrial.
(d) FAMILY COURT - Mr. Soderlund represented the father in an action filed for change of custody of the couple's four year old son.
(e) COMMON PLEAS COURT; REMOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURT 1989. Mr. Soderlund represented a man who was struck from the rear, as a pedestrian, while walking on the side of Highway 78 in Charleston County. The issue in the case was insurance coverage.
Mr. Soderlund provided the Joint Committee with the following domestic appeals that he has personally handled:
(a) DUGGER V. DUGGER - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court; Date of appeal March 7, 1978-not reported- March 16, 1978, appealed Order reversed on supersedeas.
(b) DIVANS V. DIVENS - Appeal from Berkeley County Family Court: Date of Appeal: October 1982 - not reported - January 6, 1983, appealed Order reversed by Supreme Court.
(c) DONNELLY V. DUNNING - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. S.C. Court of Appeals 87-MO-2; 1/5/1987.
(d) PRICE V. PRICE - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. S.C. Supreme Court decision 88-MO-36.
(e) FISHER V. FISHER - Appeal from Charleston County Family Court. Notice of Intent to Appeal filed July 1, 1994. Lower Court decision affirmed by SC Court of Appeals on August 7, 1995.
Mr. Soderlund provided the Committee with supplemental information regarding the breakdown of his domestic practice.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Soderlund had engaged in an active trial practice in the family courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Soderlund's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Soderlund 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. Soderlund is married and has four children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Soderlund 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. Soderlund has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Soderlund served in the Marine Corps from 1962 to 1966. He was honorably discharged.
Mr. Soderlund is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Soderlund 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. Soderlund testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Soderlund 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. Soderlund meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Soderlund qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Soderlund "is reported to have good judicial temperament and patience. His integrity and impartiality are unquestioned. Mr. Soderlund has experience in Family Court practice."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Dover was screened on December 12, 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.
Mr. Dover 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Dover to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Dover has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Dover graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1987 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Mr. Dover has practiced with Dallas D. Ball since 1987.
Mr. Dover described his practice over the past five years as 20% civil, 20% criminal, and 60% domestic.
Mr. Dover provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Tina Vaughn v. City of Clemson, SC Circuit Court. First comparative negligence verdict in Pickens County.
(b) State v. (Unnamed Juvenile). Highly publicized murder trial of a 16 year old juvenile. Solicitor sought to have the juvenile tried as an adult, but Family Court retained jurisdiction. After the trial the law regarding trying juveniles as adults was changed.
(c) Lawrence Hatch v. Department of Revenue and Clemson United Methodist Church, Intervenor. Mr. Dover represented the Church as they sought to prohibit the Petitioner from selling beer at Clemson's Memorial Stadium.
(d) Edith McJunkin v. Bi-Lo, Inc. Mr. Dover represented the plaintiff who attempted to hold defendant liable for selling beer to a minor. The case was settled prior to trial.
(e) Sandra H. Miller v. Marilyn P. Martin, S.C. Circuit Court. Auto wreck case. This case represents the largest comparative negligence verdict in Pickens County.
Mr. Dover provided the Committee with two family court appeals that he has handled, as follows:
(a) The Husband v. The Wife, 392 S.E.2d 811 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990).
(b) Selma Rollins v. Gene Rollins, Op. No. 94-UP-033 (filed S.C. App. 1994).
Mr. Dover provided the Committee with three other appeals he has handled:
(a) Grier Dennis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 392 S.E.2d 811 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990).
(b) Lawrence A. Hatch d/b/a Volume Services Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, et al. Writ of supersedeas was heard en banc on September 14, 1995. The appeal is still pending.
(c) Lusk v. Callaham, 339 S.E.2d 156 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986). Mr. Dover was a law student who helped work writing the briefs for this case with Professor Stephen Spitz.
In response to the request of the Joint Committee, Mr. Dover provided a more extensive list of domestic cases in which he was the sole counsel. This list was incorporated into the record and is printed in the transcript of Mr. Dover's public hearing. Mr. Dover provided further information regarding the percentages of his domestic practice in the areas of divorce and equitable division of property, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice. This response was incorporated into the record and is printed in the transcript of Mr. Dover's public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Dover had engaged in an active trial practice in the family courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Dover's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Dover 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. Dover is married and has four children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Dover 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. Dover has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Dover is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Dover 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. Dover testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Dover 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. Dover meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Dover qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Dover "is highly respected by his peers and well thought of by the non-legal community. His character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding. It is perceived that Mr. Dover would demonstrate excellent judicial temperament without bias in favor of or against any particular position or litigant. He possesses a strong work ethic while serving his community."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Johnson was screened on December 13, 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.
Mr. Johnson 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Johnson stated that he is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Johnson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1986 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Mr. Johnson has worked as an attorney at Acker, Welmaker & Johnson, P.A since 1986.
Mr. Johnson described his practice over the past five years as 30% civil, 10% criminal, and 60% domestic.
Mr. Johnson provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Pickens County Department of Social Services vs. Carolyn Diane Golden, James D. Sisk and Cindy Hall Cooper, Case No. 93-DR-39-35. Allegation of physical cruelty by Ms. Cooper of the child of her sister. The charges were later dropped against Ms. Cooper.
(b) City of Pickens vs. David R. Schmitz, 297 S.C. 253, 376 S.E.2d 271 (1989). Defendant claimed that Municipal Courts are not a part of the Unified Judicial System and therefore not empowered to hear violations of state laws. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Municipal Courts.
(c) Helen Marie Jackson and Andy Bruce Owen vs. Cindy Lee Childs, 93-DR-39-472. Visitation action initiated by child's grandparents after the death of their son, the child's biological father. After a hearing, the grandparents were awarded full visitation which approximated that given to a non-custodial parent.
(d) Robert Malan Bell vs. Cyntial Watson Bell, 93-DR-39-869. Custody action. The Mother was awarded custody after the temporary hearing but at the final hearing it was shown that the mother was a unfit parent. Custody was awarded to the father.
(e) Louie E. Nalley vs. Patsy Dorsey Nalley, Op. No. 94-UP-280 (filed Nov. 22, 1994; refiled Jan. 20, 1995). Divorce action. Issues included hidden assets, adultery, and alimony. Wife was awarded 49% of the assets which included the hidden assets and alimony based on the husband's adultery. Decision was affirmed on appeal except for valuation of an automobile.
Mr. Johnson has handled the following domestic appeals:
(a) Patricia Ann Kimble Qureshi vs. Farooq Husain Qureshi, Op. No. 93-UP-250 (filed Sept. 22, 1993). Court of Appeals case from the Order of Judge R. Kinard Johnson.
(b) Louie E. Nalley vs. Patsy Dorsey Nalley, Op. No. 94-UP-280 (filed Nov. 22, 1994; refiled Jan. 20, 1995). Court of Appeals case from the Order of Judge Joseph W. Board.
(c) Pickens County Department of Social Services vs. Phyllis Paschal, James Shockley and Mary Marks. In the Matter of: Nikki Holloway, Summer Holloway, Ashley Shockley and Michael Marks, Op. No. 94-UP-042 (filed Feb. 10, 1994). Court of Appeals case from the Order of Judge Robert H. Cureton.
(d) Richard E. King vs. Deborah L. King, 93-DR-39-820. Matter is currently pending in the South Carolina Supreme Court.
At the Joint Committee's request, Mr. Johnson described the percentage of his practice as follows: Divorce and Equitable Division of Property (50%), Child Custody (35%), Adoption (5%), Abuse and Neglect (8%), and Juvenile Justice (2%). Mr. Johnson also provided 20 additional cases that represent his practice in those areas.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Johnson had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Court, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Johnson's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Johnson is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Johnson qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Johnson "is thought to be intelligent and very competent in Family Court. He devotes sixty percent or better of his practice to family court matters and is well versed in the law. Mr. Johnson's integrity was beyond question, and he is thought to be a fair person, with good temperament."
A positive affidavit was submitted by Jachin L. and Sandra I. Tate, a couple who Mr. Johnson helped gain custody of their granddaughter.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Ms. Johnson was screened on December 14, 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.
Ms. Johnson 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Ms. Johnson reports that she has taught business law at Southern Wesleyan University in Central, South Carolina since 1989. She also made a presentation on Medicaid at a CLE sponsored by the Legal Services Association.
Ms. Johnson also wrote a newspaper article regarding a legal issue for the Palm Beach Post.
The Joint Committee found Ms. Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Johnson is not listed in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Johnson graduated from the Washington University School of Law in 1983. Ms Johnson was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1984 and the South Carolina Bar in 1988.
Ms. Johnson practiced with Ricci and Roberts, P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida from 1983 to 1984. From 1984 to 1987, she served as staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, representing clients in family, consumer, landlord/tenant, and immigration law. Since 1987, Ms. Johnson has been the Senior Staff Attorney for Legal Services of Western Carolina in Greenville, South Carolina. She and her staff serve clients in the areas of family, consumer, landlord/tenant, and public benefits law.
Ms. Johnson described her practice over the past five years as 20% civil and 80% domestic.
Ms. Johnson provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(1) Herring v. State Health and Human Service Finance, No. 95-UP-136. One of the few cases involving state determinations on Medicaid that has been successfully litigated by a claimant on the appellate level.
(2) Greenville County Dept. of Social Services v. JoEva Reeder et al. Custody case involving abused three year old girl with sickle cell anemia whose perpetrator was unknown.
(3) In re: Clyde Bergen, an SSI case involving a six year old boy with a severe hearing impairment. Case concluded with boy obtaining benefits, which allowed him to get needed surgery to prevent serious permanent impairment and enabled his family to negate future dependence on government benefits.
(4) Duck v. Jenkins, 375 S.E.2d 178 (S.C. App. 1988). Representation of birth mother seeking visitation with her son.
(5) Joiner v. Doerrfeld and Konz, 510 So.2d 309 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1986). Representation of a 16-year old mother whose consent for adoption had been obtained through duress and placement had been premature under Florida law. As a result of this case, Florida legislature passed new laws regarding adoptions.
Ms. Johnson has personally handled the following appeals:
(1) Tammie Duck v. Vivian Jenkins, 375 S.E.2d 178 (S.C. App. 1988).
(2) James T. Joiner v. Baby Doe, 510 So.2d 309 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 1986).
At the Joint Committee's request, Ms. Johnson provided additional cases that she has handled in the domestic area. This information was incorporated into the transcript of Ms. Johnson's public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Johnson had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Court, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Johnson's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Ms. Johnson 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.
Ms. Johnson is married and has one child.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Johnson 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. Johnson has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Johnson is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Johnson 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.
Ms. Johnson testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Johnson testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Johnson meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Johnson qualified. The Bar reported that Ms. Johnson "was very nice, courteous, and concerned about her clients. She is professional; however, she can be firm in her position. She was thought to have a good temperament, as well as being honest. Ms. Johnson was thought to be intelligent and apparently prepares her cases well. There were comments that she was a worthy opponent and knew the domestic relations law. Her practice has been limited to providing legal services through Legal Services Association of Western Carolina. This was not thought to hinder her from being qualified for a Family Court judgeship. She teaches a law course at Central Wesleyan where she is highly regarded.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Bartlett was screened on December 19, 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.
Judge Bartlett 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Bartlett is on the general faculty at the National Judicial College where he has lectured on evidence, criminal procedure, constitutional law, and domestic violence. He has also lectured for the S.C. Court Administration (evidence), S.C. Criminal Justice Academy (magistrate certification), South Carolina Bar (D.U.I. seminars), South Carolina Justice Institute (evidence), and Greenville Technical College (criminal law, criminal procedure, juvenile justice). He has also been invited to lecture at various seminars on Domestic Violence, including seminars sponsored by the Greenville Hospital System and Sistercare.
The Joint Committee found Judge Bartlett to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Bartlett graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1977 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
After Judge Bartlett was admitted to the Bar, he served from 1977 to 1978, as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Greenville. He served as Assistant Circuit Solicitor from 1978 to 1980. Since 1980, Judge Bartlett has been the Chief Judge of the Municipal Court for the City of Greenville.
As a current judge, Judge Bartlett omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years. Judge Bartlett reports that municipal courts are not courts of record and rarely have written orders; however, he has listed and enclosed two orders issued by him which he says have "substance and that are not of a routine nature":
(1) City of Greenville v. Dan Winston Brooks. A return to the court of General Sessions upon appeal. The case was upheld by the Circuit Court. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court under rule 23.
(2) City of Greenville v. William Ezia Adams. An order which declared a city picketing ordinance to be unconstitutional.
The Joint Committee is concerned about Judge Bartlett's lack of recent experience in the family courts.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Bartlett's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Bartlett 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 Bartlett is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Bartlett 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 Bartlett has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Bartlett has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Bartlett 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.
Judge Bartlett testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Bartlett 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:
Judge Bartlett meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Bartlett qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Bartlett "has served continuously as a full-time municipal judge for the City of Greenville since 1980. Prior to that time, he worked for one year as an assistant city attorney and for 2 years as an assistant circuit solicitor. Judge Bartlett is regarded as having excellent judicial temperament. He is highly respected for his administrative skills in the municipal court system and for his diligence, hard work, and timeliness. His reputation for integrity and fairness is well recognized among those interviewed. Some interviewed noted his lack of family court experience but believed he would be able to adapt to the Family Court based upon his strong judicial background."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Brown was screened on December 19, 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.
Mr. Brown 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Brown stated that he had taught business law (about 15 years ago) and family law at the paralegal program at Greenville Technical College.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Mr. Brown has not requested a Martindale-Hubbell rating and does not know if he has one.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Brown graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1976 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his admission to the Bar, Mr. Brown worked at Legal Services in 1976 and has been in private practice since 1979.
Mr. Brown described his practice over the last five years as 5% civil, 5% criminal, and 90% domestic.
Mr. Brown provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company, 307 S.C. 230, 414 S.E.2d 177. Holding that a family court order can designate the beneficiary of life insurance proceeds notwithstanding the fact that a different recipient is named as beneficiary in the policy.
(b) Ledford v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 92-CP-23-486. Plaintiff asserted that he should not be required to give the Highway Department his social security number because it violated his religious beliefs.
(c) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543. Case which lead to statutory exception to the hearsay rule allowing the admission of the statement of a child 3 or younger in abuse cases.
(d) George Thomas v. Steven Ritchie Holam-Hansen. Establishing an indigent child's right to receive a trial transcript.
(e) White v. White, 283 S.C. 348, 323 S.E.2d 521. Allowing property division in an annulment proceeding.
(f) Department of Social Services v. Father and the Mother, 294 S.C. 518, 366 S.E.2d 40 (Ct. App. 1988). Establishing the fact that skin is an organ which was damaged by bruising and that such an act may be abuse.
Mr. Brown has handled the following domestic appeals:
(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company, 414 S.E.2d 177, 307 S.C. 230.
(b) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543.
(c) White v. White, 283 S.C. 348, 323 S.E.2d 521.
(d) Fridy v. Fridy, appeal currently pending in the Court of Appeals.
(e) Frye v. Frye, Court of Appeals Op. No. 2217 (Filed August 15, 1994).
(f) Department of Social Services v. Whitworth, Op. No. 93-UP-130 (filed April 28, 1993).
At the Joint Committee's request, Mr. Brown supplied a number of additional cases which he felt were representative of his domestic practice. Mr. Brown's response was incorporated into the transcript of his public hearing and can be referenced there.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Brown had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Brown's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Brown 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. Brown is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Brown 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. Brown has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Brown was an E-5 in the United States Marines Corps Reserves. He was honorably discharged.
Mr. Brown is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Brown 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. Brown testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Brown 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. Brown meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Brown qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Brown "has had extensive and broad experience in Family Court. He possesses a strong working knowledge of the law of Family Court. The majority of those interviewed felt that he is a good worker and well prepared in court and that he would have a good judicial temperament. Mr. Brown is perceived as having a good character, integrity, and reputation. Those interviewed believed that he would be a fair and impartial member of the judiciary."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Gaddy was screened on December 18, 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.
Mr. Gaddy 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. Gaddy currently serves as a director of the Bank of Traveler's Rest. He was first appointed in 1974 and has served continuously since.
Mr. Gaddy was sued for malpractice with respect to his services in Connolley v. Peoples Life. The case was dismissed because the Statute of Limitations had run.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Gaddy taught Business Law for the 1988-89 school year at the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg.
Mr. Gaddy conducted a one day seminar at Greenville Technical College around 1978 on the use of micro-computers in the law office.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Gaddy to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Gaddy's Martindale-Hubbell rating is B.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Gaddy graduated from the Harvard University Law School in 1955 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Gaddy has served on active duty in the United States Navy from 1955 to 1960, practiced law with the law firm of Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason in Greenville, South Carolina from 1960 to 1966 (his practice was about equally divided between real estate and negligence defense). Practiced law with D. Denby Davenport, Jr. using the firm name of Gaddy and Davenport from 1966 to 1984. His practice was focused upon construction law, business law, and domestic relations. Mr. Gaddy practiced law with Paul J. Foster, Jr., Robert P. Foster and Brent Fortson under the law firm name of Foster, Gaddy, Foster & Fortson from 1984 to 1990. His practice began dealing mostly with real estate, business problems, and domestic relations. Since 1990, Mr. Gaddy has practiced law as a solo practitioner with about one-third of his practice devoted to domestic relations, one-third devoted to real estate, and one-third devoted to business problems.
Mr. Gaddy described his practice over the past five years as 67% civil and 33% domestic.
Mr. Gaddy provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Connelly v. Peoples Life Insurance Company, 299 S.C. 348, 384 S. E. 2d 738 (1989). This case involved the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practice Act.
(b) Thompson v. Thompson, a Charleston County Family Court case in which Mr. Gaddy represented the Wife in a divorce and property division action.
(c) Merritt v. Merritt, a Greenville County Family Court case in which Mr. Gaddy represented the Wife. While represented by another attorney, Wife was involved in a divorce and custody fight with her Husband. Two years later, Husband sought child support from the Wife. Family Court awarded child support to be paid by the Wife. Wife appealed on the ground that Family Court did not consider all the evidence applicable to the situation. Case reversed and remanded to Family Court for a new trial.
(d) Builderway v. Perry, et al. Mr. Gaddy represented Builderway, a judgment creditor of the defendant Perry, in a mortgage foreclosure suit.
(e) Hartsell v. Hartsell. Mr. Gaddy represented the Wife in a divorce and property division case.
Mr. Gaddy stated that he has handled only one domestic appeal. Teresa G. Merritt v. Frank Wayne Merritt, Supreme Court 1990.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Gaddy had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Court.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Gaddy's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Gaddy 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. Gaddy is divorced and has one child.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Gaddy 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. Gaddy has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Gaddy was on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1956 until June 1960. He was discharged as a Lieutenant, USNR. His release or discharge was under Honorable Conditions. Mr. Gaddy received accelerated promotion while serving on active duty.
Mr. Gaddy is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Gaddy 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. Gaddy testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Gaddy 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. Gaddy meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Gaddy qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Gaddy "has been a practicing attorney with a concentration in business law, real estate, and domestic relations. Mr. Gaddy has a good reputation for intelligence, integrity, and diligence. Interviews were mixed with some expressions that he lacked sufficient Family Court experience and a good judicial temperament. Others expressed concern that most of his Family Court experience was of an uncontested nature."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Ms. Davis was screened on December 18, 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.
Ms. Davis 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Ms. Davis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Davis has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Davis graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1985 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Ms. Davis served as a law clerk for the Honorable Robert L. McFadden from 1985 to 1986, as an assistant solicitor for the 13th Judicial Circuit from 1986 to 1987, as a staff attorney for Michelin Tire from 1987 to 1989, and as Chief State Attorney for the Office of Child Support Enforcement from 1990 to the present.
Ms. Davis described her practice over the past five years as 100% domestic.
Ms. Davis provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which he/she described as follows:
(a) South Carolina D.S.S. v. Brooks, 91-DR-23-4127. Paternity trial with expert testimony on paternity testing.
(b) D.S.S. v. Jennings. One defendant, 8 custodial parents, and 13 children. Defendant is 28 years old.
(c) D.S.S v. Coker, 93-DR-23-119. Termination of Parental Rights proceeding. AFDC was an issue in the termination proceeding.
(d) D.S.S. v. Norwood, 93-DR-23-5988. Paternity establishment and child support case.
(e) D.S.S. v. Collier, 92-DR-23-2147. Motion to set aside judgment under Rule 60(b). Defendant's attorney at original proceeding was subsequently disbarred.
At the request of the Joint Committee, Ms. Davis provided representative cases she has handled in the domestic area. Ms. Davis stated that through her work in child support enforcement, she had been introduced to other areas of domestic law. This information was incorporated into the transcript of Ms. Davis' public hearing.
The Joint Committee expressed some concern over Ms. Davis's limited experience with certain areas of family law.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Committee believes Ms. Davis' temperament would be good.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Ms. Davis 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.
Ms. Davis is single and has no children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Davis 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. Davis has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Davis is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Davis 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.
Ms. Davis testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Davis testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Davis meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Davis qualified. The Bar reported that Ms. Davis "possesses an acceptable but limited knowledge of family law but is highly regarded as a diligent worker by those who have worked with her in the Family Court and previously. Her personal industry in staying current with family law and vigorously pursuing delinquent accounts is felt to be commendable. Ms. Davis is considered to have high ethics, character, integrity, and reputation. Although some concern was expressed about her judicial temperament, most individuals surveyed felt that she would be fair and impartial to both litigants and attorneys."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Hamilton was screened on December 18, 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.
Mr. Hamilton 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Hamilton to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hamilton has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Hamilton graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1984 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Hamilton has worked exclusively as an assistant solicitor for the 13th Judicial Circuit.
Mr. Hamilton described his practice over the past five years as 100% criminal.
Mr. Hamilton provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) State v. Stanley E. Woods, 84-GS-23-3956, Armed Robbery; 84-GS-23-3955, Kidnapping; 84-GS-23-3954, Rape.
(b) State v. Robert Lagore, 90-GS-23-3427, 90-GS-23-3428, 90-GS-23-3427. Felony DUI case. Issue was whether defendant was legally impaired with a BAC of .09 and the admissibility of a blood test not taken at the direction of the arresting officer in accordance with the statute.
(c) State v. John David Coleman, 86-GS-23-236. DUI case. Jury returned verdict in 6 minutes making it the shortest jury deliberation in Greenville County.
(d) State v. Robert W. Davis, 90-GS-23-4332. Felony DUI case. Issue was whether the defendant was under 17 since the accident occurred on his birthday but before the time listed on his birth certificate as his time of birth.
(e) State v. Thomas Lynn Porter, 85-GS-23-0899. Setting up Lotteries case.
At the request of the Joint Committee, Mr. Hamilton provided supplemental information as to his practice in the areas of Divorce and Equitable Division of Property, Child Custody, Adoption, Abuse and Neglect, and Juvenile Justice. This information was incorporated into the transcript of Mr. Hamilton's public hearing.
Based on his scope of practice, the Committee expressed some concern over Mr. Hamilton's lack of experience in certain aspects of the practice of family law.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Hamilton's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Hamilton 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. Hamilton is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Hamilton 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. Hamilton has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Hamilton is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Hamilton 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. Hamilton testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Hamilton 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. Hamilton meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Hamilton qualified. The Bar reported that "although it is believed that [Mr. Hamilton] has limited experience in the area of family law, his knowledge of the law is acceptable overall. History reflects that he should be able to study and acquire an adequate measure of the knowledge he would need for the position. It is perceived that he will bring considerable life experiences, common sense, and empathy with him to the family court system. Mr. Hamilton is highly respected by his peers and well thought of by the legal and non-legal community. He is considered a role model. His character, integrity, and reputation for fairness are outstanding. It is perceived that he would demonstrate excellent judicial temperament without bias in favor of or against any particular position or litigant."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Jenkins was screened on December 18, 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.
Mr. Jenkins 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Jenkins has taught the Juvenile Law/Pre-Trial Diversion Course through the sponsorship of the Department of Youth Services.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Jenkins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Jenkins has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Jenkins graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1976 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Mr. Jenkins was employed as Staff Attorney/Managing Attorney with the Legal Services Agency in Charleston, South Carolina from 1976 to 1979. Since 1979, he has been Director/General Counsel for Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. in Greenville, South Carolina.
Mr. Jenkins described his practice over the past five years as 65% civil and 35% domestic.
Mr. Jenkins provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Fieldcrest Tenants Association, et al. vs. Housing Authority of Greenville, U.S. District Court, Greenville, S.C. (1980). This case involved Due Process rights of public housing tenants against irregular conduct and practices of public housing management in setting improper rent, improper assessments, and improper evictions. Resolved by Court Consent.
(b) John Plumley, et al. vs. School District of Greenville and State Board of Education, #81-1894 (4th Cir. 1982). Allowed reasonable staff attorney fees in successful Section 1983 actions.
(c) Greenville Housing Authority vs. Jessie Salters, ___ S.C. ___, 316 S.E.2d 718 (1984). Defense of ejectment action against 64 year old lady.
(d) Jenkins et al. vs. American Modern Homes, et al., 90-10-5549 (Charleston County Circuit Ct.). Insurance action where company attempted to argue exclusion. Settled before trial.
(e) Hatchcock and Shuly vs. Tammy McKensie, 94-CP-23-1336 (on appeal to S.C. Supreme Court). Defense of ejectment proceeding brought by landlord against defendant. Case resolved favorably in interest of client.
Mr. Jenkins provided the Joint Committee with the following domestic appeals he has handled:
(a) Creel vs. Miles, In re Dianne Mary Miles, MO 79-179 (1979). Unsuccessful attempt to get practical compliance with 10 day hearing requirement when a child is taken into protective custody.
(b) Davis v. Davis, Unpublished memorandum opinion 1980. Issue was whether legal counsel was required in civil contempt proceedings in Family Court when jail term will be imposed.
At the Joint Committee's request, Mr. Jenkins described his practice in the following areas of domestic law: divorce and equitable division of property, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice. Mr. Jenkins also provided a list of representative domestic cases that he has handled. This information was incorporated into the record of Mr. Jenkins' public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Jenkins had engaged in an active trial practice in the family courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Jenkins' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Jenkins 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. Jenkins is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Jenkins 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. Jenkins has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Jenkins served in the U.S. Air Force from August 1966 to August 1969, and in the active reserves from June 1969 to August 1972. He was honorably discharged in August 1972.
Mr. Jenkins is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Jenkins 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. Jenkins testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Jenkins 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. Jenkins meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Jenkins qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Jenkins "has been a practicing attorney with a broad range of experience as a supervising legal services attorney. While his personal experience in the Family Court has been limited, it is perceived that he will have acceptable knowledge of family law. He gets high marks for his management skills, having planned and implemented innovative methods to improve the delivery of indigent services in Greenville. He is highly respected by his peers and well thought of by the legal and non-legal community. His character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding. It is perceived that Mr. Jenkins would demonstrate excellent judicial temperament without bias in favor of or against any particular person or litigant. He has an excellent demeanor, and it is believed that he would relate well to persons from varied backgrounds appearing before him. He has exhibited a strong work ethic while still serving his community with distinction in other non-legal matters."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Mann was screened on December 19, 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.
Mr. Mann 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Mann to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Mr. Mann's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Mann graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1984 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Mr. Mann has been in general practice since 1984, when he opened a law practice in partnership with Phillip J. Temple. Since that time, 3 other attorneys have joined the practice. Mr. Mann told the Committee that his practice has included litigation, real estate, and family law. He has practiced regularly in the Family Court since 1984 and has handled many cases involving divorce, equitable division, alimony, and custody. Mr. Mann indicated that he has also handled a significant number of adoptions and terminations of parental rights. Since 1984, he has represented abused children for at least one-half day per month. Mr. Mann also reported to the Committee that since 1988, he has been representing Guardian Ad Litems through the Guardian Ad Litem Program.
Mr. Mann described his practice over the past five years as 19% civil, 1% criminal, and 80% domestic.
Mr. Mann provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Traves Tew. v. Cathy Tes, 93-DR-23-4662, change of custody case due to change in material change of circumstances.
(b) Melinda Griggs v. Bethany Christian Services, 90-DR-23-2562, representation of the defendant where the plaintiff (mother) attempted to withdraw her consent for relinquishment of parental rights alleging undue influence and fraud.
(c) Laura Springman v. Shriner's Hospital, WCC File Number 912294, representation of plaintiff in workers' compensation case on issue of whether an internal failure of the knee is an accident as defined by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Appeal by the defense to the full commission and the Circuit Court.
(d) Peter Terwilliger v. Anne Pearl, 93-DR-23-6002, representation of plaintiff uncle who attempted to obtain custody of children against the natural mother (father was deceased).
(e) James and Jill Hood v. SCDSS, 90-DR-23-5305, representation of adoptive parents where primary issue concerned the termination of the birth mother's parental rights as a result of her mental illness.
In response to a request by the Joint Committee, Mr. Mann provided a more extensive list of domestic cases he has handled since he has been in practice. This information was incorporated into the record and was printed in the transcript of Mr. Mann's public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Mann had engaged in an active trial practice in the family courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Mann's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Mann 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. Mann is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Mann 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. Mann has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Mann is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Mann 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. Mann testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Mann 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. Mann meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Mann qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Mann "has practiced law a majority of his time in the family courts. He is perceived by his peers as knowledgeable and possessing the necessary intellect to make a good Family Court Judge. Mr. Mann is respected by his peers and well thought of by the non-legal community. His character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding. It is perceived that he will demonstrate excellent judicial temperament without bias in favor of or against any position or litigant."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Ms. Pendleton was screened on December 15, 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.
Ms. Pendleton 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Ms. Pendleton has taught the following courses at Greenville Technical College: criminal Law - (Five semesters) Basic concepts of the Criminal Justice System; evidence and procedure (Six semesters) 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments; and Federal Rules of Evidence, criminal investigation (Two semesters) Constitutional limitations and crime scene analysis.
The Joint Committee found Ms. Pendleton to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Pendleton has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Pendleton graduated from Cumberland School of Law in 1986 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Ms. Pendleton associated with the firm of Mauldin and Allison from 1986 to 1987, was an Assistant Circuit Solicitor in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit from 1987 to 1993, and has been a Deputy Circuit Solicitor for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit since 1993.
Ms. Pendleton described her practice over the past five years as 100% criminal.
In response to a request by the Committee, Ms. Pendleton provided supplemental information regarding her practice in Family Court. This information was incorporated into the record of Ms. Pendleton's public hearing.
Ms. Pendleton provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(a) State v. Anders and Simmons (under appeal). This case involved a 1.2 million dollar fire loss for which the insured and his employee were charged with Arson 3rd, Burning to Defraud Insured, and Conspiracy. A joint investigation by ATF, SLED and the Greenville County Sheriff's Office was presented to the United States Attorney's Office which refused to indict based on their belief that a jury would not convict. In spite of the fact that both defendants had airtight alibies, the state could not name or produce the person who actually set the fire, and the state's chief witness was a self-proclaimed "Psychic," the jury returned "Guilty" verdicts on all counts.
(b) State v. Kilgore, et al. This case involved four young men charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st degree, two counts each, and Conspiracy as a result of a plan whereby Kilgore made a date with a young lady only to return to an apartment where the others participated in a "Gang Rape." A prior investigation with the exact same facts had not been prosecuted because the victim refused to testify. The significance of this case was the conviction of all defendants including Kilgore whose only participation was the luring of the victim to the apartment. (Affirmed on Appeal)
(c) State v. Ariail, 426 S.E.2d 751 (S.C. 1993). The Defendant was convicted of Arson 3rd degree and appealed arguing that arraignment is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. The court affirmed the conviction and held that arraignment is not a constitutional or statutory right, but, rather a mere formality.
(d) State v. Janet Hawkins Opinion No. 95-UP-200 (S.C. Ct., App. filed June 29, 1995). Hawkins was a school Psychologist assigned to counsel a 13 year old male. During a four-year time span, she engaged in sex acts with the victim which she eventually reported to her own therapist who in turn notified DSS and Law Enforcement. At the time of her arrest, Hawkins' purse contained feathers, locks of hair, crystals and a cassette tape concerning white witchcraft. These items were observed by investigator Wilson, noted in her report, and returned to the purse just prior to booking the suspect. The court upheld the admission of this evidence as an "Inventory Search" even though no written inventory was prepared, thereby expanding the definition of "Inventory Search."
(e) State v. Barksdale, et al. 428 S.E.2d 498 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993). This was the first modern case dealing with multiple defendants acting together as a "Mob" to inflict physical harm resulting in the death of the victim. This case is significant because Ms. Pendleton elected to try the defendants for Lynching 1st degree rather than Murder in hopes of convicting them all. This trial resulted in case law which defines "Mob" and provides correct jury instruction on "Intent" in the context of Lynching.
The Committee expressed concern over Ms. Pendleton's limited experience in certain areas of family law.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Pendleton's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Ms. Pendleton 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.
Ms. Pendleton is divorced and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Pendleton 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. Pendleton has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Pendleton is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Pendleton 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.
Ms. Pendleton testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Pendleton testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Pendleton meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Pendleton qualified. The Bar reported that Ms. Pendleton "has broad experience as an Assistant Solicitor in the Family Court. She has shown creativity and inventiveness in prosecuting juvenile offenders and domestic violence cases. It is believed that her lack of experience in other facets of Family Court practice would not hamper her ability to be an effective Family Court Judge. Ms. Pendleton is intelligent, knowledgeable in the law, and well respected by those interviewed."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Abbott was screened on December 13, 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.
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott has been cited on more than one occasion for hunting over bait. He has also been cited for failure to have a life jacket in his fishing boat.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Abbott taught one course at Coastal Carolina and approximately 6 courses at Horry-Georgetown Technical College, consisting of a general overview of law from the historical background of the Common Law to Computer Crime. The emphasis of the courses was in the areas of business and contract law.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Abbott to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Mr. Abbott met the Committee's expectations on the practice and procedure questions in his prior screening, he was given, and he accepted, the option of incorporating his performance during the prior screening into the present record.
Mr. Abbott's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Abbott graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1972 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Abbott associated with his father from 1972 to 1975, shared an office with his father from 1975 to 1982, and has been a sole practitioner from 1982 to present.
Mr. Abbott described his practice over the past five years as 48% civil, 2% criminal, and 50% domestic.
Mr. Abbott provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Spain v. Owens - The case involved an attempt by the Plaintiff to have a resulting trust established in estate lands of her husband which were previously deeded to the Defendant. Mr. Abbott handled the appeal from an adverse decision of a Master for the Defendant. The Court found a lack of jurisdiction and remanded for a new trial.
(b) DSS v. Rowell - The case involved allegations of child abuse. The child was placed in foster care although the mother was never charged with any wrongdoing. After a consent agreement was reached allowing custody to remain with DSS, the action was dismissed based upon federal and state statutes which set time limits for intervention by state agencies.
(c) Smith v. Smith - A domestic relations action granting custody, child support, alimony, and attorney's fees. In order to implement the Order, the Defendant was incarcerated, his property foreclosed and sold, and an Order issued as to his retirement funds.
(d) Kelly v. Kelly - Case involved an attempt to overturn an Order of the Court based upon allegations of perjured testimony. The relief sought was denied based upon case law which requires that perjury must be accompanied by extrinsic or collateral fraud in order to set aside a judgment.
(e) Estate of Conner v. Conner - Case involved an attempt by Mr. Abbott's client to have funds reimbursed due to a forgery of a check prior to decedent's death. An agreement was reached whereby the majority of funds were returned notwithstanding a question as to the survival of the cause of action.
Mr. Abbott also provided the Committee with three domestic appeals which he has personally handled:
(a) Tamara T. Abbott v. Aubrey J. Gore, Jr., 304 S.C. 116, 403 S.E.2d 154 (Ct. App. 19__).
(b) Ann Theresa Hyde v. Jules Verne Hyde, 302 S.C. 280, 395 S.E.2d 186 (Ct. App. 19__).
(c) Joree N. Turbeville v. James A. Turbeville, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Rule 23.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Abbott had engaged in an active trial practice in the family courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Abbott's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Abbott served in the South Carolina National Guard from 1966 to 1972. He was honorably discharged in 1972 with the rank of E-5.
Mr. Abbott is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Abbott qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Abbott "is perceived by his peers as knowledgeable and possessing the necessary intellect to make a good Family Court Judge. He has an excellent temperament and exhibits mature judgment. He would be an asset to the bench. Mr. Abbott has unquestioned character and enjoys an excellent reputation in the community. His ethics, honesty, and integrity are above reproach. He is perceived to be fair, unbiased, and impartial. He would not be influenced by the lawyers or litigants."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Anderson was screened on December 15, 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.
Judge Anderson 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Anderson has lectured at CLE's on employment law and the Ethics Act.
Judge Anderson authored an article titled "A Survey on Attributes Considered Important for Presidential Candidates," Carolina Undergraduate Sociology Symposium, April 17, 1980.
The Joint Committee found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Anderson's last Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV (1994).
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Anderson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1984 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Judge Anderson began his career in 1985 with the Attorney General's office where he handled the extradition functions in the criminal division. He later prosecuted criminal cases and was assigned as counsel to the State Ethics Commission. He also served as a committee attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee and as a prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board. He has also done Medical Board prosecutions, Attorney General opinions, and criminal appeals. He has served as an Administrative Law Judge since February 1, 1995.
Judge Anderson provided the Joint Committee with his five most significant orders/opinions:
(a) Baughman v. South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation and Webster, No. 95-ALJ-17-0091-CC (March 17, 1995). Application for an on-premise beer and wine permit and an on-premise sale and consumption license for mini-bottle.
(b) South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation v. Army/Navy Garrison 2179 and Abdin, No. 95-ALJ-17-0219-CC (July 6, 1995). Revocation of Bingo license.
(c) Vigilant Insurance Company v. South Carolina Department of Insurance, No. 95-ALJ-09-0214-CC (July 5, 1995). Request of a homeowner's insurance premium rate increase.
(d) Hatch v. South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation and Clemson United Methodist Church, No. 95-ALJ-17-0182-CC (June 26, 1995). Application for special beer and wine permits for Carolina Panther home games played at Clemson's Memorial Stadium.
(e) Willis v. South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation, No. 95-ALJ-17-0135-CC (May 5, 1995). Application for an on-premise beer and wine permit.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Anderson's temperament is excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson is married and has no children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Anderson has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Anderson 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.
Judge Anderson testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Anderson 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:
Judge Anderson meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Anderson qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Anderson "is considered an intelligent, diligent, hardworking administrative law judge. He is described as an independent judge who is not afraid to make tough, unpopular decisions in accordance with the law. Judge Anderson is well regarded by his peers and other members of the legal community as a judge who is fair and even tempered. His demeanor was described as very good."
The following persons were unanimously[1] found qualified:
H. T. Abbott, III
Lee S. Alford
Ralph K. Anderson, Jr.
Ralph King (Tripp) Anderson, III
Robert S. Armstrong
James R. Barber, III
Stephen S. Bartlett
John L. Breeden, Jr.
James E. Brogdon, Jr.
Timothy L. Brown
Walter B. Brown, Jr.
Thomas C. Cofield
Susan Kaye Davis
R. Scott Dover
Dale L. DuTremble
Tom J. Ervin
Clifford F. Gaddy, Jr.
Ruben L. Gray
Ernest Hamilton
Douglas L. Hinds
William L. Howard
Thomas E. Huff
Deadra L. Jefferson
Robert N. Jenkins, Sr.
Alvin D. Johnson
Susan I. Johnson
Selma T. Jones
Howard P. King
John W. Kittredge
Jack A. Landis
Wallace K. Lightsey
Bobby H. Mann, Jr.
J. C. Nicholson, Jr.
Regan A. Pendleton
O. Grady Query
Wyatt T. Saunders
Joseph D. Shine
Charles B. Simmons, Jr.
David A. Soderlund, Sr.
James A. Spruill, III
H. Samuel Stilwell
Jean H. Toal
James C. Williams, Jr.
[1] Senator Saleeby did not participate in the screening nor determination of qualification for Jean H. Toal or Tom J. Ervin. Representative Delleney did not participate in the determination of qualification for any candidate in the Circuit Court At-Large, Seat 13 race.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Representative F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Representative Ralph W. Canty
/s/Representative William Douglas Smith
/s/Representative L. Hunter Limbaugh
The following candidate was found qualified by a majority of the Committee:
Thomas C. Dillard
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Representative F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Representative Ralph W. Canty
/s/Representative William Douglas Smith
Thomas C. Dillard was found not qualified by a minority of the Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Representative L. Hunter Limbaugh
The following candidate was found qualified by a majority of the Committee[1]:
Brenda Reddix-Smalls
[1] Representatives Delleney and Limbaugh did not participate in the determination of qualification for Brenda Reddix-Smalls.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Representative Ralph W. Canty
/s/Representative William Douglas Smith
Brenda Reddix-Smalls was found not qualified by a minority of the Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Senator John R. Russell
On motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, ordered printed in the Journal.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
The following were received and referred to the appropriate committees for consideration:
Document No. 1875
Promulgated by Department of Health and Human Services
Article 3. Medicaid: Fair Hearings
Received by Lt. Governor January 25, 1996
Referred to Senate Committee on Medical Affairs
120 day review expiration date May 25, 1996
Document No. 1881
Promulgated by Department of Health and Human Services
Medicaid: Medical Institution Vendor Payments
Received by Lt. Governor January 25, 1996
Referred to Senate Committee on Medical Affairs
120 day review expiration date May 25, 1996
Document No. 1910
Promulgated by Commissioners of Pilotage for the Port of Charleston
Control of vessels during docking and undocking operations; Increase in registration fees.
Received by Lt. Governor January 31, 1996
Referred to Senate Committee on Transportation
120 day review expiration date May 31, 1996
At 12:15 P.M., Senator DRUMMOND asked unanimous consent to make a motion to invite the House of Representatives to attend the Senate Chamber for the purpose of ratifying Acts at 12:30 P.M.
There was no objection and a message was sent to the House accordingly.
Senator WILSON introduced Dr. Jerry Rothstein of Columbia, S.C., Doctor of the Day.
The following were introduced:
S. 1097 -- Senators Lander, Alexander and Land: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-5-190 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN INSURANCE OR INSURANCE-RELATED ENTITIES, ORGANIZATIONS, OR AGENCIES TO CAUSE RECORDS RELATING TO POLICY APPLICATIONS, CHANGES, REFUNDS, TERMINATIONS, CLAIMS, OR PREMIUM PAYMENTS TO BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED BY CERTAIN MEANS, AND PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.
S. 1098 -- Senator Moore: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-45-180, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN A DUE DATE FALLS ON A SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY, THE PAYMENT DEADLINE IS EXTENDED TO THE SECOND BUSINESS DAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAY.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.
S. 1099 -- Senator Ford: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY, BY ADDING SECTION 10-1-210 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO TRANSACTION INVOLVING PROPERTY OWNED BY OR TITLED IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA OR A STATE AGENCY IS ALLOWED BETWEEN A STATE AGENCY AND A PRIVATE ENTITY IF IN THE AGGREGATE THE PROPERTY IS TWENTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE IN VALUE, UNLESS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF VOTERS VOTING IN A STATEWIDE REFERENDUM; AND TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS OF "PRIVATE ENTITY", "STATE AGENCY", AND "TRANSACTION".
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.
S. 1100 -- Senators Leventis, Giese, Russell, Reese and Cork: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-5-40 SO AS TO DESIGNATE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO MONITOR ALL ELECTED OR APPOINTED STATE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND JUDICIAL OFFICES IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHEN VACANCIES OCCUR AND PUBLICIZE THESE VACANCIES AND POSITIONS ON THESE BODIES WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE.
Senator LEVENTIS spoke on the Bill.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
S. 1101 -- Senator Holland: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-5-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF MEMBERS OF BOARDS OF VOTER REGISTRATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS MUST COMPLETE A TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTION 7-5-35, RELATING TO ELECTION AND REGISTRATION COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS MUST COMPLETE A TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-70, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTION AND MANAGERS OF ELECTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT COMMISSIONERS MUST COMPLETE A TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, TO FURTHER DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS; AND TO ADD SECTION 7-13-72, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS AND CLERKS.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
S. 1102 -- Senator Holland: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-380, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OATH OF AN ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICANT, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE WITNESS APPEAR ON THE OATH; TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-385, RELATING TO THE MARKING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN APPLICANT WHO CANNOT SIGN HIS NAME BECAUSE OF ILLITERACY OR A HANDICAP MAY INSTEAD MAKE HIS MARK; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-420, RELATING TO RECEIPT, TABULATION, AND REPORTING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE WITNESS APPEAR ON THE RETURN-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
S. 1103 -- Senator Leventis: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 40, CHAPTER 41, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 SO AS TO DEFINE "RETAILER", TO REQUIRE A RETAILER TO KEEP A RECORD OF THE SOURCE OF NEW MERCHANDISE THAT THE RETAILER OFFERS FOR SALE, TO SPECIFY THE TYPE OF RECORD OR DOCUMENTATION THAT IS REQUIRED, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MERCHANDISE MAY BE CONFISCATED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE EXEMPTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
S. 1104 -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-40, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PERSONS WHO MAY NOT BE LICENSED OR HAVE THEIR LICENSE RENEWED, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROVISION ALSO APPLIES TO THE ISSUANCE OR RENEWAL OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR OF A BEGINNER'S PERMIT.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.
S. 1105 -- Senators Martin and Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1A OF ACT 260 OF 1981, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PICKENS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE NOTICE OF CANDIDACY REQUIRED TO BE FILED SHALL BE FILED NOT LATER THAN TWELVE O'CLOCK NOON ON SEPTEMBER FIRST OR, IF SEPTEMBER FIRST FALLS ON A SUNDAY, NOT LATER THAN TWELVE O'CLOCK NOON ON THE FOLLOWING MONDAY AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE NOTICE OF CANDIDACY SHALL NOT BE FILED EARLIER THAN AUGUST FIRST, OR IF AUGUST FIRST FALLS ON A SUNDAY, NOT EARLIER THAN THE FOLLOWING MONDAY.
Read the first time and ordered placed on the local and uncontested Calendar without reference.
S. 1106 -- Senators McConnell, Saleeby, Moore and Russell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1996, AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JULY 31, 1996; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEAT 7, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2002; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEAT 8, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2000; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEAT 9, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WHOSE UNEXPIRED TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2000; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AT-LARGE, SEAT 11, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2002; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AT-LARGE, SEAT 12, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2002; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AT-LARGE, SEAT 13, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2002; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1996; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1996; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 5, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2002; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 4, WHOSE UNEXPIRED TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1998; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 5, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2002; TO FILL THE OFFICE OF JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, CREATED IN THE 1995-96 APPROPRIATIONS ACT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2002; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION, SEAT 6, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1996.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.
S. 1107 -- Senator Matthews: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO OFFER THE CONGRATULATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ONE OF THE STATE'S MOST PROMINENT COLLEGE PRESIDENTS, DR. LEONARD E. DAWSON, UPON TEN YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP AT VOORHEES COLLEGE.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.
H. 3858 -- Reps. Bailey, Rice, Baxley, Limbaugh, Simrill, Clyburn, Mason, Jennings, H. Brown, Moody-Lawrence, Wofford, A. Young, Shissias, Hutson, Dantzler, Williams, Stille, Boan, Law, Rhoad, Davenport, Kirsh, Littlejohn, J. Harris, Wright, Harrell and Riser: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-1333 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE FAMILY COURT TO SUSPEND OR RESTRICT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OF A CHILD ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT OR FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT OR IN VIOLATION OF A TERM OR CONDITION OF PAROLE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
H. 4523 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FINANCE COMMISSION, RELATING TO CATEGORICALLY NEEDY ELIGIBLE GROUPS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1865, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Read the first time and referred to the General Committee.
H. 4524 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO RETAIL FOOD STORE, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1900, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.
S. 189 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-335 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CANDIDATES' NAMES IN CERTAIN ELECTIONS BE ARRANGED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-610, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO BALLOT SPECIFICATIONS IN PARTY PRIMARIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE BALLOT MUST CONTAIN THE NAMES OF PERSONS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
The House returned the Bill with amendments.
On motion of Senator ROSE, the Senate concurred in the House amendments and a message was sent to the House accordingly. Ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for Ratification.
S. 1024 -- Senators Lander and Giese: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1996, AS "DISABILITIES DAY", TO ENDORSE THE "B.A.C. - COFFEE DAY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES" PROJECT AND OTHER OUTSTANDING PROGRAMS OF THE EASTER SEAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A JOINT SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1996, AT WHICH TIME THE STATE EASTER SEAL REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR PARENTS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Returned with concurrence.
Received as information.
S. 1085 -- Senators Wilson, Alexander, Boan, Bryan, Cork, Courson, Courtney, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Ford, Giese, Glover, Gregory, Hayes, Holland, Jackson, Land, Lander, Leatherman, Leventis, Martin, Matthews, McConnell, McGill, Mescher, Moore, O'Dell, Passailaigue, Patterson, Peeler, Rankin, Reese, Richter, Rose, Russell, Ryberg, Saleeby, Setzler, Short, Greg Smith, J. Verne Smith, Thomas, Waldrep and Washington: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO CURRENT AND FORMER MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION UPON THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS CREATION.
Returned with concurrence.
Received as information.
S. 1086 -- Senators Glover, Jackson, Alexander, Boan, Bryan, Cork, Courson, Courtney, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Ford, Giese, Gregory, Hayes, Holland, Land, Lander, Leatherman, Leventis, Martin, Matthews, McConnell, McGill, Mescher, Moore, O'Dell, Passailaigue, Patterson, Peeler, Rankin, Reese, Richter, Rose, Russell, Ryberg, Saleeby, Setzler, Short, Greg Smith, J. Verne Smith, Thomas, Waldrep, Washington and Wilson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION IN REMEMBRANCE OF RONALD E. MCNAIR AND THE SIX OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CHALLENGER SPACE SHUTTLE CREW, ON THE OCCASION OF THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TRAGIC EXPLOSION OF THE CHALLENGER SPACE SHUTTLE.
Returned with concurrence.
Received as information.
S. 1087 -- Senator Passailaigue: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, ON THE OCCASION OF ITS ONE HUNDRED FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY, FEBRUARY 18, 1996.
Returned with concurrence.
Received as information.
S. 1095 -- Senator O'Dell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE APPRECIATION AND ADMIRATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE OUTSTANDING AND DISTINGUISHED SERVICE OF DR. E. F. MATHIS, SR. UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT FROM MT. ZION BAPTIST CHURCH AND TO WISH HIM MANY HAPPY AND FULFILLING YEARS.
Returned with concurrence.
Received as information.
S. 1096 -- Senator Richter: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND EXTEND THE HEARTFELT APPRECIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO MS. BIRDIE LEWIS SANDERS FOR HER DEDICATION TO THE CHILDREN OF CHARLESTON COUNTY DURING HER MANY YEARS IN THE CLASSROOM.
Returned with concurrence.
Received as information.
Pursuant to an invitation the Honorable Speaker and House of Representatives appeared in the Senate Chamber at 12:30 P.M. and the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were ratified:
(R220) S. 251 -- Senators Hayes and Rose: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 36, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 4A, SO AS TO ENACT PROVISIONS OF LAW GOVERNING FUNDS TRANSFERS AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES INVOLVED IN FUNDS TRANSFERS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 36-1-105, RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, SO AS TO INCLUDE REFERENCES TO PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO FUNDS TRANSFERS.
(R221) S. 641 -- Senator Williams: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-5-150, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CLOSING OF REGISTRATION BOOKS BEFORE ELECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PERSON ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER WHO HAS BEEN DISCHARGED OR SEPARATED FROM HIS SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND RETURNED HOME TOO LATE TO REGISTER AT THE TIME WHEN REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED, IS ENTITLED TO REGISTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING IN THE NEXT ENSUING ELECTION AFTER THE DISCHARGE OR SEPARATION FROM SERVICE, UP TO 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION, PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND THE ISSUANCE OF THE REGISTRATION NOTIFICATION STATING THE PRECINCT IN WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO VOTE, AND A CERTIFICATION TO THE MANAGERS OF THE PRECINCT THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO VOTE AND PLACED ON THE REGISTRATION ROLLS OF THE PRECINCT; TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-175, RELATING TO THE CONSTRUING OF ARTICLE 3 OF CHAPTER 15, SO AS NOT TO ALLOW REGISTRATION AFTER THE REGISTRATION BOOKS HAVE BEEN CLOSED, SO AS TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE EXCEPTION UNDER SECTION 5-7-150; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-5-220, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT REGISTRATION MADE THIRTY DAYS OR LESS BEFORE AN ELECTION IS NOT VALID FOR THAT ELECTION, SO AS TO INCLUDE AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 7-5-150.
(R222) S. 730 -- Senator Moore: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 40-47-510, 40-47-530, AND 40-47-655, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, ALL RELATING TO THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITIES FOR RESPIRATORY THERAPY AND CARE, SCHOOLS, AND PROGRAMS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THESE AUTHORITIES MAY BE THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OR A SUCCESSOR AUTHORITY RECOGNIZED BY THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS.
(R223) S. 731 -- Senator Moore: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-45-130, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXAMINATION OF PHYSICAL THERAPISTS, SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE PASSING SCORE FOR EXAMINATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-45-80, RELATING TO REVENUE AND INCOME OF THE BOARD OF PHYSICAL THERAPY EXAMINERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL FEES OTHER THAN EXAMINATION FEES MUST BE REMITTED TO THE STATE TREASURER AND TO ESTABLISH FEES FOR VARIOUS SERVICES.
(R224) S. 759 -- Senator Moore: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-36-150, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST LICENSURE AND USE OF THAT TITLE, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS REGARDING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF LICENSURE TO FOREIGN TRAINED PERSONS.
(R225) S. 771 -- Senators Holland and Williams: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-11-15, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN AS A CANDIDATE IN GENERAL ELECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL CANDIDATES, EXCEPT FOR PETITION CANDIDATES, MUST FILE THEIR STATEMENTS OF INTENTION OF CANDIDACY BETWEEN THE SIXTEENTH OF MARCH AND THE THIRTIETH OF MARCH, TO PROVIDE THAT CANDIDATES SEEKING NOMINATION FOR THE OFFICE OF STATE SENATE OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MUST FILE THEIR STATEMENTS OF INTENTION OF CANDIDACY WITH THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN THEIR COUNTY OF RESIDENCE, WHICH MUST IN TURN TRANSMIT THESE STATEMENTS TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE PARTY, AND TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO PETITION CANDIDATES; TO AMEND SECTION 7-11-210, RELATING TO NOTICE OF CANDIDACY AND PLEDGE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL CANDIDATES UNDER THIS SECTION MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OR PLEDGE NO LATER THAN THE THIRTIETH OF MARCH; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTIFICATION OF CANDIDATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTIFICATION OF THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES TO BE PLACED ON PRIMARY BALLOTS MUST BE MADE NOT LATER THAN TWELVE O'CLOCK NOON ON APRIL NINTH; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-190, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO FILL VACANCIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FILING FOR PETITION CANDIDATES MUST OPEN AT NOON ON THE ELEVENTH TUESDAY AFTER THE VACANCY OCCURS FOR A PERIOD TO CLOSE SEVEN DAYS LATER AT NOON.
(R226) S. 772 -- Senators Holland and Williams: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-15-420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RECEIPT, TABULATION, AND REPORTING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE POLL MANAGERS TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF REMOVING THE BALLOTS FROM THE ENVELOPES MARKED "BALLOT HEREIN" AFTER EXAMINING THE RETURN-ADDRESSED ENVELOPES AT 2:00 P.M., AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT THE COUNTING, TABULATION, AND REPORTING OF THESE BALLOTS SHALL NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE POLLS HAVE CLOSED.
(R227) S. 879 -- Senators Martin and Alexander: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-450, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE VOTING PRECINCTS FOR PICKENS COUNTY, SO AS TO CONSOLIDATE THE UNIVERSITY PRECINCT AND THE FORT HILL PRECINCT IN PICKENS COUNTY INTO A SINGLE PRECINCT ENTITLED THE "FORT HILL" PRECINCT AND REVISE THE DATE OF THE OFFICIAL MAP ON WHICH THE LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED.
(R228) S. 906 -- Senator Land: AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT LOCATED IN CLARENDON COUNTY SERVING AS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF A VOCATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD SHALL SERVE AS A VOTING MEMBER OF SUCH BOARD.
(R229) S. 1042 -- Senator Bryan: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 779 OF 1988, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LAURENS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 55, SO AS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ELECTION TO ELECT A SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE IN ELECTION DISTRICTS 2, 4, AND 6 OF LAURENS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 55 FROM THE FIRST TUESDAY IN MARCH, 1996, TO THE FIRST TUESDAY IN MARCH, 1997.
(R230) H. 3161 -- Rep. Littlejohn: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 388 OF 1969, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE GLENDALE AREA FIRE DISTRICT IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE BOARD OF FIRE CONTROL FROM THREE TO FIVE.
(R231) H. 3751 -- Reps. Sandifer, R. Smith, Herdklotz, Sheheen, Sharpe, Jaskwhich, Fair, Simrill, Mason, Littlejohn, Cain, Hallman, Whatley, S. Whipper, Vaughn, Easterday, Trotter, Huff, Rice, Keyserling, Limehouse, Allison, Wells, D. Smith, Kinon, Seithel, Fleming, Robinson, Marchbanks, Witherspoon, Meacham, Cromer, Davenport, Lanford, Cato, Tripp, Boan, Martin, J. Young, Askins, G. Brown, Tucker, Haskins and Harwell: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-43-165 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE ONE-TIME TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION BETWEEN PHARMACIES IN THIS STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPENSING ONE REFILL ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
(R232) H. 4037 -- Rep. Boan: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-11-730, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENTITIES WHOSE EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE PLANS, SO AS TO ADD, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, FORMER MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SERVED AT LEAST TWELVE YEARS AND TO REQUIRE THESE MEMBERS TO PAY THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE PLAN.
(R233) H. 4217 -- Reps. Baxley, J. Harris, Jennings and Neilson: AN ACT TO REPEAL ACT 467 OF 1969 RELATING TO EXTENDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE TOWN OF JEFFERSON IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY TO INCLUDE CERTAIN AREAS OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF JEFFERSON.
(R234) H. 4397 -- Reps. Wilkins, Huff, Sharpe, H. Brown, D. Smith, Cato, Townsend, Haskins, J. Brown, Littlejohn, Herdklotz, Hutson, J. Young, Jennings, Simrill, Bailey, Harrell, Allison, Law, Walker, Gamble and Richardson: AN ACT ENACTING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER ACT OF 1996, BY AMENDING THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 12-6-3480, 38-7-190, 12-10-45, AND 12-20-105 SO AS TO ALLOW CERTAIN INCOME TAX CREDITS TO BE APPLIED AGAINST INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX LIABILITIES AND VICE VERSA, TO ALLOW CERTAIN INCOME TAX CREDITS TO BE APPLIED AGAINST CORPORATE LICENSE FEES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ENTERPRISE ZONES IN THE CASE OF PROJECTS OF QUALIFYING TIRE MANUFACTURERS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3360, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TARGETED JOBS TAX CREDIT, SO AS TO EXTEND THE TAX CREDIT CARRY FORWARD PERIOD FROM TEN TO FIFTEEN YEARS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-10-70, RELATING TO ADDITIONAL TAX CREDITS ALLOWED IN ENTERPRISE ZONES AND OTHER SITUATIONS RELATED TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS, SO AS TO EXTEND THESE PROVISIONS TO QUALIFYING TIRE MANUFACTURERS AND ALLOW THE QUALIFICATION OF A PERCENTAGE OF TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES AS NEW EMPLOYEES IN THE CASE OF AN ELIGIBLE TIRE MANUFACTURER; TO AMEND SECTION 12-10-80, RELATING TO THE JOB DEVELOPMENT FEES ALLOWED QUALIFYING BUSINESSES, SO AS TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF THE FEES IN THE EVENT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH JOB DEVELOPMENT FEES MAY BE EXPENDED; TO AMEND SECTION 12-14-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ZONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1995, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY FOR QUALIFYING FOR THE BENEFITS ALLOWED IN THE ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-2423, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RETENTION OF A PORTION OF ADMISSIONS LICENSE TAXES FOR MAJOR TOURISM OR RECREATION PROJECTS, SO AS TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISION ALLOWING THE RETENTION OF THESE TAX REVENUES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-930, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO VALUATION OF PROPERTY AND ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF PROPERTY TAXATION, SO AS TO ALLOW A HIGHER DEPRECIATION RATE FOR RUBBER PRODUCTS AND ALLOW A LOWER DEPRECIATION LIMIT FOR QUALIFYING TIRE MANUFACTURERS; AND TO PROVIDE THE DUTIES OF THE CODE COMMISSIONER IN THE PREPARATION OF THE CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 12-10-70 AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT.
(R235) H. 4442 -- Reps. Vaughn, McMahand, Cato, Rice, Anderson, Herdklotz, Tripp, Haskins, Wilkins, Easterday and Jaskwhich: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAY OF AUGUST 28, 1995, MISSED BY THE STUDENTS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY WHEN THE DISTRICT'S SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO RECORD-SETTING RAINS, HEAVY FLOODING, AND CLOSED ROADS IS EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.
(R236) H. 4455 -- Rep. Delleney: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-170, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS AND PLACES IN CHESTER COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE POLLING PLACE IN THE EDGEMOOR PRECINCT FROM THE OLD EDGEMOOR SCHOOLHOUSE TO THE EDGEMOOR COMMUNITY PARK.
(R237) H. 4473 -- Reps. Littlejohn, Wells, Wilder, Walker, Davenport, Lanford, Allison, Lee, Vaughn and D. Smith: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 879 OF 1960, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE CROFT FIRE DISTRICT IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE BOARD OF FIRE CONTROL FROM THREE TO FIVE AND DECREASE FROM SIX TO FOUR YEARS THE LENGTH OF THE TERM OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
(R238) H. 4491 -- Reps. Phillips and McCraw: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAYS OF JANUARY 10, 11, AND 12, 1996, MISSED BY STUDENTS OF CHEROKEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 IN CHEROKEE COUNTY FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 WHEN THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO SNOW AND ICE CONDITIONS ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.
The following House Bills were read the third time and ordered returned to the House with amendments:
H. 3132 -- Reps. Hodges, Kirsh, Inabinett, Jennings, Richardson and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-250, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO ARE DRAWN AND SERVE AS JURORS, SO AS TO PERMIT A PERSON WHOSE NAME HAS BEEN PROPERLY DRAWN TO SERVE MORE THAN ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS.
Senator PEELER asked unanimous consent to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.
There was no objection.
H. 3486 -- Reps. Tripp, Cromer, Sandifer, Cobb-Hunter, Baxley, Kennedy, Wright, Tucker, Bailey, Stille, Littlejohn, Robinson, Richardson, Huff, Lanford, Wilder, Jaskwhich, Shissias, Vaughn, Simrill, Wells, Trotter, Whatley, Stuart, Rhoad, Govan, Easterday, Seithel, Allison, D. Smith, Cotty, Gamble, Limehouse, A. Young, Koon, J. Harris, Harrison, Fleming, Harvin, Mason, Kirsh, Rice, Marchbanks, Carnell, Meacham, Haskins, Harrell, Cain and Jennings: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DRAWING AND UTTERING OF FRAUDULENT CHECKS, DRAFTS, OR OTHER WRITTEN ORDERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SECTION DOES APPLY TO ANY CHECK GIVEN IN FULL OR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF A PREEXISTING DEBT WHICH RESULTED FROM A REVOLVING CREDIT ACCOUNT.
The following Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:
S. 1084 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 61, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BEER, WINE, ALCOHOL, AND ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS, SO AS TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CHANGES.
S. 606 -- Senator Short: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 59, CHAPTER 65, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ATTENDANCE OF PUPILS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 SO AS TO ENACT THE SCHOOL HEALTH ACT OF 1995 SO AS TO REQUIRE PRE-SCHOOL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AS A PREREQUISITE TO ATTENDING KINDERGARTEN OR FIRST GRADE AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS; AND TO AMEND TITLE 20, CHAPTER 7, RELATING TO THE CHILDREN'S CODE, BY ADDING ARTICLE 28 SO AS TO DIRECT EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO CONVENE A SCHOOL HEALTH PLANNING COMMITTEE TO ASSESS THE HEALTH STATUS OF CHILDREN AND TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH SERVICES PROGRAM TO COMPLEMENT EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED FOR STUDENTS AT THE OPTION OF THE PARENTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS, AND BILLING AND PROGRAM REVIEW PROCEDURES.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Education.
The Education Committee proposed the following amendment (S-EDUC\amend\606.01), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, on page 4, line 31 by striking /minimum must/ and inserting:
/minimum, when possible, should/.
Amend title to conform.
Senator SHORT explained the amendment and the Bill.
Senator SHORT spoke on the Bill.
Senator BRYAN asked unanimous consent to make a motion to set the Bill as a Special Order.
There was no objection and the Bill was made a Special Order.
THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.
S. 1019 -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-215 SO AS TO PROHIBIT A HEALTH BENEFIT POLICY FROM REQUIRING AS A CONDITION FOR THE COVERAGE OF DERMATOLOGICAL SERVICES THAT THE INSURED FIRST OBTAIN A REFERRAL FROM A PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN.
Senator McCONNELL moved to recall the Bill from the Committee on Medical Affairs.
There was no objection.
On motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, the Bill was committed to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.
On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Senate agreed to dispense with the Motion Period.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE ADJOURNED DEBATES.
H. 4138 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-145 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUING AUTHORITY TO PAY THE EXPENSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT WHEN A FISCAL YEAR BEGINS WITHOUT A GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR THE YEAR IN EFFECT.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.
On motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Bill was carried over.
S. 66 -- Senators McConnell, Rose and Leventis: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, TITLE 6, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BUILDING CODES, SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE CODES, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES MUST ADOPT AND ENFORCE SUCH CODES, REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BUILDING CODES COUNCIL, REVISE PENALTIES, PROVIDE FOR DUTIES OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL AND DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALS IN REGARD TO THESE CODES, AND PROVIDE FOR LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE CHAPTER; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 6 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR BUILDING CODES ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND FOR THEIR FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND REGISTRATION; AND ADDING SECTION 38-7-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE FIRST TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OF THE PREMIUM TAX LEVIED ON FIRE INSURERS MUST BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE TRAINING, CERTIFICATION, AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR BUILDING CODES ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.
On motion of Senator McCONNELL, the Bill was carried over.
Senator GLOVER rose to a Point of Personal Privilege.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE SPECIAL ORDERS.
H. 3651 -- Rep. H. Brown: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-330 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE STATE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FUND AND REQUIRE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE FUND; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-37-251 SO AS TO ALLOW A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXES OTHER THAN THOSE LEVIED FOR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS EQUAL TO TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE ESCALATING, DEPENDING ON REVENUES IN THE STATE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FUND TO A COMPLETE EXEMPTION FROM ALL TAXES EXCEPT THOSE LEVIED FOR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-217 SO AS TO REQUIRE TRIENNIAL REASSESSMENT; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 4-9-142, 5-21-70, 6-1-75, AND 59-73-35 SO AS TO IMPOSE SPENDING LIMITS ON COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS AND IMPOSE AN AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE LIMITATION ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-350 SO AS TO PROVIDE A STANDARDIZED TAX BILL; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 6-1-60 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETING.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment (JIC\5990HTC.95) previously proposed on May 11, 1995, by Senators LEATHERMAN, DRUMMOND, J. VERNE SMITH and JACKSON.
On motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Bill was carried over.
On motion of Senator HAYES, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. Lindsay Waldrop of Rock Hill, S.C.
At 1:05 P.M., on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:57 P.M.