| Printed Page 3450, May 10 | Printed Page 3470, May 14 |

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

(7) Financial Responsibility:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Barber is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Mr. Barber testified that he has not:

(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Barber testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

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

(10) Miscellaneous:

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

The Bar found Mr. Barber qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Barber "is considered to be an intelligent, diligent, hardworking lawyer. He is generally respected by members of the legal community. Although some questioned his temperament, he was perceived by most as someone who could maintain a sense of decorum when others around him were losing theirs. Thus, it was opined that he would likely display good judicial demeanor. His character and integrity were not questioned by those surveyed."

Mr. Barber was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. Barber's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has

Mr. Barber was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Barber's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Judge Bartlett was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

(1) Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.

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

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Judge Bartlett is on the general faculty at the National Judicial College where he has lectured on evidence, criminal procedure, constitutional law, and domestic violence. He has also lectured for the S.C. Court Administration (evidence), S.C. Criminal Justice Academy (magistrate certification), South Carolina Bar (D.U.I. seminars), South Carolina Justice Institute (evidence), and Greenville Technical College (criminal law, criminal procedure, juvenile justice). He has also been invited to lecture at various seminars on Domestic Violence, including seminars sponsored by the Greenville Hospital System and Sistercare.

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

Judge Bartlett graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1977 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

After Judge Bartlett was admitted to the Bar, he served from 1977 to 1978, as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Greenville. He served as Assistant Circuit Solicitor from 1978 to 1980. Since 1980, Judge Bartlett has been the Chief Judge of the Municipal Court for the City of Greenville.

As a current judge, Judge Bartlett omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years. Judge Bartlett reports that municipal courts are not courts of record and rarely have written orders; however, he has listed and enclosed two orders issued by him which he says have "substance and that are not of a routine nature":

(1) City of Greenville v. Dan Winston Brooks. A return to the court of General Sessions upon appeal. The case was upheld by the Circuit Court. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court under rule 23.

(2) City of Greenville v. William Ezia Adams. An order which declared a city picketing ordinance to be unconstitutional.

Although there was some concern on the Committee that Judge Bartlett does not have significant family court experience, he has an excellent reputation as a municipal judge, and the Committee believes he will be able to adapt and perform satisfactorily as a family court judge.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Bartlett's temperament would be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

Judge Bartlett is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Bartlett appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

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

(8) Public Service:

Judge Bartlett has been active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Judge Bartlett testified that he has not:

(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Bartlett testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

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

(10) Miscellaneous:

Judge Bartlett meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Bartlett qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Bartlett "has served continuously as a full-time municipal judge for the City of Greenville since 1980. Prior to that time, he worked for one year as an assistant city attorney and for 2 years as an assistant circuit solicitor. Judge Bartlett is regarded as having excellent judicial temperament. He is highly respected for his administrative skills in the municipal court system and for his diligence, hard work, and timeliness. His reputation for integrity and fairness is well recognized among those interviewed. Some interviewed noted his lack of family court experience but believed he would be able to adapt to the Family Court based upon his strong judicial background."

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Brown was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

(1) Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.

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

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. Brown stated that he had taught business law (about 15 years ago) and family law at the paralegal program at Greenville Technical College. He has also lectured on terminating parental rights to a D.S.S. group.

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

Mr. Brown has not requested a Martindale-Hubbell rating and does not know if he has one.

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Brown graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1976 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Since his admission to the Bar, Mr. Brown worked at Legal Services in 1976 and has been in private practice since 1979.

Mr. Brown described his practice over the last five years as 5% civil, 5% criminal, and 90% domestic.

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

(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company, 307 S.C. 230, 414 S.E.2d 177. Holding that a family court order can designate the beneficiary of life insurance proceeds notwithstanding the fact that a different recipient is named as beneficiary in the policy.

(c) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543. Case which lead to statutory exception to the hearsay rule allowing the admission of the statement of a child 3 or younger in abuse cases.

(d) George Thomas v. Steven Ritchie Holam-Hansen. Establishing an indigent child's right to receive a trial transcript.

(e) White v. White, 283 S.C. 348, 323 S.E.2d 521. Allowing property division in an annulment proceeding.

(f) Department of Social Services v. Father and the Mother, 294 S.C. 518, 366 S.E.2d 40 (Ct. App. 1988). Establishing the fact that skin is an organ which was damaged by bruising and that such an act may be abuse.

Mr. Brown has handled the following domestic appeals:

(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company, 414 S.E.2d 177, 307 S.C. 230.

(b) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543.

(c) White v. White, 283 S.C. 348, 323 S.E.2d 521.

(d) Fridy v. Fridy, appeal currently pending in the Court of Appeals.

(e) Frye v. Frye, Court of Appeals Op. No. 2217 (Filed August 15, 1994).

(f) Department of Social Services v. Whitworth, Op. No. 93-UP-130 (filed April 28, 1993).

At the Joint Committee's request, Mr. Brown supplied a number of additional cases which he felt were representative of his domestic practice. Mr. Brown's response was incorporated into the transcript of his public hearing and can be referenced there.

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Brown had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

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

Mr. Brown is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(7) Financial Responsibility:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Brown was an E-5 in the United States Marines Corps Reserves. He was honorably discharged.

Mr. Brown is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Mr. Brown testified that he has not:

(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. Brown testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

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

(10) Miscellaneous:

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

The Bar found Mr. Brown qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Brown "has had extensive and broad experience in Family Court. He possesses a strong working knowledge of the law of Family Court. The majority of those interviewed felt that he is a good worker and well prepared in court and that he would have a good judicial temperament.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. DuTremble was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

(1) Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.

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

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. DuTremble was a legal instructor at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy in 1983.

The Joint Committee found Mr. DuTremble to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Mr. DuTremble met the expectations of the Committee regarding the practice and procedure questions asked in his prior screening, he was given, and he accepted, the option of incorporating his performance on those questions into the present screening.

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

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. DuTremble graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1978 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

From 1978 to 1979, Mr. DuTremble served as a law clerk to Circuit Court Judge Julius H. Baggett. From 1979 to 1980, Mr. DuTremble served as Assistant Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Lexington. He was Assistant Prosecutor in Lexington from 1980 to 1983. From 1982 to 1983, Mr. DuTremble served as a legal instructor

Mr. DuTremble described his practice over the past five years as 10% civil and 90% criminal.

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

(a) U.S. v. Polowichak, 783 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. 1985), largest seizure of marijuana in S.C. history.

(b) U.S. v. Henry Hamilton, 850 F.2d 1038 (4th Cir. 1988), largest heroin ring in Charleston.

(c) U.S. v. Luther Taylor, 993 F.2d 382 (4th Cir. 1993), first conviction at trial in Operation Lost Trust.

(d) U.S. v. Brantley, 777 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1985), conviction of corrupt Sheriff of Jasper County.

(e) U.S. v. Southwire Corp., (1993) (not reported), defense of the largest environmental crime case brought in the District of South Carolina.

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. DuTremble had engaged in an active trial practice in the trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

Mr. DuTremble is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. DuTremble is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Mr. DuTremble testified that he has not:

(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mr. DuTremble testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

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

(10) Miscellaneous:

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

The Bar found Mr. DuTremble qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. DuTremble "has extensive experience as assistant United States Attorney, an Assistant Solicitor, and Assistant Public Defender, as well as a civil and criminal advocate in private practice. He is intelligent, knowledgeable in the law, and a hard worker. He is considered to be an excellent and effective trial lawyer. He has a good demeanor and sense of humor. It is believed that he would have a good judicial temperament."

Mr. DuTremble was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. DuTremble's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.

| Printed Page 3450, May 10 | Printed Page 3470, May 14 |