Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 480, Feb. 6
|
Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 480, Feb. 6
| The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kittredge has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Kittredge has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Kittredge qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Kittredge "has a reputation of intelligence and diligence. During his practice prior to election to the Family Court, those who practiced with him in the civil courts referred to his work as impeccable and straightforward. During his tenure on the Family Court, lawyers appearing before him have reported favorably on his impartiality and diligent handling of the court docket. In addition, they have reported an improvement in the docketing and scheduling system for which Judge Kittredge is given credit. He is reported to have an excellent work ethic and a strong understanding of human affairs. He is also viewed as having an intelligent understanding of the legal issues presented in his court."
Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Mr. Nicholson was screened on December 15, 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. Nicholson 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Nicholson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Nicholson's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Nicholson 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, Mr. Nicholson has worked as an attorney with Fogle & Watson in 1973, with Fogle & Nicholson in 1975, with J.C. Nicholson from 1975 to 1978, Nicholson & Williams from 1978 to 1981, the Greenville County Solicitor's Office in 1982, Epps & Krause from 1982 to 1985, Epps, Krause & Nicholson from 1985 to 1994, and Epps, Nicholson & Stathakis since 1995.
Mr. Nicholson described his practice over the past five years as 50% civil, 25% criminal, and 25% domestic.
------------------------------------------
[1] Mr. Delleney did not participate in the deliberation of this candidate.
(a) Circuit Court case - Defendant was the S.C. Department Highway Department. Verdict for Plaintiff of $350,000.
(b) Circuit Court case - Personal injury case which resulted in a verdict of $17,000.
(c) Lucille Vaughn et al. vs. SC Highway Department, 386 S.E.2d 297 (S.C. 1989). Case involved a defective intersection.
(d) Circuit Court case - Medical malpractice case. Case was significant because the judge allowed 3 of the doctor's former patients on the jury because the defendant was out of strikes.
(e) General Sessions - Death penalty case. Mr. Nicholson prosecuted the defendant who received a life sentence.
Mr. Nicholson provided the Joint Committee with 5 appeals that he has personally handled as follows:
(a) Mona Grove vs. SC Department of Education, Supreme Court (1993). Appeal of a Workers' Compensation case. Issue was whether carpel tunnel syndrome was a compensable as an accident or whether it is an occupational disease;
(b) Donna Lynn Williams vs. Ted Robert Williams, Supreme Court (1993). Issues included whether evidence supported finding of adultery and whether judge erred in not applying tender years doctrine.
(c) Marlene Duncan vs. Springs Industries, Supreme Court (1993). Appeal of Worker's Compensation case. Issue was whether carpel tunnel syndrome was an compensable accident or an occupational disease.
(d) Herbert Lamar McCrider vs. America House Spinning et al., Supreme Court (1993). Appeal of Worker's Compensation case. Issue was whether Commission erred in finding that no injury occurred to plaintiff.
(e) Donna Byers vs. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 435 S.E.2d 23 (1992). Wrongful discharge case. Issue was whether there was a factual dispute which would preclude the trial judge's grant of summary judgment for the defendant.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Nicholson 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 Joint Committee believes that Mr. Nicholson's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson is married and has four children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Nicholson served as an active duty Air Force Captain from 1965 to 1970 and in the Air National Guard from 1970 to 1988. He retired as a Lt. Colonel.
Mr. Nicholson is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Nicholson 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. Nicholson meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified/(Majority)
Unqualified (Minority: Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Senator John R. Russell)
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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 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.
------------------------------------------
[1] Representative Limbaugh did not vote.
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.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls has never applied for a Martindale-Hubbell rating.
(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% 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)
(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)
(11) Breach of warranty, breach of contract, and attorney's fees case. Trial August 1995; motion for reconsideration pending. Carter v. Rogers, 93-CP-40-4716.
(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.
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.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
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:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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. 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 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
Judge Saunders 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 Saunders 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.
The Joint Committee found Judge Saunders to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Saunders was rated AV by Martindale-Hubbell in 1994, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Saunders graduated from Wake Forest Law School in 1968 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Saunders worked as a sole practitioner from 1968 to 1994, served as City Attorney for the City of Laurens from 1972 to 1992, and represented the Commission of Public Works from 1993-1994. Judge Saunders described his practice as general and included civil, criminal, domestic, and administrative law practice. Judge Saunders was elected to the Family Court Bench in 1994.
Judge Saunders described his practice over the five years prior to his service on the bench as 40% civil, 25% criminal, and 35% domestic.
Judge Saunders provided a supplemental response to the Joint Committee's request for five of his most significant litigated matters and five civil appeals which he personally handled. This response is noted in the transcript of Judge Saunders' public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Saunders had engaged in an active trial practice in the courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Saunders' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Saunders 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 Saunders is married and has three daughters.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Saunders appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
Printed Page 460, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 480, Feb. 6
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:59 P.M.