Printed Page 2610, May 14
| Printed Page 2630, May 14
|
Printed Page 2610, May 14
| Printed Page 2630, May 14
| Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Reddix-Smalls unqualified. The Bar reported that Ms. Reddix-Smalls is "perceived to be a bright lawyer with a wealth of legal experiences who zealously pursues the interests of her clients. Although well regarded by some members for the enthusiasm with which she pursues certain issues, others opined that she was unnecessarily confrontational and difficult to deal with. Her temperament was questioned by most. Some expressed the opinion that she interjected the issue of race into legal matters in which race was not an issue. Several years ago this candidate was the subject of a contempt order."
Ms. Reddix-Smalls was asked about her general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Ms. Reddix-Smalls's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of her public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there are correct answers to these questions.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
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,
(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.
(3) Professional Experience:
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.
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.
b) Custom Recording Company v. Dunn - This was an appeal from a denial of a three-judge federal panel. Relief was granted without argument and by order.
(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 requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
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.
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.
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.
(8) Public Service:
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:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Turner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Turner to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Turner graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1990 and was admitted to the Bar in January 1991.
After graduating from law school , Judge Turner worked at Stuckey and Kobrovsky in 1990; he was a sole practitioner from 1991 to 1995, and has been a magistrate from 1992 to present.
As a current judge, Judge Turner omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years.
Judge Turner stated that Magistrate Orders are often in different form, but described five significant rulings:
a) Ruled for plaintiff in a negligence action involving a defendant who ran into a fence with her automobile. Although the defendant was willing to fix the fence, she took issue with Judge Turner awarding damages to the plaintiff for two cows who wandered into the road and were killed. Judge Turner ruled that these damages were foreseeable.
b) Ruled for defense in an action by a minister who broke his tooth allegedly while eating at a restaurant. The defendant successfully argued that the plaintiff had not proven that the proximate cause of the injury was from this activity.
d) Ruled in favor of a jewelry store who sought to collect a debt from a man who purchased a ring. The man then sued his former fiancee and her friend who purchased the ring subsequently in a pawn shop. Judge Turner dismissed the two women as defendants.
e) Ruled in favor of a man who required his female companion to sign a promissory note each time he gave her money. Judge Turner found that her continuous willingness to sign these notes changed the transaction from a gift to a loan.
The Committee expressed some concern as to the brevity of Judge Turner's experience as a member of the Bar and as a trial lawyer.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Turner's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Turner 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 Turner is engaged to be married.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Turner 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 Turner has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Turner is a member of the South Carolina Bar.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Turner testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Turner testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Turner 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:
The South Carolina Bar will issue its report on candidates offering for the Ninth Circuit before the election.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rep. F. G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Rep. Ralph W. Canty
/s/Rep. L. Hunter Limbaugh
/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith
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 Minority Report addresses concerns regarding Integrity and Impartiality.
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did reveal some evidence that raised questions.
-----------------------------------
[2] Rep. Hunter Limbaugh did not vote.
Previously, at an earlier round of hearings, the Joint Committee was 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 felt 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. This occurred less than six months previous, and we believe that there has not been a sufficient passage of time to not hold her responsible for this relative to qualifications for a judgeship.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator John R. Russell
On motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, ordered printed in the Journal.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
May 6, 1996
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I am transmitting herewith an appointment for confirmation. This appointment is made with the "advice and consent of the Senate," and is, therefore, submitted for your consideration.
Respectfully,
David M. Beasley
Printed Page 2610, May 14
| Printed Page 2630, May 14
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:58 P.M.