| Printed Page 3470, May 14 | Printed Page 3490, May 14 |

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified/(Majority)

Unqualified (Minority: Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Senator John R. Russell)

Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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 reveal some evidence that raised questions.

Ms. Reddix-Smalls demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal. Ms. Reddix-Smalls did not fully answer the Committee's Personal Data Questionnaire on a timely basis.

The Joint Committee is also concerned about an incident in which an associate of Ms. Reddix-Smalls' attended the public hearing of another candidate despite admonitions given to each candidate about such activity. Ms. Reddix-Smalls denied any prior knowledge about her associate's plan to attend the public hearing. The Committee feels that Ms. Reddix-Smalls and other candidates should take responsibility for informing the people with whom they discuss their screening of the Committee's rules prohibiting a candidate or anyone associated with a candidate from attending the public hearings prior to that candidate's screening.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Ms. Reddix-Smalls stated that she taught Constitutional Law and Administrative Law at South Carolina State University from 1991 to 1993, and has taught Criminal Justice/Police Procedures at Midlands Technical College for one year.

The Joint Committee found Ms. Reddix-Smalls to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
_________________________________
[1] Rep. Hunter Limbaugh did not vote.

(3) Professional Experience:

Ms. Reddix-Smalls graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1976. Ms. Reddix-Smalls was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in 1977 and the South Carolina Bar in 1978.

After her graduation from law school, Ms. Reddix-Smalls was in private practice with Mordecai Johnson from 1978 to 1979 and she served as Executive Director of Carolina Regional Legal Services from 1978 to 1987. Ms. Reddix-Smalls was an associate with John Roy Harper from 1988 to 1989 and Edwards and Associates from 1989 to 1991. Presently, she is a partner at Reddix-Smalls and Carter, which was formed in 1991.

Ms. Reddix-Smalls described her practice over the past five years as 60 to 75% civil, 10 to 15% criminal, and 30% to 35% domestic.

Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:

(1) County-wide annexation, secession attempt case combined with voting rights issues. Franklin v. Campbell (U.S. Federal District Court) #95-1370.

(2) School Secession and Desegregation case in Williamsburg County. (U.S. District Court)

(3) Case involving appeal of sale of heirs property, requesting partition in kind or by allotment. Cox v. Frierson, 90-CP-21-1170, S.C. Supreme Court, verdict pending.

(4) Capital offense murder case. State v. Belin, (Citation Omitted)

(5) Death penalty case involving minor defendant. State v. Brunson, (Citation Omitted)

(6) Case involving DJJ incarceration of special needs student. Appeal pending. State v. Ellison, (Citation Omitted)

(7) Fraud case, involving mortgage of elderly woman's property by her son. Shepherd v. First American Mortgage Co., (Citation Omitted)

(8) Truth in Lending, Fraud, Financing and Mortgage Disclosure case. Thomas v. Delta Mobile Homes, (Citation Omitted)

(9) Banking disparities in lending and financing case. Settled for plaintiff prior to trial. McFadden v. Bank of Clarendon, 2-92-0737

(10) Federal mortgage disclosure requirements case. McQueen v. FHA, 4:92-1064-21 (U.S. District Court)

(12) Bad faith claim involving insurance company which refused to pay proceeds when plaintiff's spouse killed in barroom brawl. Williams v. Fidelity Life and Guaranty, 93-CP-33-44, (U.S. District Court)

(13) Taxpayers' suit challenging validity and correctness of a local property millage levy. Tisdale v. Williamsburg County School District, (Citation Omitted)

(14) Standing and jurisdiction case involving plaintiff demands for an accounting by a non-profit organization. Montgomery v. State Conference of Branches, et al., (Citation Omitted)

(15) Divorce and disability benefits case involving Agent Orange and Agent White victim spouse. Thomas v. Jailette, (Citation Omitted)

Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided the committee with seven cases involving appeals which she has personally handled:

(a) Cox v. Frierson, 90-CP-21-1170 (S.C. Supreme Court-Circuit Court)

(b) Davis v. Davis, 92-DR-40-2456 (Supreme Court-Family Court). Divorce and child support case.

(c) Mapp v. Mapp, 92-DR-40-6187, S. C. Supreme Court. Separate maintenance, alimony, and equitable distribution case.

(d) Shepherd v. First American Mortgage Co., (citation omitted), S.C. Supreme Court. Mortgage rescission case.

(e) Tisdale v. Williamsburg County, 90-CP-45-09. Challenge of tax levy by taxpayers group.

(f) Franklin v. Campbell, remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to the District Court for appeal to the 4th Circuit.

(g) Pee Dee Fed. Savings Bank v. Crawford, (citation omitted), Supreme Court.

Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided, at the Joint Committee's request, a supplemental list of 17 matters representative of her civil practice. Ms. Reddix-Smalls also detailed her civil motion and criminal practice. This information was incorporated into the record and is located in the transcript of Ms. Reddix-Smalls public hearing.

The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Reddix-Smalls has engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.

In a previous screening, Ms. Reddix-Smalls stated that she was cited for contempt of court by a probate judge in Florence County in 1986. Ms. Reddix-Smalls further stated that she would now have handled the matter differently.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

The Committee found Ms. Reddix-Smalls' diligence and industry satisfactory for her service on the Circuit Court bench.

Ms. Reddix-Smalls is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Reddix-Smalls appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7) Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Reddix-Smalls has managed her financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Ms. Reddix-Smalls is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she has not:

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

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

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

Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

(10) Miscellaneous:

Ms. Reddix-Smalls meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.

Ms. Reddix-Smalls was asked about her general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Ms. Reddix-Smalls's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of her public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there are correct answers to these questions.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Runyon 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:

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

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Runyon's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.

Mr. Runyon graduated from Tulane University School of Law in 1967 and was admitted to the South Carolina Bar later in the same year.

After graduating from law school, Mr. Runyon worked as a clerk and then associate with the firm of Lee & Padgett during the summer of 1967; he was staff attorney and later Chief Lawyer at the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program from 1967 to 1972; he worked at Padgett, Altman & Fuller from 1972 to 1973; he was a sole practitioner and/or in various space-sharing arrangements from 1973 to 1984; he was a partner in the firm Runyon, Kinard and Strauch from 1984 to 1987; and has been a sole practitioner or in a space sharing arrangement from 1987 to present. In addition, Mr. Runyon served as part-time Assistant City Attorney for the City of Charleston from 1972 to 1974, and he was the first Public Defender of Charleston County from 1974 to 1975.

Mr. Runyon described his practice over the past five years as 30% civil, 60% criminal, and 10% domestic.

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

a) Patsy Charles v. D.S.S., 1968 - U.S. District Court case in which a three judge federal panel declared the S.C. Welfare Residency Statute unconstitutional.

b) French v. City of Charleston - U.S. District Court case in Charleston which enjoined the City from requiring a district candidate to have five percent of the entire electorate sign before he/she could be placed on the ballot.

c) Johnson v. Tamsberg (C.A.) 430 F.2d 1125 - Established that administrative due process is not necessary for public housing tenants where jury trials are available to tenants.

d) State v. Grampus, 343 S.E.2d 26 and State v. Carter, 353 S.E.2d 875 - Both of these cases recognized "tests" for double jeopardy over and above the standard "Block Berger" tests.

e) Home Health v. Medical, (U. 53) F.Supp. 476 and 706 F.2d 497 (4th Circuit decision) - Case of first impression. Held that only patients, not providers, had standing to sue over choice of providers under a provision of the Social Security Act.

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

a) Clark v. Clark (reported). This was a case originating in the Berkeley County Probate Court and was a "laughing heir" case.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Runyon is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

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

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

The South Carolina Bar will issue its report on candidates offering for the Ninth Circuit before the election.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Representative Thomas 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.

Representative Thomas 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:

Representative Thomas was the speaker on "Restructured State Government and the State of Administrative Law" in August 1993, and the speaker on "The S.C. Woman Advocate: From Ceiling to Sunroof", for the S.C. Bar CLE Division and S.C. Women Lawyers Association in April 1996.

The Joint Committee found Representative Thomas to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

(3) Professional Experience:

Representative Thomas graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1986 and was admitted to the Bar later that same year.

After graduating from law school, Rep. Thomas worked at the law offices of Kenneth W. Thornton from January 1987 to September 1987; she was a partner in Rubillo & Thomas from September 1987 to August 1988; a solo practitioner from August 1988 to January 1993; a partner with Thomas & Gundling from January 1993 to January 1994; a partner in Lawrimore, Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher from January 1994 to May

Representative Thomas described her practice as 45% civil, 15% criminal, and 40% domestic.

Representative Thomas provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:

a) Harry F. Cameron v. Georgetown Steel - Workers' Compensation claim regarding novel question dealing with the "coming and going rule". Case No. WCC 9357660

b) Paula Wilson, et al. v. Patricia Brown, a/k/a Patricia Brown Nance - Issue of whether a deceased individual was competent at the time of marriage and the children's standing to sue. Case No. 95-DR-22-156

c) State of South Carolina v. Marshall Beam - First case in the 15th Circuit in which an individual was charged under the Criminal Negligence statute in South Carolina. Case No. 93-GS-26-2153.

d) State v. Robert Prince - Addressed numerous search and seizure issues.

e) Swails v. Revco - Establishing damages for administering wrong medication. Case No. 95-CP-22-260.

Representative Thomas provided the Committee with the following civil appeal for which she has been retained as co-counsel:

a) Myra Jean Merritt v. Carl A. Merritt, Jr., Docket 3 95-610.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Representative Thomas' temperament would be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Representative Thomas was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

Representative Thomas is married and has three children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Representative Thomas appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7) Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Representative Thomas has managed her financial affairs responsibly.

Representative Thomas is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Representative Thomas testified that she has not:

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

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

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

Representative Thomas testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Representative Thomas testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

(10) Miscellaneous:

Representative Thomas meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.

The Bar found Representative Thomas qualified. The Bar reported that she is "perceived by those interviewed as intelligent and personable and possesses good common sense. It is felt that Rep. Thomas is conscientious, is well prepared and will have good judicial temperament. She is perceived to have excellent character and integrity. Some of those interviewed expressed concern as to the extent of experience in civil and criminal court because the majority of her practice has been in the family court system. However, throughout her practice she has frequently been in both civil and criminal court representing litigants."

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Judge Turner 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:

| Printed Page 3470, May 14 | Printed Page 3490, May 14 |