Printed Page 450, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 470, Feb. 6
|
Printed Page 450, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 470, Feb. 6
| The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Dillard has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Dillard is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Dillard 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. Dillard testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Dillard 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. Dillard meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Dillard not qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Dillard was considered by members of the Bar "to be honest with a good temperament who is generally well liked by other members of the Bar. It was believed that Mr. Dillard would strive to be impartial. However, the depth of his legal experience, his industry, and the quality of his preparation in some of the cases he has handled were questioned."
Mr. Dillard 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. Dillard'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.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Mr. DuTremble 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. 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 with the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. He was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Charleston from 1983 until 1987 and 1989 to 1991. Mr. DuTremble was a sole practitioner from 1987 to 1989, and from 1991 to the present. His practice has mainly involved criminal law, with some civil litigation, and he currently specializes in white collar criminal defense.
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.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
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.
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.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
------------------------------------------
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in the deliberation of this candidate.
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Ms. Jones demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Ms. Jones has been a Family Court Lecturer for the SC Bar, CLE Division. She has also been a Reserve Officers Training Instructor and a Solicitor's Office Training Team Instructor.
Ms. Jones was co-author of "Synopsis of Selected Statutes Relating to Child Abuse and Neglect" South Carolina Children's Code (G11-G19).
The Joint Committee found Ms. Jones to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Jones was given a Martindale-Hubbell rating BV in 1985.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Jones graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1980 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since her graduation from law school, Ms. Jones has practiced in Family Court, including being the Supervisor of Family Court Lawyers from 1983 to 1987, and briefly went into private domestic and civil practice with the office of Kermit King from 1987 to 1988. Since 1988, Ms. Jones has primarily practiced in General Sessions court and is currently an assistant solicitor in the Fifth Circuit Solicitor's office.
Ms. Jones described her practice during the previous five years as 100% criminal. The Committee expressed concern over Ms. Jones' limited civil experience during the previous five years, but noted that she did practice primarily in the civil law area for at least one year from 1987 to 1988.
Ms. Jones provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(a) State v. Duane Mitchell - First DNA case tried in Richland County General Sessions, Co-counsel, Counsel who examined experts and had evidence of DNA admitted into evidence for the first time in Richland County.
(c) State v. John Allen Butler - First murder case Ms. Jones tried as sole counsel, January 27 and 28, 1992.
(d) Co-counsel on five death penalty cases, including - State v. Elmore, 332 S.E.2d 762, 286 S.C. 70, Cert. Gr. and vacated. Elmore v. South Carolina, 106 S.Ct. 1942, 476 U.S. 1101 90 L.Ed.2d 353, appeal after remand 386 S.E.2d 769, 300 S.C. 130, cert. den. 110 S.Ct. 2633, 110 L.Ed. 652 reh. den. 111 S.Ct. 9, 111 L.Ed. 824. State v. Freddie Singleton, 326 S.E.2d 153, 284 S.C. 388, cert. den. 105 S.Ct. 2356, 471 U.S. 1111, 85 L.E.2d 863.
(e) State v. Hartpence - The first criminal sexual conduct with minor case Ms. Jones tried. Defense counsel was John Delgado. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence pursuant to Rule 23 on March 16, 1987.
In regard to civil appeals, Ms. Jones handled one appeal in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court for another attorney who was not available for the argument. The other attorney had written the brief. Ms. Jones also wrote one Appellate Brief while employed at Kermit King's office, but the matter was settled before argument.
The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Jones had engaged in an active trial practice in General Sessions court, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes Ms. Jones to be capable of exhibiting excellent temperament.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Ms. Jones 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.
Ms. Jones is single.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Jones appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Jones has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Jones is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Jones 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. Jones testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Jones 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. Jones meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
Ms. Jones was found qualified by the South Carolina Bar. The Bar reported that "those interviewed perceived her to be bright, hardworking, and diligent. She was considered quite knowledgeable of the criminal law by some of the members contacted." The Bar found that "Ms. Jones was described as a meticulous and no-nonsense lawyer who strived for perfection." The Bar also reported that "although well regarded by her peers, some describe her as impatient and expressed concern about her temperament. Others were concerned about the limited nature of her experience in civil matters."
Ms. Jones was asked about her 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. The candidate's answers to these questions are printed 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 is a correct answer to any question.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Judge Kittredge was screened on December 13, 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 Kittredge 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 Kittredge has given numerous lectures on family law topics to the members of the Bar and to interested civic groups.
Judge Kittredge published The Inevitability of Police Discretion in the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association magazine in approximately 1978.
The Joint Committee found Judge Kittredge to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Judge Kittredge's Martindale-Hubbell rating while in private practice was BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Kittredge graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Kittredge clerked for federal Judge William W. Wilkins from 1982 to 1984, and was a partner with the firm of Wilkins, Nelson & Kittredge from 1984 to 1991 where he had a litigation practice. Judge Kittredge has served as a Family Court judge since 1991.
Judge Kittredge served as a part-time Assistant Solicitor from September 1984 to July 1985 and for a brief period in 1986.
Judge Kittredge described his practice over the last five years of his practice as 25% civil, 2 to 5% criminal, and 65% domestic.
(a) State v. Floyd McDuffie (1985). Case involved a highly publicized robbery and murder. Defendant was convicted of armed robbery and manslaughter and sentenced to jail.
(b) State v. Donnie Robinson (1985). Prosecution for armed robbery and kidnapping. Defendant was convicted on all counts and given a life term.
(c) Stogner v. City of Mauldin, 84-CP-23-680. Challenge of the City of Mauldin's zoning ordinance. Judgment was given to the City of Mauldin at the close of evidence.
(d) Collins Music v. Terry, et al., 87-CP-23-2982. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unfair trade practices. Judgment for Plaintiff was appealed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
(e) First Baptist Church of Mauldin vs. City of Mauldin, 90-CP-23-955. Action by Plaintiff to close a road located on its property. Judgment was entered for Plaintiff and affirmed on appeal to Supreme Court.
Judge Kittredge listed five civil appeals he personally handled as follows:
(a) Collins Music v. Terry, 303 S.C. 358, 400 S.E.2d 783 (Ct. App. 1991). Issue on appeal was whether the award of punitive damages by the trial court was proper.
(b) S.C. Tax Commission v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 305 S.C. 183, 407 S.E.2d 627 (1991).
(c) Watson v. Watson, 291 S.C. 13, 351 S.E.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1986). Issues concerned the propriety of trial judge's award of child custody, child support, attorney's fees and temporary alimony to respondent.
(d) Burns v. Burns, 293 S.C. 1, 358 S.E.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1987). Questions on appeal included the following: Did the trial judge's award of custody constitute an abuse of discretion? Was trial judge correct in sustaining evidentiary objections? Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to include a section of the Final Order in the transcript of record?
(e) Lineberger v. Lineberger, 303 S.C. 248, 399 S.E.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1990). Issues concerned trial court's definition of and distribution of marital property
(f) Bible v. Bible, 89-MO-320 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Dec. 15, 1989). Issues on appeal were whether trial court had jurisdiction over
Judge Kittredge listed his five most significant orders as follows:
(a) In re Andrea W. - Judge Kittredge found an anti-picketing ordinance unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against the juveniles to whom it had been applied.
(b) Allen v. Coggins - Custody case involving the right of a custodial parent to move with the child to another state.
(c) Skelton v. Skelton - Case involving right to pursue alimony in a subsequent action.
(d) Mitchell v. Mitchell - Case involving sizable marital estate with issues of asset valuation and equitable apportionment.
(e) Doe v. Corey B. - Adoption case wherein biological father intervened and sought custody.
At the Joint Committee's request, Judge Kittredge provided the Joint Committee with a representative list of civil cases that he handled prior to being elected a Family Court judge. The list of cases, which were incorporated into the transcript of his public hearing, indicate that Judge Kittredge had an active civil practice. Judge Kittredge also provided information that as a part-time Assistant Solicitor he was assigned 237 criminal cases. This information indicates that Judge Kittredge has a strong criminal court background.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Kittredge, before his election as a Family Court judge, had engaged in an active trial practice in the civil, criminal, and domestic courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Kittredge's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Kittredge appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Printed Page 450, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 470, Feb. 6
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:59 P.M.