| Printed Page 2580, May 9 | Printed Page 2600, May 14 |

While the law provides that the Joint Committee is to make findings as to qualifications, the Joint Committee views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which, if elected, they will serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Joint Committee inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public it represents as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts.

The Joint Committee expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Joint Committee takes its responsibilities very seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. If you would like to review portions of the screening transcript or other public information about a candidate before it is printed in the Journal, please contact Beth Atwater at 734-4851.

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

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Mr. Armstrong 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. Armstrong demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. Armstrong has served as a panel member for Leadership Beaufort and Senior Leadership Beaufort. He has also given a presentation to the S.C. Association of Legal Investigators on how to be a more effective witness. In addition, he has been a guest on several T.V. shows in the Hilton Head area regarding criminal law.

Mr. Armstrong published an article titled "Up from the Lowcountry, Who is this New Kid on the Block?", Robert S. Armstrong, Fall Issue, 1993, South Carolina Trial Lawyer Bulletin.

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

Mr. Armstrong reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Armstrong graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Mr. Armstrong has served as a law clerk to Judge William Howell, as a Public Defender (1983-1985), as an Assistant Solicitor for the 14th Circuit (1985-1990), and as Deputy Solicitor (1990-June 1995). Since July 1995, Mr. Armstrong has been a sole practitioner in private practice.

Mr. Armstrong reported that he had attended CLE's regularly during the last five years. He stated that until last year his focus was on evidence, criminal, and constitutional law. Last year, he began concentrating on civil law.

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

(a) Death penalty case. State v. Elkins, 436 S.E.2d 178 (S.C. 1993).

(b) A reckless homicide case where he was appointed as a special prosecutor in Dorchester County. State v. James McConnell, 449 S.E.2d 778 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994).

(c) A multiple defendant case involving safecracking, burglary, and possession of cocaine. State v. Ernest Williams, et al., (citation omitted).

(d) Murder and rape case involving testimony of daughter and circumstantial evidence. State v. Emiah Anderson, (citation omitted).

(e) Rape case involving police officer's new wife. State v. Solomon Anderson, (Citation Omitted).

Mr. Armstrong provided the Committee with one domestic appeal and no civil appeals. The domestic appeal was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Jasper County Department of Social Services v. William Bostic and Jackie Bostic, Op. No. 92-MO-181 (filed July 6, 1992).

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

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

Mr. Armstrong is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(7) Financial Responsibility:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Armstrong is active in professional and community activities.

(9) Ethics:

Mr. Armstrong testified that he has not:

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

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

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

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

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

(10) Miscellaneous:

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

Mr. Armstrong was found qualified by the South Carolina Bar. The Bar reported that "although [Mr. Armstrong] lacks significant civil trial experience, he has extensive trial experience in General Sessions court. He served as a public defender for two years and assistant solicitor for ten years." The Bar also found that Mr. Armstrong "is considered to be intelligent and has a keen sense of fairness and equity." The Bar

Mr. Armstrong was asked about his general philosophy regarding the power of the General Assembly regarding legislating. The candidate's answer to this question is printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included this response solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

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

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Mr. Barber stated that he was an instructor at the U.S.C. College of Applied Sciences. He taught a Business Law course to undergraduate students which primarily covered contracts.

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

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

(3) Professional Experience:

Mr. Barber graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1969 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Barber has worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, Internal Security Division from February 1970 to October 1972, the Law Office of Henry H. Edens from October

Mr. Barber described his practice over the past five years as 79% civil, 1% criminal, and 20% domestic. While the Committee initially expressed some concern over Mr. Barber's criminal experience, Mr. Barber was able to document an extensive practice of criminal law, marked by a degree of complexity. This information is provided in the transcript from Mr. Barber's public hearing.

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

(a) Shirley and Jack Curry d/b/a C & T Properties v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 89-CP-10-0676. The case involved an attempt for plaintiffs to recover damages for a taking resulting from the loss of all value and use of their property following implementation of the Beachfront Management Act. Plaintiffs prevailed at trial level and ultimately on appeal to the Supreme Court.

(b) Irwin Lynn Hamby v. Linda Snelson Hamby, 216 S.E.2d 536 (1975). The case involved termination of parental rights of the birth father and the adoption of the child by the mother's husband.

(c) James E. Nash and John D. Medlin, Individually and as Shareholders on Behalf of Andy's Delicatessen, Inc. v. Adnan Shlon, Docket No. 88-CP-40-1390. The case was a shareholder's derivative action where valuation of the business was a key issue. Following the trial, Mr. Barber's client was able to acquire the minority interest and become the sole owner.

(d) Parkway Advertising Corporation v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Future Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., The County of York, South Carolina. The case involved attempt by two companies to erect billboards on adjoining property in York County. The litigation was a very complicated matter involving state statutes, regulations, and county ordinances. The Court authorized Mr. Barber's client to construct the structure.

(e) State of South Carolina v. Ruby Hiott, et al. A capital murder case wherein Mr. Barber was able to negotiate a plea on behalf of his client.

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

(a) Otis C. Carter v. South Carolina Department of Public Transportation, ___ S.C. ___, 306 S.E.2d 614 (1993). Case

(b) William P. Charping v. J.P. Scurry & Company, Inc., et al., ___ S.C. ___, 372 S.E.2d 120 (Ct. App. 1988). Case involved whether a restriction on a parcel of land was personal and therefore not binding on a subsequent owner.

(c) Betty Fogle Whetstone and Joseph Keels v. Michael K. Whetstone, Op. No. 92-UP-181 (filed December 29, 1992). Case involved the imposition of jail time for criminal and civil contempt relating to a family court action. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.

(d) Rebecca M. Estes v. Roper Temporary Services, Inc., ___ S.C. ___, 403 S.E.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1991). Case involved issues of estoppel and retroactivity of legislation.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

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

(5) Diligence and Industry:

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

Mr. Barber is married and has three children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

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

(7) Financial Responsibility:

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

(8) Public Service:

Mr. Barber is active in professional and community activities.

Mr. Barber testified that he has not:

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

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

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

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

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

(10) Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

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

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.

(3) Professional Experience:

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

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

As a current judge, Judge Bartlett omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years. Judge

(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.

(7) Financial Responsibility:

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

(8) Public Service:

Judge Bartlett has been active in professional and community activities.

| Printed Page 2580, May 9 | Printed Page 2600, May 14 |

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:58 P.M.