Printed Page 430, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 450, Feb. 6
|
Printed Page 430, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 450, Feb. 6
| The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Alford has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Alford served in the United States Air Force from 1960 to 1964. He received an honorable discharge.
Judge Alford was elected Probate Judge for York County 4 times from 1979 to 1992.
Judge Alford is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Alford 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 Alford testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Alford 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 Alford meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Alford qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Alford "possesses good knowledge of the law and is highly regarded as a tireless worker by those who have worked with him in the Family Court and previously in his years as Probate Court judge." The Bar also found that "Judge Alford has excellent character, integrity, and reputation. He is considered to be fair and impartial to litigants and attorneys. Most of those surveyed considered his judicial temperament to be good."
Judge Alford 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. Judge Alford'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
Judge Alford 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. Judge Alford'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
Mr. Armstrong was screened on December 12, 1995, 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.
------------------------------------------
[1] Delleney did not participate.
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, 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 described his practice over the past five years as 90% criminal and 10% domestic. He also estimated that during the previous five years about 50% of his practice involved matters that went to a jury. The Committee expressed some concern over Mr. Armstrong's lack of civil experience. However, Mr. Armstrong reported that he has concentrated on civil law CLE's in the last year. Also, in response to the Committee's request for supplemental information, Mr. Armstrong provided the Committee with a more detailed breakdown of his civil experience. Since he entered private practice in July, Mr. Armstrong reported that he has handled cases involving real estate, personal injury, medical malpractice, collection, and probate matters. This information can be found in Mr. Armstrong's public hearing transcript.
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 Jasper County Department of
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Armstrong's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
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 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 December 18, 1995, 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.
Mr. Barber also provided to the Committee that he was charged with public intoxication in 1966 after a friend ran a red light and was stopped by police. Mr. Barber stated that he was charged with public intoxication even though he never left the car or had a conversation with the police officers.
Mr. Barber also provided that he was charged with driving under the influence in 1968. Mr. Barber was stopped in Holbrook, Arizona by a police officer who noticed a cooler in the back seat. Mr. Barber was then charged with driving under the influence even though Mr. Barber states that he was denied an opportunity to take a breathalyzer and a blood test. After posting a $100 bond, Mr. Barber and his friends remained in
(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 1972 to August 1977, and Todd & Barber, PC from August 1977 to present.
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.
(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 involved whether under S.C. law a business had to be recognizable from the main travelled way to qualify as an unzoned commercial or industrial area for purposes of the Highway Advertising Control Act.
(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.
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.
(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
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 Breeden was screened on December 19, 1995, 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 Breeden demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, in particular in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Breeden was sued in a malpractice case in 1978 for non-disclosure of a lien on real estate. The court found for him on the basis of no attorney-client relationship, thus no duty to disclose.
------------------------------------------
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in deliberation of this candidate.
Judge Breeden has made addresses on legal issues to civic clubs and the Association of Mortgage Lenders.
The Joint Committee found Judge Breeden to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Breeden is listed in Martindale-Hubbell as Master in Equity with a BV rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Breeden graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Breeden has worked as a general practitioner with an emphasis on real estate law from 1973 until 1978. Judge Breeden left the law firm of Jenrette, Wheless, McInnis and Breeden to become an Assistant Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor from 1978 to 1980. From 1981 to 1988, he was County Attorney and part-time Master in Equity for Horry County. From 1988 to the present, Judge Breeden has been a full time Master in Equity for Horry County. Since that time, Judge Breeden has also served as Special Referee for several cases in Georgetown County.
Judge Breeden provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders as follows:
(a) South Carolina Federal Savings Bank v. Thornton-Crosby Development Company
(b) Preferred Savings Bank v. Abdo Elkholy
(c) Peoples Federal Savings And Loan Association and Loyal Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Myrtle Beach Retirement Group, Inc.
(d) Paul's Electric Service, Inc. v. South Seas, Inc.
(e) The Landing Development Corp. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 329 S.E.2d 423 (1985).
At the request of the Joint Committee, Judge Breeden provided a number of representative civil cases that he handled prior to his appointment as a Master-in-Equity. Judge Breeden also provided affidavits of former associates at the Solicitor's Office who stated that Judge Breeden had tried a number of cases while at the Solicitor's Office.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Breeden, before being appointed a Master-in-Equity, had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication. The Committee also acknowledged that Judge Breeden
Printed Page 430, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 450, Feb. 6
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:59 P.M.