SENATE JOURNAL - www.scstatehouse.net

South Carolina General Assembly
117th Session, 2007-2008
Journal of the Senate

NO. 68

JOURNAL

OF THE

SENATE

OF THE

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

REGULAR SESSION BEGINNING TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2008

_________

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 2008

Friday, May 2, 2008
(Local Session)

~~Indicates Matter Stricken~~
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator JACKSON.

HOUSE BILLS RETURNED

The following House Bills were read the third time and ordered returned to the House with amendments:

H. 4876 (Word version) -- Reps. Cooper and Cotty: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, TO COMPLY WITH VARIOUS QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND TO PROVIDE FOR QUALIFIED EXCESS BENEFIT ARRANGEMENTS.
(Abbreviated title)

By prior motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, with unanimous consent

H. 3084 (Word version) -- Reps. Clemmons and Witherspoon: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF TERMS CONTAINED IN CERTAIN PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS, AND WHOLESALERS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS "MANUFACTURER", "DEALERSHIP FACILITIES", "FRANCHISE", AND "DEALER", AND TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERMS "MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP" AND "DEPARTMENT"; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-40, RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE A MANUFACTURER WHO SEEKS TO ENTER INTO A FRANCHISE ESTABLISHING AN ADDITIONAL NEW MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP OR RELOCATING AN EXISTING NEW MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP IN A RELEVANT MARKET AREA WHERE THIS LINE MAKE IS REPRESENTED MUST FOLLOW, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXISTING PROCEDURE AND ESTABLISH A NEW PROCEDURE; TO ADD SECTION 56-16-45 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES TO OWN, OPERATE, OR CONTROL A MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP OR TO ESTABLISH AN ADDITIONAL DEALER OR MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES TO COMPETE UNFAIRLY WITH A MOTORCYCLE DEALER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES TO OWN A FACILITY THAT ENGAGES PRIMARILY IN THE REPAIR OF MOTORCYCLES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-50, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF A MOTORCYCLE DEALER UPON TERMINATION, NONRENEWAL, OR CANCELLATION OF A FRANCHISE BY A MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE, TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 56-16-45 ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROVISION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MOTORCYCLE DEALER MUST BE COMPENSATED FOR THE REASONABLE GOOD WILL FOR THE FRANCHISE, AND TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DEALER MAY BE COMPENSATED; TO ADD SECTION 56-16-85 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS, AND WHOLESALERS APPLY TO ALL WRITTEN AND ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN A MANUFACTURER, FACTORY BRANCH, DISTRIBUTOR BRANCH, DISTRIBUTOR, WHOLESALER, OR FRANCHISOR WITH A MOTORCYCLE DEALER; TO ADD SECTION 56-16-86 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A DEALERSHIP MAY CONTRACT WITH AN ON-LINE ELECTRONIC SERVICE TO PROVIDE MOTORCYCLES TO CONSUMERS IN THIS STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-100, RELATING TO CERTAIN PRACTICES ENGAGED IN BY A MANUFACTURER, FACTORY BRANCH, FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE, OR MOTORCYCLE DEALER WHICH ARE UNLAWFUL, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROVISION ALSO APPLIES TO WHOLESALERS AND WHOLESALER REPRESENTATIVES, TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES, AND TO PROVIDE THE STANDARD OF PROOF THAT A MANUFACTURER MUST BEAR IN A PROCEEDING THAT ARISES PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-200, RELATING TO RELIEF AVAILABLE TO PERSONS INJURED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND TO PROVIDE THAT PUNITIVE DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED IF A DEFENDANT HAS ACTED IN BAD FAITH; TO ADD SECTION 56-16-205 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION THAT ARISES OUT OF A PROVISION RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS, AND WHOLESALERS; TO AMEND SECTION 56-16-210, RELATING TO CONTRACTS THAT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS, AND WHOLESALERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS STATE'S LAW APPLIES TO ANY FRANCHISE FOR A DEALERSHIP LOCATED IN THIS STATE, AND THAT VENUE IS IN THIS STATE FOR AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THESE PROVISIONS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 56-16-70, RELATING TO A DEALER'S VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION, NONRENEWAL, OR TERMINATION OF A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.

By prior motion of Senator GROOMS, with unanimous consent

THIRD READING BILLS

The following Bills were read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 252 (Word version) -- Senator Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-3-155 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVISIONS OF LAW REQUIRING THE CESSATION OF ALIMONY AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT UPON THE REMARRIAGE OF THE SUPPORTED SPOUSE, A REMARRIAGE OF THE SUPPORTED SPOUSE WHICH IS LATER ANNULLED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SHALL CAUSE THE CESSATION OF ALIMONY OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT; TO PROVIDE THAT PARTIES MAY ENTER INTO A CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT CONTRARY TO THIS SECTION; AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM AN ORDER TO PAY ALIMONY OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT IF THE ORDER REINSTATED ALIMONY OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT TO A FORMER SPOUSE WHOSE REMARRIAGE WAS LATER ANNULLED.

By prior motion of Senator KNOTTS, with unanimous consent

S. 617 (Word version) -- Senators Fair and Verdin: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 56 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO DRIVER'S LICENSES, BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-186, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO OPERATES A MOTOR VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 56-1-50, 56-1-175, OR 56-1-180 IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND MUST BE FINED NOT MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS, THE COURT MAY SUSPEND ALL OR PART OF THE SENTENCE CONDITIONED UPON THE OFFENDER COMPLETING, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT, COMMUNITY SERVICE, PUBLIC SERVICE, OR A SAFE DRIVING COURSE, TO PROVIDE ENHANCED PENALTIES IF GREAT BODILY INJURY RESULTED FROM AN ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A VIOLATION OF THE RESTRICTIONS; AND TO ADD SECTION 56-1-187, TO PROVIDE THAT A PARENT OR GUARDIAN MAY NOT KNOWINGLY PERMIT HIS DEPENDENT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF HIS DEPENDENT'S DRIVER'S LICENSE RESTRICTIONS OR TO KNOWINGLY PERMIT HIS DEPENDENT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR A VIOLATION.

By prior motion of Senator MALLOY, with unanimous consent

S. 1129 (Word version) -- Senators Thomas, Jackson, Lourie, Ford and Reese: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 60 TO TITLE 38 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA HEALTHNET PROGRAM"; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF A FIVE-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE THE AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE TO EMPLOYEES REGARDLESS OF HEALTH STATUS OR CLAIMS EXPERIENCE, PREVENT ABUSIVE RATING PRACTICES AND REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF RATING PRACTICES TO PURCHASERS, ESTABLISH RULES REGARDING RENEWAL OF COVERAGE, LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF PREEXISTING CONDITIONS EXCLUSIONS, ASSURE FAIR ACCESS TO HEALTH PLANS AND IMPROVE OVERALL FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET; TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPOSITION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; TO PROVIDE FAIR MARKETING STANDARDS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA FOR PLAN ADMINISTRATION IN THE PLAN OF OPERATION; TO PROVIDE FOR RATES; TO PROVIDE FOR PROVIDER PARTICIPATION; TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE OF THE CHAPTER; TO PROVIDE THAT HEALTH INSURERS SHALL OFFER AND MARKET PLANS DEVELOPED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA HEALTHNET PROGRAM WHO ARE ELIGIBLE; TO PROVIDE FOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN STANDARDS AND PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION; TO PROVIDE FOR ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS; TO PROVIDE FOR TERMINATION AND NONRENEWAL OF COVERAGE; TO PROVIDE FOR LOSS DATA TO BE REPORTED TO THE PROGRAM; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 60, TITLE 38 ADDED BY THIS ACT.

By prior motion of Senators MALLOY and THOMAS, with unanimous consent

REPORT RECEIVED
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications

Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, May 1, 2008
Date and Time Final Report Issued: 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 12:00 Noon.

Judicial Merit Selection Commission

Rep. F.G. Delleney , Jr., Chairman Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel
Sen. James H. Ritchie, Jr., V-Chairman
Sen. Robert Ford Bradley S. Wright
John P. Freeman Patrick G. Dennis
John Davis Harrell Bonnie B. Goldsmith
Sen. John M. "Jake" Knotts, Jr. Jennifer Parrish Robinson
Amy Johnson McLester House of Representatives Counsel
H. Donald Sellers Post Office Box 142 J.J. Gentry
Rep. Doug Smith Columbia, South Carolina 29202 S. Phillip Lenski
Rep. Fletcher N. Smith, Jr. (803) 212-6092 Senate Counsel

May 1, 2008

Dear Members of the General Assembly:

Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications. This Report is designed to assist you in determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found all candidates discussed in this Report to be qualified.

The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified means that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office and the Commission's evaluative criteria. The attached Report details each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria.

Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. Members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate's qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. In sum, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or by writing, communicate about a candidate's candidacy until the time designated after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's Report of Candidate Qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact Jane Shuler, Chief Counsel, (T-Th) at 212-6629.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
F. G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
James H. Ritchie, Jr., Vice-Chairman

Judicial Merit Selection Commission

May 1, 2008

Members of the South Carolina General Assembly
South Carolina State House
Columbia, South Carolina

Dear Fellow Members:

This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate's contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate's behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Spring 2008 screening.

Section 2-19-70(C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (Commission). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-70(C) provides that "the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate's qualifications" (emphasis added). Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding their candidacy; please note that six members of the Commission also are legislators.

In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the 48-hour period expires following the release of the Commission's report. The Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours have expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates' qualifications.

The Commission would again like to remind members of the General Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense and must be considered when determining a candidate's fitness for judicial office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Jane O. Shuler, Chief Counsel to the Commission, (T-Th) at 212-6629.

Sincerely,
F.G. Delleney, Jr. James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Chairman Vice-Chairman

INTRODUCTION

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law that went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission 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 he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.

The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experiences (lawyers, teachers, businessmen, bankers, and advocates for various organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications, ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, physical health, mental health, and judicial temperament. The Commission'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 Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission 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 as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact a candidate's fitness for judicial service.

The Commission 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.

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the Canons, etc. is his or her completed and sworn questionnaire.

Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities 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.

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

John D. Geathers
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Geathers meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Geathers was born in 1961. He is 47 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Geathers provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986, and a licensed attorney in North Carolina since 1994.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Geathers.
Judge Geathers demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Geathers reported that he has made $25 in campaign expenditures for copying.
Judge Geathers testified 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;

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Geathers testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Geathers to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Geathers described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) 2002: Masters in Trial; Tips From Bench II;

(b) 2003: The CON Contested Case; Writing Credit: 'The Matter Does Not Appear to Me As It Appears To Have Appeared To Me Then,' 15-Nov S.C. Law 27; 'An Inglorious Fiction: The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina,'18 Wis. Women's L.J. 233;

(d) 2005: Fourth Circuit Update; Barnes Symposium on Religion; Workers Comp Update; Tort Law Update;

(e) 2006: Writing Credit: John D. Geathers & Justin R. Werner, The Regulation of Alcoholic Beverages in South Carolina (2007);

(f) 2007: Writing Credit: John D. Geathers & Justin R. Werner, The Regulation;

(g) Alcoholic Beverages in South Carolina (2007); Ethics Course of Prof. Dershowitz and Ethics in the Electronic Age."
Judge Geathers reported that he has taught the following law-related courses: "Lectured at CLE: Appellate Practice in SC, April 30, 1999. Lectured at CLE: The CON Contested Case, May 2, 2003; Lectured for SC Environmental Class, USC Law School, Jan. 28, 2003 and Jan. 16, 2004; Lectured at Bridge The Gap, May 2005."
Judge Geathers reported that he has published the following:

"(a) John D. Geathers & Justin R. Werner, The Regulation Of Alcoholic Beverages in South Carolina (2007);

(b) John D. Geathers, 'The Matter Does Not Appear to Me Now as It Appears to Have Appeared to Me Then': Motions for Reconsideration Before the ALJ Division, S.C. LAW, Nov. 2002, at 27;

(c) John D. Geathers and Justin R. Werner, 'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina, 18 WIS. WOMEN'S L.J. 233 (2003);

(d) John D. Geathers and Justin R. Werner, 'An Inglorious Fiction': The Doctrine of Matrimonial Domicile in South Carolina, S.C. TRIAL LAW. BULL., Fall 2003, at 14 (Adaptation from article cited above)."
(4) Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Geathers did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Geathers did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Geathers has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Geathers was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Geathers reported that prior to his service on the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Geathers appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Geathers appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Geathers was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I was employed for approximately eight months as the OSHA attorney for the South Carolina Department of Labor upon graduation from law school in 1986. I resigned from the Department to accept employment with the Office of Senate Research of the South Carolina Senate, where I became Senior Staff Counsel. Upon being elected to the Administrative Law Court in 1994, I subsequently resigned from employment with the Senate. I have served as an ALJ for the last twelve years."

Judge Geathers further reported:

"I am in my third term as an Administrative Law Judge. As a judge, I preside over and render final written decisions in cases of both complexity and simplicity, cases with millions of dollars at stake and those impacting few dollars, and trials litigated by skillful counsel and those pressed by pro se individuals. I preside over administrative hearings which are virtually identical to civil bench trials in terms of procedure, evidentiary rules and protocol, and finality of decision.

I am responsible for hearing a broad range of contested and appellate cases from at least eighteen state agencies and governmental entities, with several of these presenting multiple types of cases. Selected examples include wage disputes, injunctive relief hearings, certificate of need cases, environmental and health permitting cases, state and county tax matters, appellate cases from thirty-seven professional licensing boards, and inmate grievances, probation, parole disputes, and motor vehicle DUI cases. With regard to the inmate cases, the matters involve conditions of confinement and sentence calculations; as to probation and parole cases, the matters involve eligibility disputes; and as to DMV cases, the matters involve the suspension of driver's licenses for DUI .

While I have not presided over any criminal or civil cases, in my current capacity, I have monitored pretrial discovery, imposed and enforced scheduling orders, and conducted administrative trials from opening to closing arguments, while applying evidentiary and procedural rules and ruling on various motions raised before, during and after trial. Further, in my capacity as an ALJ, I apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in contested case matters and the substantial evidence test in appellate cases that come before me-the same standards of review employed by the Court of Appeals. I believe my experience as an Administrative Law Judge, especially the extensive writing responsibilities and the appellate adjudications, will translate well on the Court of Appeals. Also, to prepare for the transition, I have reacquainted myself with and expanded my knowledge of the civil and criminal law by reviewing the leading treatises in these areas, civil and criminal rules of procedure, appellate rules of practice, and advance sheets published over the last year."
Judge Geathers reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the bench as follows:

Judge Geathers provided the following with regard to his service as co-counsel, lead counsel, or sole counsel prior to his election to the bench:

Judge Geathers provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) Marlboro Park Hosp. v. SC Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, Nos. 98-ALJ-07-0734-CC & 98-ALJ-07-0735-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. July 27, 2000), aff'd, 358S.C. 573, 595 S.E.2d 851 (Ct. App. 2004) (in presiding over a contested case, the ALJ conducts a de novo hearing with the presentation of testimony and evidence and issues a decision with detailed findings of fact supporting the decision);

(b) The Ocean Course Golf Club, Ltd. v. Charleston County Assessor, No. 03-ALJ-17-0471-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Court Jan. 2005) (personal property and income derived there from must be excluded from real estate valuation of golf course property for ad valorem tax purposes), cited in Findings of 2005 Act 149, S589;

(c) Sierra Club v. SC Dep't of Health & Envt'l. Control and Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC, No. 04-ALJ-07-0126-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Court Oct. 20005) (decision to renew Radioactive Material License for the operation of the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in Barnwell);

(d) Macalloy Corporation v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, No. 01-ALJ-07-0099-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. Oct. 30 2001) (petitioner operated a ferrochromium alloy smelting facility until 1998; insufficient evidence to sustain regulatory Emergency order prohibiting the harvesting of shellfish in Shipyard Creek, as scientific evidence militated a contrary result);

(e) Lexington County Health Services District, Inc., d/b/a Lexington Medical Center v. S.C. Health & Envtl. Control Sisters of Charity Providence Hospital and Palmetto Health Alliance, Palmetto Health Richland, No. 04-AlJ-07-0365-CC (S.C. Admin. Law Judge Div. Sept. 15 2006) (petitioner challenged the denial of its Certificate of Need application for the development of an open-heart surgery program and therapeutic cardiac catheterization program)."

Judge Geathers further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies: "Most recently, I was qualified and nominated for election to the Court of Appeals by the Commission for the judicial elections held on February 6, 2008. I withdrew my candidacy. Also, I was qualified and nominated for election to the circuit court in 2006. I withdrew my candidacy. I was also qualified for the circuit court on another occasion."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Geathers' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Geathers to be "a very highly qualified and most outstanding regarded candidate, who would ably serve on the Court of Appeals bench."
Judge Geathers is married to Doris W. Geathers. He has two children.
Judge Geathers reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar (admitted 1986);

(b) North Carolina Bar (admitted 1992);

The Commission commented that Judge Geathers is an exceptional candidate who would bring honor and dignity to the bench. They noted his strong academic ability as evidenced by his outstanding performance on the Commission's Practice and Procedure exam. They further noted that his professional demeanor and respect for the legal system and litigants would make him an able appellate court judge.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Geathers qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

Robert N. Jenkins, Sr.
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jenkins meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Jenkins was born in 1947. He is 60 years old and a resident of Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Judge Jenkins provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jenkins.
Judge Jenkins demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Jenkins reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Jenkins testified 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;

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Jenkins testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Jenkins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. However, his performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions did not meet expectations.
Judge Jenkins described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Family Law Part - I 1/24/03;

(b) Family Law Part - II 1/24/03;

(d) 66th Annual Conference 7/20/03;

(e) 2003 Annual Conference 8/07/03;

(f) Judicial Conference 8/21/03;

(g) Family Law Section Meeting 1/23/04;

(h) Family Court Judges Conference 4/28/04;

(i) Judicial Conference 8/19/04;

(j) Judicial Oath of Office 8/19/04;

(k) Advance Family Law 10/24/04;

(l) Family Law Section 1/21/05;

(m) 2005 Family Court Judges 4/27/05;

(n) 68th Annual Conference Update 7/17-20/05;

(o) 2005 Annual Judicial Conference 8/24/05;

(p) South Carolina Family Court Bench 12/2/05;

(q) Family Law Section 1/26/06;

(r) Family Court Judges Conference 4/26/06;

(s) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/06;

(t) South Carolina Family Court Bench 12/01/06;

(u) Family Court Judges Conference 4/26/07;

(v) NCJFCJ 70th Annual Conference 7/23-25/07;

(w) Annual Judicial Conference 8/22/07;

(x) Access to Justice Conference 11/1-3/07;

(y) South Carolina Family Court Bench/Bar 12/7/07."
Judge Jenkins reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have taught the Juvenile Law/Pre-Trial Diversion Course through the sponsorship of the Department of Youth Services and the local Solicitor's Office. It was a ten (10) week course designed to teach juveniles between ages 13-16 responsible civil conduct under the law; giving them exposures through site visits and guest presenters on law enforcement functions, (1986-88). I have served as a presenter for the SBA COMMITTEE for Indigent Representation on the topic of Judicial Responses to PRO SE Representation (1998). I have served as a presenter for the Family Court Judges Conference on topic of Judicial Ethics. (1998). I have served as a CLE presenter for programs sponsored by the S.C. Black Lawyers Association 2001, 2003 and 2006."
Judge Jenkins reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Jenkins did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jenkins did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jenkins has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Jenkins was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Jenkins reported that prior to his service on the bench he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Jenkins reported the following military service:

"8/6 - Reg. Air Force, E-5 (Staff Sergeant) AFXXXXXXXX/SSNXXX-XX-XXXX. In active reserve - 6/69 thru 8/72; Honorable Discharge: 8/72."

Judge Jenkins reported that he has held the following public office:

"(a) 1979-1996 - Director, Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. Appointed through selection by quasi-public Board of Directors;

(b) 1984-86 - State Advisory Committee on Workers Compensation Laws - Appointed by the Governor of South Carolina;

(d) 1991-1996 - The Citadel Board of Visitors - by designation for the State Superintendent of Education;

(e) 1993-1996 - Board of Directors, South Carolina Families for Kids -Appointment by Board of Directors."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Jenkins appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Jenkins appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Jenkins was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"1976-79: Engaged in the active practice of law as a Staff Attorney/Managing Attorney with Legal Services Agency headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina (NLAP, Inc.). Provided direct legal assistance to indigent clients in the areas of Family Law (50%), State/Federal Housing Law (20%), State/Federal Public Benefit Laws (15%), and State/Federal Consumer Law involved in Claim & Delivery and Deficiency Suits (10)%). Other areas of service provided included the preparation of wills and deeds; power of attorneys for clients financial affairs. Yearly caseload exceeded 300 cases. In this position, I also coordinated the expansion of offices to Georgetown, Kingstree and Beaufort Counties. In addition, coordinated the attorneys' weekly office schedule for client intake and served as the office liaison with the local courts. The office yearly caseload exceeded 5,000 cases.

1979-95: Engaged in the active practice of law as an Attorney/Administrator titled: Director/General Counsel for Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc. in Greenville South Carolina. Fifty percent of time was devoted to client practice in association with 13 staff attorneys in the areas of: Family Law Practice (50%), Federal Consumer Law (10%) and other legal services associated with the practice of Poverty Law. I was responsible for the legal services provided through offices located in Greenville, Anderson, and Greenwood, serving those areas and the adjoining counties of Edgefield, McCormick, Abbeville, Oconee and Pickens. The yearly total caseload exceeded 4,000 cases.

Served as legal counsel for numerous local community organizations whose missions are to improve the lives of people in poverty. Examples include: Greenville's Child, Inc., Save Our Sons, Neighborhoods In Action, The Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation, and Brockwood Senior Housing Corporation.

Served as an attorney member on the Kellogg Bar & Bench Sub-Committee of Judicial Administrative Policy, recommending Family Court Rule changes affecting disposition of cases where the State is involved in establishing permanent placement for Foster Care children (1993-on-going).

I was responsible for the hiring and training of all staff attorneys. I was responsible for public relations with the court system and the community. I served as liaison to the local state and national bar associations.

I was responsible for managing a yearly operating budget of over one million dollars and served as the general counsel for the corporation's financial affairs with state/federal government and other regulating bodies."
Judge Jenkins reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: Not frequent;

(b) State: Frequent."
Judge Jenkins reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 65%;

(b) Criminal: 0%;

(c) Domestic: 35%."
Judge Jenkins reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 2%;

(b) Non-jury: 98%."
Judge Jenkins provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Jenkins' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a) Fieldcrest Tenants Association, et al. v. Housing Authority of Greenville, U.S. District Ct., Greenville - 1980. This case involved the prosecution of Due Process rights of public housing tenants against irregular conduct and practices of public housing management in setting improper rent, improper assessments for maintenance repairs and causing wide spread evictions for improper reasons. Prosecuted as a class action, the matter was successfully resolved by court consent in favor of all families living in Greenville Public Housing. It resulted in better management practices which gave proper respect for the leasehold right of public tenants;

(b) John Plumley, et al. v. School District of Greenville and State Board of Education, U.S. 4th Cir. (Unpublished 1982, #81-1894). This case was important because right to attorneys fees by staff lawyers were permitted at reasonable levels where prosecution is successful under Section 1983 of the federal civil statute;

(c) Greenville Housing Auth. v. Jessie Salters, 316 S.E. 2d. 718, 281.SC 608 (S.C. App. 1984). This case is important because it involved preventing a 64 year old lady who lived in public housing all her life from being made homeless by ejectment action of the housing authority based on circumstances beyond her control;

(d) Jenkins, et. al. v. American Modern Homes, et al., 90-10-5549 (Cir. Ct. - Charleston County). This case involved seeking to enforce proper hazard insurance coverage for Hugo related damages against a claim of exclusion due to alleged flood damages. The issues were successfully resolved in clients favor after extensive discovery and trial preparation, thus preventing a homeless outcome for clients. (1990);

(e) Hatchcock and Shuly v.Tammy McKensie, 94-CP-23-1336 (Cir. Ct. - Greenville) on Supersedeas to S.C. Supreme Court. This case involved the enforcement of clients right to continue possession of premises under the HUD Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program against improper ejectment proceeding brought by landlord. The Client's mental condition complicated resolution of the issues (client is covered under the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). Case resolved favorable to interest of client. (1994)."

The following is Judge Jenkins' account of four civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Creel v. Miles, In re: Dianne Mary Miles, Supreme Court unpublished memorandum #79-179. This case involved an unsuccessful attempt to get practical compliance with the ten day hearing rule in cases where a minor has been taken into protective custody through DSS and law enforcement to protect rights of the parent;

(b) Public Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 250 S.E.2d 926, 289 S.C. 153 (1979);

(c) Greenville Housing Auth. v. Jessie Salters, 316 S.E. 2d. 718, 281 SC 608 (S.C. App. 1984). This case is important because it involved preventing a 65 year old lady who lived in public housing all her life from being made homeless by ejectment action of the housing authority based on circumstances beyond her control;

(d) Hatchcock and Shuly v.Tammy McKensie, 94-CP-23-1336 (Cir. Ct. - Greenville) on Supersedeas to S.C. Supreme Court. This case involved the enforcement of clients' right to continue possession of premises under the HUD Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program against improper ejectment proceeding brought by landlord. The Client's mental condition complicated resolution of the issues (client is covered under the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). Case resolved favorable to interest of client. (1994)."

Judge Jenkins reported that he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Jenkins reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"Family Court Judge Seat #5 in the Thirteenth (13th) Judicial Circuit. 1996 - Present. I am now serving as a Circuit Family Court Judge for the 13th Judicial Circuit. My current term is through June 2014. This is a court of limited jurisdiction by statute covering marital litigation, juvenile cases, child dependency cases and all other domestic relations issues."

Judge Jenkins provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) Rourk v. Rourk, 95-DR-95-08-1178 - Charleston.
T.P.R. (Private Action) (Termination of Parental Rights).
The decision disallows termination based on application of S.C. law;

(b) Purdy v. Purdy, (578 S.E.2d. 30, 356 S.C.400 (S.C. App. 2003) Beaufort.

This case involves the issue of whether the Court erred in refusing to terminate the child support obligation of a father where the father claims that his daughter, although less than seventeen, was an emancipated child by other circumstances. The appeals Court affirmed;

This case involves the Court's treatment of equitable division of marital property in a divorce action. It also involved whether some of the property was non-marital. The appeals Court affirmed in part; modified in part; reversed and remanded in part;

(d) SCDSS v. Evans, et al., Greenville 95-DR-23-5300, 97-DR-23-1073.

T.P.R. (Public Action) (Termination of Parental Rights).

The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application;

(e) SCDSS v. Sturkey, et al., Greenville 99-DR-23-258.

T.P.R. (Public Action) (Termination of Parental Rights).

The decision allows termination based on S.C. law application.
S.C. Court of Appeals 4/22/99 - Opinion #99 - affirms."

Judge Jenkins further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) Withdrew after qualified and nominated for Seat #4, SC Court of Appeals-2007; Seat #7 SC Court of Appeals (2007) Qualified, not nominated;

(b) Candidate for Resident Seat #4 Circuit Court of Greenville, Qualified; not recommended - 2004;

(c) Candidate for Judicial Seat #3, Family Court, Greenville County (Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. - January 1992."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Jenkins' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Jenkins to be "a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Jenkins is married to Margaret Helen (Rivers) Jenkins. He has two children.
Judge Jenkins reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(d) South Carolina Black Lawyers Association - member; served as its Treasurer 1976-1980;

(e) Greenville Bar Association."
Judge Jenkins provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) South Carolina Family Court Judges Association;

(d) South Carolina Black Lawyers Association - member; served as its Treasurer 1976-1980;

(e) Greenville Bar Association."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented on Judge Jenkins' extensive public service through his work at Legal Services and his twelve years as a Family Court judge. They noted that Judge Jenkins would bring a diverse legal background to the Court of Appeals. They further noted that he is known as a very hard working and caring judge, which would benefit him on the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Jenkins qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

Alison Renee Lee
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Lee was born in 1958. She is 49 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Lee provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984. Judge Lee was admitted to practice in Texas and Louisiana in 1982 and 1983 respectively. She is on inactive status in those two states.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Lee.
Judge Lee demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Lee reported that she has spent $10.70 for stationery on campaign expenditures.
Judge Lee testified 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;

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Lee testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Lee to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Lee described her past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/21/03;

(b) Criminal Law Update 01/21/03;

(d) Class Actions 10/21/03;

(e) Women Lawyers in the New Millennium 04/11/03;

(f) S.C. Circuit Judges Conference 05/07/03;

(g) S.C. Judicial Conference 08/21/03;

(h) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/23/04;

(i) Annual Civil Law Update 01/23/04;

(j) Matthew J. Perry: The Man, 04/23/04;

(k) S.C. Circuit Judges Conference 05/05/04;

(l) S.C. Judicial Conference 08/19/04;

(m) Annual Civil Law Update 01/21/05;

(n) Annual Criminal law Update 01/21/05;

(o) Circuit Judges Conference 05/11/05;

(p) Annual Judicial Conference 08/24/05;

(q) ABCs of Effective & Ethical Trial Practice 10/14/05;

(r) Annual Civil Law Update 01/28/06;

(s) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/28/06;

(t) Circuit Judges' Conference 05/10/06;

(u) Annual Judicial Conference 08/23/06;

(v) Annual Civil Law Update 01/21/07;

(w) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/21/07;

(x) Circuit Judges' Conference 05/14/07;

(y) Annual Civil Law Update 01/25/08;

(z) Annual Criminal Law Update 01/25/08."
Judge Lee reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) JCLE - Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (August 1985); Topic: Settling the Family Court Record on Appeal;

(b) Basic Federal Court Practice (September 1985); Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local Rules;

(d) Bridge the Gap (May 1996, March 1997, May 1997, March 1998, May 1998); Topic: Practice Tips for the Administrative Law Judge Division;

(e) 1996 That Was the Year That Was (January 1997); Topic: 1996 Update for the Administrative Law Judge Division;

(f) Rules, Rules, Rules: S.C. Practice & Procedure Update (March 1998); Topic: Rules of the Administrative Law Judge Division;

(g) South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving into the Millennium (May 1998);

(h) Tips from the Bench III (December 2002);

(i) Women Lawyers in the New Millennium (April 2003); Topic: Ethics - Circuit Court;

(j) S.C. Black Lawyers Summit & Retreat (October 2004); Topic: S.C. Judiciary on Civility & Ethics (panel discussion);

(k) ABC's of Effective and Ethical Practice (October 2005); Topic: Enhancing Persuasion in Trial: Civil and Criminal Advocacy in S.C. (panel discussion);

(l) South Carolina Black Lawyers Summit & Retreat (September 2006); Topic: Tips from the Bench (Panel discussion);

(m) South Carolina Municipal Association (December 2006); Topic: Ethics - Circuit Court."
Judge Lee reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Lee has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Lee was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Lee reported that prior to her service on the bench she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Lee appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Lee appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Lee was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

She gave the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a) 1982-83. Law Clerk, Honorable Israel M. Augustine, Jr., Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals;

(b) 1983-84. Law Clerk, Honorable C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., South Carolina Court of Appeals;

(d) 1989-94. Staff Counsel, S.C. Legislative Council, drafting legislation and amendments for members of the General Assembly in the areas of transportation, crime, corrections and prisons, and education;

(e) 1994-1999. Administrative Law Judge presiding over administrative hearing relating to insurance, environmental permitting, alcoholic beverages, wages, taxes, video poker, bingo, appeals from occupational licensing boards, and hearings on regulations promulgated by certain state agencies;

(f) 1999-present. Circuit Court Judge. Court of general jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters. Appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate, and probate cases."
Judge Lee reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: (1984-1989) 90%;

(b) State: 10%."
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 80%;

(b) Criminal: 20%;

(c) Domestic: handled 2-3 appointed cases."
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 10% cases were resolved by motion or through settlement;

(b) Non-jury:"
Judge Lee provided that prior to her service on the bench she most often served as co-counsel.

The following is Judge Lee's account of her four most significant litigated matters:

"(a) Atkinson v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., (Federal district court) - case decided on summary judgment motion involving the Fair Debt Collection Act, then a new federal statute;

(b) McClain v. Westinghouse, (Federal district court) - employment law case involving sex discrimination, sex harassment, equal pay, as well as other employment claims. Case decided on summary judgment;

(c) State of South Carolina v. Norris Stroman, (state criminal case) - defendant (with limited intelligence) charged with murder and allegedly confessed. Jury acquitted;

(d) Valerie Smith v. Kroger, (Federal district court) - either a slander or malicious prosecution case resulting from shoplifting."

The following is Judge Lee's account of four civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a) Purdie v. Smalls, 293 S.C. 216, 359 S.E.2d 306 (Ct. App. 1987);

(b) Hooten v. Carolina Treatment Center, Inc., 200 S.C. 37, 386 S.E.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1989). I was not the lead attorney;

(d) Davis v. U.S. Steel Corp., 779 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1985) on brief only."

The following is Judge Lee's account of criminal appeals she has personally handled: "I did not handle any criminal appeals while in private practice. However, as a circuit court judge I have presided over appeals from magistrate and municipal court involving criminal matters."

Judge Lee reported that she has held the following judicial office(s):

"(a) Elected by the General Assembly in February 1994 to the office of Administrative Law Judge which is a quasi-judicial function within the executive branch of government. Jurisdiction is limited to fact finding within the context of administrative hearings involving taxes, licensing, permitting and rate-making. Act as an appellate body in matters involving occupational licensing and foster care licensing, among others. Conduct public hearings and decide the reasonableness and need for regulations promulgated by certain state agencies;

(b) Elected by the General Assembly in February 1999 to Circuit Court. Re-elected in February 2002. Court of general jurisdiction covering civil and criminal matters. Also appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate, and probate cases."

Judge Lee provided the following list of her most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) Ward v. South Carolina, 98-CP-40-4069, reversed 538 S.E.2d 245 (S.C. 2000). Ward, a federal retiree, filed suit against the state seeking to have declared unconstitutional statutes enacted providing state retirees a 'rebate' on income taxes in response to Davis v. Michigan. The State filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was granted on the basis that Ward failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Department of Revenue and the Administrative Law Judge Division. The Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that exhaustion of remedies was not required when the sole issue for determination involves the constitutionality of a statute. Neither the Department of Revenue nor the ALJD has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute;

(b) Collins Holding Co. v. Defibaugh, Ct. App. reversed on one issue, 2007 WL 1148140. Collins Holding Co. filed suit seeking damages against a competitor for a variety of claims. The issue was whether the Defendant engaged in unfair trade practices for allowing certain video game machines that employed a 'reflexive payout' feature. A number of other issues were raised by Collins on appeal;

(c) Sloan v. Greenville County, et al., 99-CP-23-4464. Mr. Sloan sued Greenville County seeking to declare its action unlawful in connection with the procured construction of the family Court Building Expansion. The County sought dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Mr. Sloan did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The decision found that Sloan had standing to bring the action against the County as a taxpayer when the legislative acts sought to be enjoined are unlawful;

(d) Jordan, et al v. Holt, et al., 96-CP-26-3792, reversed by Ct. App.; Ct. App. reversed by S. Ct., 362 S.C. 201, 608 S.E.2d 129 (2005). This was a non-jury trial in partners in a failed restaurant venture sought dissolution of the partnership, an accounting of the assets and claims for damages from the operation of the business. The trial lasted one week and involved voluminous documents, checks, records and photographs;

(e) Cooke v. Palmetto Health Alliance, affirmed by Ct. App., 367 S.C. 167, 624 S.E.2d 439 (Ct. App. 2005). Workers' Compensation case in which Mr. Cooke sought to receive benefits under the Act. The legal issue was whether Cooke was a statutory employee."

Judge Lee further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"(a) Candidate for Circuit Court At-Large Seat 10. Election in April 1997, withdrew two days before the election. Seat won by James R. Barber, III. Also candidate for Circuit Court At-Large, Seats 1 and 7. Withdrew candidacy when Commission nominated me as a candidate for Seat 11 in February 1999;

(b) Candidate for Court of Appeals, Seat 1, Seat 3, and Seat 6. Elections occurred in 2003 and 2004. In all cases I was found qualified by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, but I was not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Lee's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Lee to be "a most eminently qualified and a most highly regarded candidate who would most ably serve on the Court of Appeals bench."
Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children.
Judge Lee reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) American Bar Association (1985-90);

(b) South Carolina Bar Association;

(d) Richland County Bar Association;

(e) Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (July 1987-June 1988);

(f) Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987-1989);

(g) National Conference of State Trial Judges (2007)."
Judge Lee provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc. (1987 - present);

President 1994-98;

Vice President 1993-94;

Corresponding Secretary 1990-93;

(b) Columbia Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (1992 - present);

Parliamentarian 1995-97, 2001-2007;

Chairperson 1995-96;

(d) St. Peter's Catholic Church Parish Pastoral Council (1998-2001);

(e) Honored by the S.C. Chapter of the National Association of Bench and Bar Spouses in April 1999;

(f) Leadership South Carolina, Class of 1999."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Lee is an outstanding candidate who has a great reputation as a circuit court judge. They noted that Judge Lee appears to be studious and has a great concern to ensure justice is delivered in the courtroom. They further noted the Commission commented that Judge Lee is eminently qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Lee qualified and nominated her for election to the Court of Appeals.

Ralph King "Tripp" Anderson, III
Court of Appeals, Seat 9

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Anderson was born in 1959. He is 48 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
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 communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Anderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Anderson testified 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;

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Anderson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Anderson described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) 2007 SCAARLA Conference 9/21/07;

(b) Southeastern Health Planning 10/9/07;

(d) Ethics for Government Lawyers 11/9/07;

(e) SCAARLA: Administrative Law Practice 9/22/06;

(f) South Carolina Tort Law Update 10/27/06;

(g) Ethics for Government Lawyer 11/3/06;

(h) Preparing Communities for Public Health Emergencies

3/18/05;

(i) SCAARLA: Administrative Law 9/23/05;

(j) Same Game, New Rules: Ethics 2000 11/15/05;

(k) SCAARLA: Administrative Law 10/1/04;

(l) 14TH Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina 11/19/04;

(m) The CON Contested Case 5/2/03;

(n) Finding Answers in the Administrative Law Jungle 9/9/03;

(o) Court Enforced Secrecy 10/24/03;

(p) Ethics for Government Lawyers 11/7/03."
Judge Anderson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) Southeastern Health Planning - October 9, 2007 - Panel discussion concerning judicial review of healthcare decisions;

(b) S.C. CLE - Does a Difference Make a Difference? - Panel discussion concerning diversity in the law;

(d) Bridge the Gap - Lectured on Administrative Law;

(e) Supreme Court Staff - Lectured on the Ethics Act;

(f) S.C. CLE - 'Ethics Act' - Lectured on the Ethics Act;

(g) S.C. CLE - 'Hiring and Firing' - Lectured on employment law."
Judge Anderson reported that he has published the following:

"(a) 'A Survey on Attributes Considered Important for Presidential Candidates,' Carolina Undergraduate Sociology Symposium, April 17, 1980;

(b) 'An Overview of Practice and Procedure Before the Administrative Law Judge Division,' South Carolina Trial Lawyer, Summer 1996."
(4) Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Anderson reported that prior to his service on the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge Anderson reported that he has held the following public office:

"Appointed Assistant Attorney General 1985 to January, 1995."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I began my legal career at the South Carolina Attorney General's Office. During my career at the AG's office I prosecuted numerous criminal cases of all types and handled a wide variety of civil litigation. My duties included:

(a) Statewide criminal prosecutor;

(b) Assisted in the implementation of the Statewide Grand Jury;

(d) Counsel to the State Ethics Commission;

(e) Represented the State in a variety of civil litigation matters;

(f) Represented the State in post conviction relief matters;

(g) Committee Attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee;

(h) Prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board."

Judge Anderson further reported:

"I also prosecuted Medical Board cases, wrote Attorney General Opinions and handled Criminal Appeals. On May 25, 1994, I was elected to Administrative Law Judge Seat No. 6 and re-elected in 1996, 2001 and 2006. Administrative Law Judges hear appellate, injunctive and trial cases in a broad range of administrative matters involving governmental agencies and private parties as more fully explained below."
Judge Anderson reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: Infrequently;

(b) State: At least, 20 or more times a year."
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: 75%;

(b) Criminal: 25%;

(c) Domestic: 0%."
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 25%;

(b) Non-jury: 75%."
Judge Anderson provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Anderson's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a) State v. Dwight L. Bennett - This was a felony DUI case in which the victim lost the baby she was carrying and suffered horrible injuries. Although the defendant was convicted, this case was used as a legislative example as the need to increase the maximum felony DUI punishment;

(b) Georgia v. Richard Daniel Starrett, aff'd., Richard Daniel Starrett v. William C. Wallace - Starrett was convicted of several crimes in South Carolina. Afterwards, Georgia sought his extradition in an attempt to convict him under the death penalty. Starrett's challenge to the Attorney General's Office authority to hold extradition hearings was denied;

(c) State v. Michael Goings - Goings was a notorious City of Cayce police officer charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature;

(d) State v. Herbert Pearson and Terrance Singleton - The Defendants in this case were accomplices in the armed robbery, attempted murder and murder of attendants at a gas station in Sumter, S.C.;

(e) State v. William Keith Victor - After the Defendant was convicted of murder and kidnapping, he was given the death penalty. His case was later reversed on appeal and the prosecution was assumed by me. The prosecution, under difficult circumstances, resulted in the Defendant's plea to murder and the aggravating circumstance of kidnapping."

The following is Judge Anderson's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Bergin Moses Mosteller v. James R. Metts, S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(b) Dennis G. Mitchell v. State of S.C., S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(c) Ex Parte, Bobby M. Stichert v. Carroll Heath, S.C. Supreme Court, Decided August 29, 1985 - 286 S.C. 456, 334 S.E. 2d 282;

(d) Patrick C. Lynn, et al. v. State of S.C., Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(e) Paul David Tasker v. M.L. Brown, Jr., S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided."

The following is Judge Anderson's account of five criminal appeals he has personally handled:

"I handled several criminal appeals while serving as an Assistant Attorney General. However, my service with the Attorney General's Office ended in February 1995 when I began serving as an Administrative Law Judge. As a result of the passage of time since that date, the briefs and specific case captions are no longer available."

Judge Anderson reported that he has held the following judicial office:

"I was elected by the General Assembly to serve as an Administrative Law Judge, February 1, 1995 and have been serving continuously since that date. Administrative Law Judges hear appellate, injunctive and trial cases in a broad range of administrative matters involving governmental agencies and private parties. The appellate jurisdiction includes appeals involving Medicaid; driver's license revocations and suspensions; licensing decisions from boards/commissions under the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; Budget and Control Board's Employee Insurance Program; AFDC benefits; operation of day care facilities and foster home licensing; food stamps; and revocations or suspensions of teachers' certificates. The Administrative Law Court also hears appeals from final decisions of the Department of Corrections in 'non-collateral' matters, and appeals from final decisions of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services permanently denying parole eligibility. The contested case litigation includes hearings involving environmental and health permitting; Certificates of Need; State Retirement Systems' disability determinations; Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; state and county tax matters; alcoholic beverage issues; and wage disputes."

Judge Anderson provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 99-ALJ-07-0290-CC;

(b) McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001) (en banc). Holding reviewed in Sullivan v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003);

(c) Paris Mountain Utilities, Inc., et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Docket No. 01-ALJ-07-0462-CC;

(d) Providence Hospital v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and Palmetto Richland Memorial Hospital, Docket No. 02-ALJ-07-0155-CC;

(e) Anonymous Physician v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, State Board of Medical Examiners, Docket No. 05-ALJ-11-0029-IJ."

Judge Anderson reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"Administrative Law Judge, Seat 3 (February 23, 1994); Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 3 (May 24, 2000) - Found qualified and nominated but withdrew prior to election; Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 9 (January 16, 2003) - Found qualified but not nominated."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Anderson to be "an eminently qualified and most highly regarded candidate, who would most ably serve on the Court of Appeals bench."
Judge Anderson is married to Linda Corley Anderson. He does not have any children.
Judge Anderson reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar;

(b) Administration and Regulatory Law Committee of the SC Bar."
Judge Anderson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organization:

"Shandon Baptist Church, Sunday School teacher."
(11) Commission Members' Comments:

The Commission commented that Judge Anderson is known as a dedicated and a very highly regarded judge on the Administrative Law Court. They noted his keen intellect and his very personable demeanor. They further noted that he is known as a very dedicated and hard working jurist which would serve him well on the Court of Appeals.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Anderson qualified, but not nominated, to serve on the Court of Appeals.

J. Mark Hayes, II
Court of Appeals, Seat 9

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hayes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Judge Hayes was born in 1958. He is 49 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Hayes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hayes.
Judge Hayes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Hayes reported that he has made $55.10 in campaign expenditures for stationery.
Judge Hayes testified 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;

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Hayes testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Hayes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hayes described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) 6th Annual Civil Law Update 01/25/08;

(b) 23rd Criminal Law Update 01/25/08;

(d) 2007 Circuit Judges Conference 5/16/07;

(e) Fifth Annual Civil Law Update 1/26/07;

(f) 22nd Annual Criminal Law Update 1/26/07;

(g) 2006 Annual Judicial Conference 8/23/06;

(h) 20th SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/10/06;

(i) 21st Annual Criminal Law Update 1/27/06;

(j) 4th Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/06;

(k) 2005 Annual Judicial Conference 8/24/05;

(l) 2005 SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/11-13/05;

(m) 20th Annual Criminal Law Update 1/21/05;

(n) Seminar for Chief Judges 12/10/04;

(o) General Jurisdiction 10/11/04;

(p) Judicial Oath of Office 8/19/04;

(q) Judicial Conference 8/19/04;

(r) 2004 SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/5/04;

(s) 2nd Annual Civil Law Update 1/23/04;

(u) Judicial Conference 8/21/03;

(v) 2003 SCTLA Annual Convention 8/7/03;

(w) 2003 Orientation for Judges 7/7/03;

(x) 2003 SC Circuit Judges Conference 5/7/03;

(y) Tips from the Bench III 12/13/02;

(z) Auto Torts XXV 12/6-7/02."
Judge Hayes reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) March 2008: Spartanburg Methodist College, School Law presenter;

(b) November 2007: University of South Carolina Upstate, Criminal Justice Class presenter;

(c) September 2007: Host and presenter for the Wofford College Judicial Symposium on The Constitution: The Third Branch of Government, an Insider's View. Individual Topic: The Judiciary and the Media;

(d) 2006: S.C. Budget and Control Board/Insurance Reserve Fund Law Enforcement Defense Counsel Seminar. Topic: S.C. Lawyer Disciplinary Process/Ethics;

(e) 2005: S.C. Budget and Control Board/Insurance Reserve Fund Law Enforcement Defense Counsel Seminar. Topic: Legislative Update; Med/mal reform legislation;

(f) 2004: Solicitors' Annual Conference, panel discussion on recent judicial decisions;

(g) 2003: S.C. Worker's Compensation Claimant's fall meeting, legal update and panel discussion;

(h) 1999: Instructor through the Lorman Institute on the educational issue of 'Hot Topics in South Carolina School Law', focusing on search and seizure issue in schools and drug testing.
Two additional seminars in which I will be participating during 2008:

(1) June 2008: South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association - Trial Academy - Greenville, SC

(2) September 2008: National Business Institute Seminar - Civil Trials - Judicial Panel - Greenville, SC."

Judge Hayes reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4) Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Hayes did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Hayes did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Hayes has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Hayes was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Judge Hayes reported that prior to his service on the bench his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following public offices:

"(a) Commission Member - Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. Appointed approx. 1994;

(b) Chairman - Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium Commission. 2000 - 2003. Appointed by Spartanburg County Council."
(6) Physical Health:
Judge Hayes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Judge Hayes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Judge Hayes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"(a) August 1984 to July 1985: Judicial clerk to the Hon. E.C. Burnett, III, then Circuit Court Judge for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of South Carolina;

(b) August 1985 to December 1990: Associate with the general practice firm of Burts, Turner, Hammett, Harrison, and Rhodes; after eighteen months, full partner. Duties included general trial work in both civil and criminal matters. Shortly after becoming associated with the firm, specialty area became education-related law;

(c) January 1, 1991: Partner in the firm of Harrison and Hayes. The character of my practice became more focused on education law, appellate practice, and complex civil litigation;

(d) In January 2000: The law firm of Harrison, White, Smith, Hayes & Coggins was formed. Partner until May 2003. My primary focus in the practice was complex civil litigation, complex insurance coverage cases, appellate practice, education law, and assistance with complex criminal litigation;

(e) 1991-2003: Performed appellate work arguing numerous times in South Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals."
Judge Hayes reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Federal: frequent;

(b) State: frequent;"
Judge Hayes reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Civil: approx 85%;

(b) Criminal: approx 10%;

(c) Domestic: approx 5%."
Judge Hayes reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his service on the bench as follows:

"(a) Jury: 50%, of which about 5% went jury verdict;

(b) Non-jury: 50%."
Judge Hayes provided that prior to his service on the bench he most often served as sole counsel. "However, due to the complexity of many of the cases, our firm assigned two or more lawyers and, as such, I generally served as chief counsel or co-counsel."

The following is Judge Hayes' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a) S.C. School for the Deaf and the Blind v. Altreo Quattlebaum, United States District Court of South Carolina.

This matter was equitable nature. However, the significance of this case is that it arose out of a factual situation that potentially could have exposed children already suffering from handicapping conditions to two students who had demonstrated a potential for violence to themselves and to others. This case filtered from underlying systemic issues in South Carolina as they relate to the management and care of severely mentally impaired children in the State of South Carolina. An order was issued from the Honorable Margaret Seymour, U.S. District Court Judge, in favor on SCSDB, but the order was issued as an unpublished opinion;

(b) Murray v. Broad River Electrical Cooperative, South Carolina State Circuit Court.

This case was significant because it involved a theory of liability against an electric cooperative for failure to inspect the location of electrical transmission lines. The trial of the case demanded a historical review of the practices of an electrical cooperative, the interplay of federal governmental regulations, and common law tort theories. This case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. No appeal was made of the case;

Adams v. Texfi, 330 S.C. 305, 498 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. App. 1998).

Adams v. Texfi, 320 S.C. 213, 464 S.E.2d 109 (1995).

Adams v. Texfi, 314 S.C. 313, 443 S.E.2d 913 (S.C. App. 1994).

Adams v. Texfi lasted almost ten years from the time the original Form 50 was filed with the Worker's Compensation Commission seeking payments for death benefits. The case dealt with a relatively obscure workers' compensation provision that involved showing appropriate dependency for purposes of a step-child to receive workers' compensation death benefits. I argued this case twice before the South Carolina Supreme Court. All four published citations involve this case;

(d) J. Samuel Coakley, Individually and as Trustee of a Special Needs Trust for Christian Coakley v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., Scott Mitchell, et al. 98-CP-42-2287, South Carolina State Circuit Court.

This case was a declaratory judgment action for secondary liability insurance coverage that arose from a one-car accident where a young 16-year-old passenger was left a quadriplegic. Prior to the filing of the insurance coverage case, the negligence action was filed against the at-fault driver and discovery was conducted. After the depositions of the driver were taken, the automobile accident case was resolved but was done so under a release that expressly preserved the secondary liability insurance issues of coverage and stacking of policies. The release also expressly set forth some factual stipulations. Additionally, to resolve the automobile accident, a Special Needs Trust was established as allowed under Medicaid/Medicare guidelines. Subsequently, as part of the secondary insurance coverage case, it was asserted the insurance company attempted to alter the positions taken by it in the prior litigation. A seventeen-page order establishing secondary liability coverage and allowing the stacking of additional policies was prepared and ultimately signed by Judge Durham Cole on March 3, 2003. The Court of Appeals affirmation is located at 363 S.C. 147, 609 S.E.2d 537 (S.C. App. 2005). I assumed the bench prior to the appeal of the case;

(e) Virginia Surratt v. Diversco, Workers' Compensation file #9903593.

This was a workers' compensation case that was tried before the Single Commissioner and reviewed by the Full Commission Panel. While monetarily not a significant case in comparison to some others, this case created an exception to the exception that injuries that occur during travel to and from work are not compensable. The claimant was a poorly educated, minimum-wage janitorial worker. Her employer picked her up from home and took her to work literally one and one-half counties away. She had suffered a back injury as a result of an automobile accident while returning home. She had no health insurance, no money for doctor expenses, and no job. I was able to secure past temporary total benefits, ongoing temporary total benefits, and was able to provide her with medical coverage that included a procedure to attempt to correct her back. Legal significance of this matter pales in comparison to the very real and positive effect this matter had to Ms. Surratt's quality of life."

The following is Judge Hayes' account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a) Justice v. BMG Distributing, Inc., 318 S.C. 359, 458 S.E.2d 35 (1995);

(b) Adams v. Texfi, 330 S.C. 305, 498 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. App. 1998);

(d) Hendrickson v. Spartanburg County School District Five, 307 S.C. 108, 413 S.E.2d 871 (App. 1992);

(e) Corbin v. Kohler Co., 351 S.C.613, 571 S.E.2d 92 (S.C. App. 2002)."

Judge Hayes reported he has not personally handled any criminal appeals.

Judge Hayes reported that he has held the following judicial office(s):

"Elected by the South Carolina General Assembly on April 9, 2003 to fill unexpired term of Gary Clary as South Carolina Circuit Judge At-Large Seat #5. Oath administered on May 22, 2003. State-wide jurisdiction over criminal, civil jury, and civil non-jury matters."

Judge Hayes provided the following list of his most significant orders or opinions:

"(a) S.C. Electric & Gas Co. v. Aiken Electric Cooperative, Inc. and the S.C. Public Service Commission.

This case involved a review of a decision of the PSC to allow an electrical cooperative the right to provide electricity to a newly constructed school even though only part of the property upon which the school facility was located was within the cooperative's geographic area. Legally, this case required an examination of the role of the PSC in deciding statutory construction and the circuit court's proper role in reviewing a decision made by the PSC. The case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion, S.C. Jud. Dept. - Opinion Number 2005-OP-292;

(b) McSherry v. Spartanburg County Council.

This case involved the Court reviewing a politically charged issue of a $25.00 road maintenance fee adopted by a county council. Legally, the case dealt with a review of the County's procedure used in adopting the fee and the County's compliance with provisions of the Home Rule Act. Even though the Court and the Supreme Court's affirmation were expressly or implicitly critical of the method used by the County at its first reading, the adoption of the fee was upheld as legally sufficient. Interesting note as referenced in the Supreme Court's opinion, the County has since changed its implementation procedures. The Supreme Court's affirmation was issued on February 5, 2007 and can be found in Westlaw at McSherry v. Spartanburg County Council, ___S.E.2d___, 2007 WL415677;

The 17-page order issued in this case came after a non-jury hearing that involved the interpretation and application of deed restrictions to a commercial area developed by the plaintiff in 1992. The defendant sought to use the property to establish a competing business in violation of the plaintiff's deed restrictions. Even though titled as a Summary Judgment Order, the case was factually intensive and the attorneys conducted a full trial on the issues. The order, therefore, reflects both a factual and legal analysis. In an unpublished opinion, No. 2007-UP-053, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order on February 7, 2007;

(d) Smith v. NCCI, Inc. and Liberty Insurance Corp.

This case involved a complex fact pattern where a white-collar employee sought Worker's Compensation benefits for both a back injury and a mental injury due to an injury back accident that occurred doing his job as an auditor for an organization related to the Worker's Compensation industry. Legally, the case required the application of the substantial evidence standard of review and application of S.C. Administrative Procedures Act to the decision made by the full Commission. The significance of the case, outside of the usual fact scenario for a Worker's Compensation case, lies with the mental injury claim. The case presented an extraordinary opportunity to revisit the law as it relates to recovery of benefits for mental injuries and the factual burden which must be met by the person claiming these types of injuries. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order in its opinion located at Smith v. NCCI, Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 631 S.E.2d 268 (S.C. App. 2006);

(e) Turner v. City of Spartanburg, William Barnett, III, et al.

This matter was designated as complex and specially assigned to me. The factual allegations of the case stem from a development project partly undertaken by the City of Spartanburg and private developers. When certain payments to the general contractor failed to be paid, a lis pendens was filed against the City and others for payment. My order dated June 19, 2006 (attached) supplemented my order of February 10, 2005 (also attached). These two orders dismissed, initially, various individual defendants and, subsequently, the City of Spartanburg. The plaintiff had attempted to assert private cause of action against the City based upon S.C. Code section 29-6-250 which pertains to governments' construction projects and bonding requirements. No appellate review of my orders has been conducted but my understanding is that the case is on appeal."

Judge Hayes further reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"In the Spring of 2007, I was a candidate for the Supreme Court but was not screened out of committee. In the Fall of 2007, I was qualified and nominated by the Screening Committee for Court of Appeals Seat #6 but was not elected."
(9) Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Hayes' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Hayes "to be a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Hayes is not married. He does not have any children.
Judge Hayes reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a) South Carolina Bar Association;

(b) American Bar Association;

(c) State Trial Judges Division of the American Bar Association; Vice-Chair, Committee on Judicial Independence."
Judge Hayes provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a) Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. Chairman, Board of Commissioners;

(b) Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Grievance Board);

The Commission commented on Judge Hayes' dedicated commitment as a jurist. They noted he is well respected for his temperament and demeanor on the Circuit Court bench. They further noted Judge Hayes's exemplary understanding of the responsibility of the judiciary and his continuing role in projects promoting the legal system, as well as his strong academic background.
(12) Conclusion:

The Commission found Judge Hayes qualified and nominated him for election to the Court of Appeals.

J. Ren� Josey
Court of Appeals, Seat 9

Commission's Findings: QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1) Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Josey meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Court of Appeals judge.
Mr. Josey was born in 1960. He is 48-years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. Josey provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2) Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Josey.
Mr. Josey demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Josey reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Josey testified 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;

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Josey testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3) Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Josey to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Josey described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a) Attorney Development Program 4/26/02;

(b) Preparing the Corporate Witness 4/27/02;

(d) Today's Best Practices in Law 8/14/02;

(e) Federal Practice in the District 9/6/02;

(f) Ethics CLE 3/8/03;

(g) Sexual & Other Forms of Harassment 3/8/03;

(h) Federal Practice in the District 9/5/03;

(i) Ethics CLE 2/29/04;

(j) 3rd Annual Federal Practice in 9/10/04;

(k) Revised Lawyer's Oath CLE 10/22/04;

(l) SEC "Hot Topics" 12/16/04;

(m) Attorney ECF Training 1/7/05;

(n) Section of Litigation Environmental 1/21/05;

(o) Law Office Technology Committee 1/26/06;

(p) Fourth Annual Civil Law Update 1/27/06;

(q) Employment and Labor Law Section 1/27/06;

(r) Environmental and Natural Resources 1/28/06;

(s) Bringing Voice of Client into the Firm 2/24/06;

(t) Changes SC Rules of Prof. Conduct 2/25/06;

(u) Mandatory ADR Training 9/8/06;

(v) Metadata in Electronic Documents 12/13/06;

(w) 6th Federal Practice in the District of SC 08/24/07;

(x) Florence County Bar's Almost Annual Ethics 2/14/07."
Mr. Josey reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a) On September 27, 2007, I spoke to a Sentencing Guidelines training course sponsored by the United States Probation Office for private attorneys defending the accused in the federal system. I have spoken at such events on many occasions;

(b) In December 2007, I assembled, coordinated, and moderated a Florence County Bar half-day CLE on ethics. In August 2007, I was the moderator for the S.C. Bar and Federal Bar Association's annual seminar on federal practice. Earlier in the summer of 2007, I spoke to law students at both the Florence federal courthouse and the Perry federal courthouse on federal practice and the mission of the Federal Bar Association;

(c) As United States Attorney, I was regularly asked to speak at the Annual Criminal Law Update held during the South Carolina Bar's Charleston convention (1/26/01, 1/21/00). I also have taught at the South Carolina Trial Lawyer's Convention (August 2000) and the South Carolina Solicitor's Conference. I helped organize and teach an Ethics CLE at Clemson's Homecoming in 1999 (10/2/99) at the Strom Thurmond Center ('Touchdown Ethics from Tigers on Both Sides of the Field');

(d) In addition, I was a regular speaker at Narcotics training classes for law enforcement, Safe Schools training for teachers and law enforcement, and other training sponsored by the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee (LECC) of the United States Department of Justice. I was a speaker at DEA conferences, FBI retreats, and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy;

(e) Since joining Turner Padget in March of 2001, I have been involved with the Attorney Development program for new associates - directing the program through 2006. This initiative is somewhat broader than mere continuing legal education but involves development of all the skills newer lawyers need to acquire to become successful and productive practitioners. This includes time and personnel management training, team-building, and mentoring;

(f) Also within the past five years, I have also spoken on Ethics at the Florence County Bar Association's Annual Ethics CLE (10/26/01), and the Federal Bar Association's CLE in conjunction with the South Carolina Bar (9/6/02). I also spoke on ethics at today's (9/27/07) sentencing guidelines class."
Mr. Josey reported that he has published the following:

"Last spring (May 27, 2007) I had an article published in the Florence Morning News. It was a tribute to a beloved departing high school soccer coach. It was entitled 'Departing soccer coach leaves big cleats to fill.' While I was in law school at the University of South Carolina, I published the following two articles in the South Carolina Law Review:

A. An Analysis of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. -- Are Punitive Damages and Exclusive Federal Regulation Consistent? 36 S.C.L. Rev. 689 (1985).

B. Annual Survey of South Carolina Law (Labor and Employment Section), 36 S.C.L. Rev. 179 (1984).

Employment Discrimination and Title VII: Appropriate Conceptual

Frameworks for Different Claims.

Fetal Vulnerability Plan: Disparate Treatment Absent Intent.

Title VII and The Sexually Offensive Work Environment: A Warranty of Workability.

Wildcat Strikes and Local Union Liability.

The United States Attorney's office published a quarterly newsletter primarily for law enforcement agencies and I contributed articles to that publication."
(4) Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Josey did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Josey did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Josey has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Josey was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5) Reputation:
Mr. Josey reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."

Mr. Josey reported that he has held the following public office:

"(a) From May 1996 through February 2001 I served as the United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina. I was appointed by the President and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. Because this was a federal office, I filed federal ethics reports; as I recall, these were all filed in a timely manner and no penalties imposed;

(b) In March of 2001, I was appointed by Florence City Council to serve as a commissioner on the Florence Civic Center Commission - the public body with oversight responsibility for the regional auditorium/arena located in Florence. I still serve on that commission and was elected chairman by my fellow commissioners in July of 2002. Our commissioners do not serve as the chief administrative officer of this facility; like many such public buildings, this function is filled by an independent contractor. See S.C. Code Section 8-13-1110(B)(6)(requiring such chief administrative officer to file Economic Interest Report with State Ethics Commission)."
(6) Physical Health:
Mr. Josey appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Mental Stability:
Mr. Josey appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8) Experience:
Mr. Josey was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985.

He gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

"From August of 1985 through August of 1987, I was a law clerk to the Honorable C. Weston Houck, United States District Court Judge for the District of South Carolina.

Following my clerkship, my wife and I chose to remain in our new home of Florence (we are both from Clemson where I fathers both taught at the University). I joined the firm of Rogers & McBratney as an associate.

I worked as an associate with the firm from August of 1987 through March of 1991. I became a partner in the firm in April of 1991 and the firm name was changed to Rogers, McBratney, & Josey. I remained with this firm through December of 1993 when I left to start my own solo practice. Throughout my years of practice with these attorneys, I was engaged in the general practice of law with an emphasis on litigation.

I was in the solo practice of law at 401 W. Cheves Street, Florence, SC, from 1 January 1994 to 17 May 1996. The nature of my practice was very much as it had been before - general litigation matters of many varieties. In addition, I began handling appeals in association with other firms. I enjoyed appellate research and particularly writing.
Florence County was one of the initial pilot counties for a mandatory ADR program and I received the necessary training early in the program's development. I served on the initial Florence County list of mediators who could be appointed. I conducted many mediation sessions in the 1994-1996 period.

While my practice had always had a federal criminal defense component, it was at its peak at this point. My office location was very close to the federal courthouse and I was a frequent choice of the United States Magistrate for appointments since it facilitated timely hearings - particularly before the Federal Public Defender opened a full-time office in Florence.

In February 1996, I was recommended by United States Senator Ernest F. Hollings to be the United States Attorney for South Carolina. Following the vetting process, I was formally nominated by the President.

Pending confirmation by the United States Senate, I was appointed by the United States Attorney General and United States District Court as an interim United States Attorney on 17 May 1996 and I closed my private practice. On the motion of Senator Strom Thurmond, my nomination was forwarded out of the Judiciary committee in weeks and I was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate just before their Memorial Day recess.

My work as United States Attorney was again focused on diverse litigation - both civil and criminal, and both as civil plaintiff and civil defendant. While much of my time and effort was spent leading and managing the office effort as a whole across the district, I intentionally sought opportunities to participate directly in grand jury and courtroom work - both to enhance my leadership with the office and to personally learn from many skilled Assistant United States Attorneys. As United States Attorney, I also personally participated with Assistant United States Attorneys in several important mediation sessions.

During my federal service I also spent considerable time working on communication and coordination with local law enforcement and local prosecutors whom I grew to respect very much. With the growth of electronic communication, I enjoyed reflective writings to my staff on a regular basis.

At the conclusion of my term as United States Attorney, I resigned to aide the transition for the new administration (24 February 2001). I chose to join the law firm of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney working primarily from its Florence office. I began my work with the firm in March of 2001. While I work on the business and commercial litigation team, my practice has again become quite diverse including both criminal and civil matters. The civil matters have included both tort actions and contract actions. I have worked for both plaintiffs and defendants. I have worked on both state criminal matters in several circuits and federal criminal matters. I have renewed my certification as a mediator and served in that capacity on several matters. I serve on both state and federal certified lists of available mediators."
Mr. Josey reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Federal: An average of once a month;

(b) State: An average of twice a month."
Mr. Josey reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Civil: 65%;

(b) Criminal: 30%;

(c) Domestic: 5%."
Mr. Josey reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a) Jury: 65%;

(b) Non-jury: 35%."
Mr. Josey provided that he most often served "equally as co-counsel, lead counsel and sole counsel over the past five years."

The following is Mr. Josey's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a) Evans v. Country Squire Mobile Homes, (Appellate No. 89-719).

This involved a breach of warranty in the sale of a mobile home. I represented the purchasers of the mobile home. The case was significant because the jury apparently awarded damages under the Uniform Commercial Code for the intangible elements of emotional distress and mental anguish. The matter was appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals and the verdict was affirmed. It also was significant because it was my first solo trial in Circuit Court and it was Judge Kinnon's final trial in Circuit Court before his retirement;

(b) United States v. Theodore McFarlin, (Case No. 4:97-736).

This case is significant because it represented the first successful prosecution of this former Sheriff of Williamsburg County; to me, his conviction symbolized a purification of a corrupt segment or link in the criminal justice chain and thereby helped restore public confidence in the system. I tried this case as United States Attorney with Assistant United States Attorney Scarlett A. Wilson (now 9th Circuit Solicitor). McFarlin was convicted of all counts including drug conspiracy and perjury. McFarlin was ably defended by I.S. Levy Johnson, Esq.;

I represented the defendant, Jennifer Rose, who was charged along with the other occupants of a motor vehicle with violation of the federal narcotics laws. All of the vehicle's occupants were natives of Jamaica.

The case was significant because I was able to convince the District Court to direct a verdict of acquittal for Ms. Rose on the basis that the government had failed to provide sufficient proof that she was aware of the presence of illegal narcotics in the automobile. The matter was tried before the Honorable Henry C. Morgan, United States District Judge (visiting the District of South Carolina);

(d) United States v. James Coury Holmes and Marcus Mandel Ellis, (6:00 107).

This was a multiple armed bank robbery trial in Greenville before United States District Judge Henry Herlong. I tried it with Assistant United States Attorney Jeanne Howard. This case is significant to me primarily because it represents the most fun I have ever had in trial.
The defendants had committed a string of unsolved car thefts followed by masked armed robberies with assault rifles. The victims were most appreciative and cooperative. Local law enforcement had done a good job of finally cracking the case. The FBI had secured a great deal of circumstantial evidence as well as provided several excellent expert witnesses (dye stain chemist and photogrammetry analyst). The trial went well (50 witnesses in 3 days) and resulted in convictions. Appeals were successfully handled by Ms. Howard;

(e) United States v. Bill Prince and Don Pr