Journal of the House of Representatives
of the Second Session of the 110th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 11, 1994

Page Finder Index

| Printed Page 6670, May 17 | Printed Page 6690, May 17 |

Printed Page 6680 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

Q. Could you explain to this screening committee what your complaint is?
A. Well, my -- the Supreme Court is -- to me, represents the highest thing that a judge can -- the highest level that a judge can attain. In order to be on the Supreme Court I think that as Circuit judges, they should have been able to show their ability to recognize and deal with repeat offenders, lifetime criminals. And in this case, both of these judges let a 17-time convicted felon walk out of their courtroom on probation. And I have trouble with believing that the justice system is working when repeat felons are not dealt with in the courtrooms.
Q. Ms. Hull, these proceedings concerned a Defendant named Julie Redick, is that correct, that was one of her names --
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. -- correct, that she used? Isn't it correct that Judge Baggett presided over a guilty plea and a sentencing hearing which took place over two days?
A. No.
Q. Over two days in 1993, August the 10th and October the 19th?
A. It was only one day that was actually in court. I don't know what happened outside of court.
Q. We have been supplied with the transcript of the hearing by Judge Baggett and that will be in the record. As I understand it, Ms. Redick was charged with the offense of obtaining property under false pretenses?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your understanding?
A. Yes.
Q. And the facts as they came out in the transcript were that she used a forged document from Richland County Probate Court to cash a Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $13,000 from an estate; is that --
A. Yes.
Q. -- your understanding?
A. Yes.
Q. As I understand it from the transcript, she pled guilty and received a sentence from Judge Baggett, and this is what you're complaining about?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.

Printed Page 6681 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

Q. Is it your understanding that the sentence was three years imprisonment, suspended on service of five years probation with six months of house arrest except for medical appointments?
A. Yes.
Q. Just to move on a little bit, Judge Kinard from Richland County --
A. Well, before we get to Judge Kinard, can I interject something?
Q. Certainly.
A. And if you read the transcript, in the transcript, Judge Baggett referred to Ms. Redick, or Gates, whichever her name was in this case, that she was a hardened criminal. Now, he recognized this fact.

This -- she pleaded guilty after manipulating the system to get in front of Judge Kinard instead of being in front of Judge Eppes earlier. She was supposed to go in front of Judge Eppes who had originally put her on probation for the Salvation Army scandal. When she found Judge Eppes was on the bench, she decided to plead not guilty in order to get a trial.

After Judge Eppes rotated off the bench, then she changed and decided she would plead guilty and she did so in Judge Baggett's courtroom. And he referred to her as a hardened criminal, who had lived for years off of other people's money, the system had been extremely kind to her. He made all these references, but then refused to take any -- any -- to this woman who has been on probation most of her adult life, probation to this woman is interpreted as the court's authority to steal some more. Probation does not deter this woman and after 16 convictions, these judges should recognize that fact.
Q. Could you tell the members of this committee what the medical evidence was that Judge Baggett had before him at this point?
A. He had a letter, whether it was -- whether or not it was signed -- someone -- someone in the court told me the letter was not signed, from a doctor, who said supposedly that Julie Redick has a heart condition. And that going to jail maybe derogatory to her health.
Q. What was the prognosis in that --
A. She has a heart condition.
Q. And what would need to be done for her?
A. Well, supposedly she claims that she is on a transplant list, but nobody has ever been able to document that she is actually that seriously ill. They never have asked for documentation.

He asked for documentation from the defense without -- he had someone from the bank called into verify the -- the records of this CD, he asked the prosecutors to verify everything they did, basically, but he never asked the doctor to be called in or any -- any backup documentation of this letter, how authentic it was, how seriously ill the woman was or how


Printed Page 6682 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

detrimental this would really be to her health. This was never brought out in court.
Q. We have in the packet of members of the screening committee, the indictment, the guilty plea and the four-page medical report from Doctor Stanley Juk of Providence Hospital, which were supplied to us from Judge Baggett. I have here one copy of the transcript. Ms. Hull, this -- you were present at both the hearings?
A. Yes.
Q. Both --
A. Well, there was only one that I'm aware of.
Q. Well, the one in front of Baggett and then also the one --
A. Oh, yes.
Q. -- of Judge Kinard?
A. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes.
Q. And what is your interest in this case?
A. I was Raymond Galindo's fiancee.
Q. And who is Raymond Galindo?
A. He is one who the CD -- the estate that the CD was stolen from.
Q. Was that money from a Certificate of Deposit restored to the estate of Mr. --
A. Yes, it was.
Q. -- Galindo?
A. But that does not -- but that does not change the fact that a crime was committed.
Q. I understand that. I just want to get that on the record. Okay. Could you say there were any key factors in Judge Baggett's sentence that came into play there?
A. Before we took the -- the break for lunch, everyone thought that Judge Baggett was going to sentence Julie Redick to Court (sic), then after lunch, he came back in and the only thing presented was the letter and there was no further discussion -- well, discussion on the matter and then he decided on probation. I don't know what happened at lunch.
THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't we before we move to Judge Kinard, let me see if the screening committee members have any questions about Judge Baggett's -- or testimony regarding Judge Baggett?
A. Before you -- Julie Redick has used this same health defense since 1989 to get out of going to jail for the Salvation Army which she embezzled $167,000 and was put on probation. She has been using this health scam as an excuse for going to jail while she has repeatedly broken the law and stolen more and more money. And I am convinced that Julie
Printed Page 6683 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

Redick will continue to steal money as long as she's allowed to walk the streets of this city.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a question about her status at the time of her guilty plea in Richland County. Was she on probation at that time?
A. Yes, she was. She was for the Salvation Army as well as other charges from what I understand. She has been on probation -- if you read the newspaper article, it's been one probation after the other and I don't know when one ended and exactly when another one started, but she was on probation for the Salvation Army.
THE CHAIRMAN: At the time --
A. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: -- of her plea?
A. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Was that probation revoked?
A. No, sir, it was not. That's why --
THE CHAIRMAN: Just continued?
A. -- she had to go back in front of Kinard because this violated her probation and that's what sent her back to Judge Kinard.
THE CHAIRMAN: That was the different -- that was the probation revocation hearing?
A. I have no problem with -- with honest judges with the legal system, but like I said, I have trouble with the fact that the Supreme Court is making supreme decisions in these matters, and situations like this are happening and I don't know whether either one of these gentleman have ever made a decision like this before. I did not research their careers because -- and I don't know. I really -- I haven't -- you know.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other additional questions regarding -- yes, Senator McConnell.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. How many convictions did she have at the time of this hearing exactly? Was it 17 or was this --
A. This was --
Q. -- the 17th one?
A. This was her 17th conviction.
Q. And these previous convictions, they were for --
A. Fraud.

Printed Page 6684 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

Q. -- embezzlement or something like that?
A. Fraud. Fraud, embezzlement. It's all listed in this newspaper article. I don't have a list of all of them in front of me, but they were all related to obtaining money under false pretenses.
Q. Were any of the other victims there besides you?
A. Yes. Debra Johnson, who's -- Demos Johnson estate or some other estate, she was -- she was there as well. Neither one of us testified or were called on to testify at the hearing.
Q. Was there anybody from the Salvation Army there?
A. No, sir. There was not, that I know of. If they were, they were not called on to testify.
Q. And at the hearing, did the Solicitor's office have anything to say about it?
A. The only thing that the Solicitor's office could say is that they thought they had enough for a conviction and they were a little bit surprised that there -- that there was no -- there was nothing but another probation given because they were convinced that they had a conviction.

The SLED officer who was there thought he had given enough information to the Solicitor's office to get a conviction, but it didn't happen.
Q. And do you recall specifically whether or not the court was made aware that she was already on probation?
A. Yes, sir. It came out. There was -- the best of my knowledge, there -- her record was -- was presented and discussed during the court hearing about her different convictions and how many times she had been convicted of different things and Fran Humphries the solicitor, he -- to the best of my knowledge, he brought all of this in the courtroom.
Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you previously stated that she had used these medical reasons before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know that she did that?
A. The transcript from the hearing with the Salvation Army.
Q. Do you recall --
A. And it was --
Q. -- essentially what she --
A. In the Salvation Army hearing, she asked for the judge to be lenient with her because she had thought that she was dying and that she was -- wanted to give her son a lot of things that he would never be able to have because she may die and leave him, and so she stole money to buy him cars or whatever else he wanted.


Printed Page 6685 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

Q. And do you recall how many years previous the Salvation Army incident was before --
A. She was convicted in '89.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Representative Alexander.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q. When did you first become aware of this problem that this lady apparently has and how did you become aware of it?
A. I became aware of it after Raymond Galindo died. He left his estate or attempted to leave his estate to the University of South Carolina. A lot of improprieties began appearing in the estate.

I started calling USC on a regular basis and then Ms. Johnson's attorney called me because the same thing was happening in her mother's estate and they called me and asked me for my information on this thing and then -- and then it turned out that Julie Redick was the one in both instances who was stealing money from the two estates.
Q. Well, how did you learn of it at first if this problem at the University of South Carolina was about to present itself?
A. The week that Ray died, his niece called me. They were still in Columbia and the personal representative, or the to-be-appointed personal representative was Louis Demos. Louis Demos had told Ray's family that he was going to move in Ray's house and live there until the estate was settled. And they were extremely distraught.

They called me wanting to know what -- is there anything we can do. Ray's family -- Ray's family is -- they're from New York. They're not really educated people. And they had no earthly idea what was going on, so I called Louis Demos and asked him and he told me at that time that he was going to move in the house supposedly to protect it.

I said that's not necessary, there is a security system on the house, there is no reason. It's tied in with the security patrol. There is no reason for you to live in the house. He said, "Well" -- he said, "It's cheaper insurance because a nonoccupied dwelling, the insurance almost doubles." I said, "You can also get rental insurance or you can get other insurance that is not quite that expensive." I said, "But even if we have to increase the insurance, that's less expensive than the estate supporting you while you live in Ray's house." So then he says, "Well, you may not like it, but there is nothing you can do about it."

That was his -- so then I called the University of South Carolina and told them what was happening and that is when -- when I came --
Q. How did Louis Demos know to call you? Why --
A. He did not call me. I called him.


Printed Page 6686 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

Q. And how did you know to call him?
A. His niece called -- Ray's niece called me and told me that he was moving in Ray's house and I called to find out why.
Q. How did you know to call the niece? Why did --
A. She called me.
Q. Oh, she called you?
A. From his house.
Q. Well, how did -- why did she call you if -- what reason?
A. Because I lived in South Carolina and they knew that I knew about Ray's affairs. I had helped him -- I handled Ray's affairs for years and years and years. They considered me a member of the family and they did not know who else to contact.
Q. In other words, you had a family connection there that --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With Ray?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We were engaged at one time.
Q. Oh, you were engaged?
A. Yes, sir. I stated that, I believe, in the beginning.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Well, this gets more confusing as we go, Mr. Chairman.
A. Oh, it gets worse, believe me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a few questions. Are you finished?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: That's all I want right now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just to see that I've got the record clear, I was looking at the news summary and it says she was convicted apparently of several fraudulent check charges back in 1980 and served no prison time?
A. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: And then it says she was convicted on ten bad check charges in '88 and put on probation?
A. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: And then it says she was -- that she was serving probation when she embezzled from the Salvation Army, so that's the incident you referred to in '89, was the Salvation Army incident?
A. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Where apparently she didn't pay her restitution and they reactivated her sentence? Is that when she got --
A. What happened with the -- with the -- when she spent the six months in jail, I went to a probation hearing and presented evidence. She had said that she was unable financially to pay the $25,000 that was to be paid in increments of I don't know how much a month.

Printed Page 6687 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

She said that she was destitute and could not pay it. I presented papers to the Parole Board that day that Julie Redick had signed during the same period, telling Lexington State Bank that she was worth $170,000. It was filled out and signed by Julie Redick's own handwriting, and so that is when they gave her six months -- probation and that's the only jail time this woman has served.
THE CHAIRMAN: And the account again states that after that while awaiting trial for breach of trust, that she worked at Multiple Management Services and was charged with forgery there for $725 worth of checks?
A. $1,725.
THE CHAIRMAN: 1,725 and then it says while on probation, she was arrested four times on bad check charges again and then it -- the next account is the story of her work for Mr. Demos. Is that a fairly accurate summary of the history?
A. Pretty much so, yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, tell me about -- I'm curious about what the court ordered. Did they order restitution in your case and the other case that -- or the two cases that were pending at the time this news account was written?
A. No, sir. It was only probation as far as I'm aware.
THE CHAIRMAN: So no restitution was made of any of the money that was taken?
A. No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. McNamee is going to help me here.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. I think you did testify that the amount of the CD had been repaid?
A. The bank had repaid --
Q. The bank?
A. -- the University, but nobody has repaid the bank.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right, so what you're saying is that through some insurance plan or through -- that the bank took care of that obligation?
A. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: But to your knowledge, no --
A. No one pressed charges against her.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Questions? Any more questions? All right, let's turn to the incident involving Judge Kinard now and see if we can move into that.

Printed Page 6688 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. As I understand it was several weeks later, Ms. Redick came up for a probation hearing; is that correct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Or a revocation of probation hearing in front of Judge Kinard?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. What happened at that hearing?
A. Well, they presented the same medical mumbo jumbo that they had presented at the other trial. Judge Kinard listened to the -- to the medical -- looked at the letter, did whatever and sentenced her to 30 days at the Correctional Institute, and I may not -- the wording may not be exact. Don't quote me exactly on this, but to the effect that it was to be served one day a week, the day of her choice, she was to report to the correctional institution for that day. If she was not feeling ill on the day, she was to report, and this was to be done until the 30 days had been completed.
THE CHAIRMAN: And we have just had handed toward us a copy of that. I believe this is Judge Kinard's --
MS. MCNAMEE: This is Judge Kinard's order and the transcript of the hearing.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have that in front of us.
A. Like I say, this is not a direct quote. That is my interpretation that was what --
THE CHAIRMAN: It says the 30 days are to be served one day a week Mondays unless -- it says unless a medical exam, then to be served on another day of the week.
MS. MCNAMEE: Excuse me, for medical reasons --
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MS. MCNAMEE: -- is required --
THE CHAIRMAN: Report at 8:00 a.m. every Monday.
Q. Is your testimony, then, that in your opinion Judge Kinard was too lenient on Ms. Redick?
A. Yes, very much so.
Q. In the same manner as you would have --
A. Yes.
Q. -- said to us about Judge Baggett?
A. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the Members? Now, were you present, Ms. Hull, at the probation revocation hearing?
A. Yes, I was.

Printed Page 6689 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994

THE CHAIRMAN: And the other victim that's described in the news account --
A. She was also.
THE CHAIRMAN: -- was she present as well?
A. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you testify in that proceeding at all?
A. No, sir, I was not called on to testify.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you recall whether or not the probation agent, did they make any type of recommendation or the Solicitor's office in the revocation hearing regarding what should be done with her?
A. I really don't remember exactly what their recommendation was. There have been so many of these hearings that I just -- I believe they were recommending that she get -- that her probation be revoked, but I'm not -- I would not -- I can't testify, though, under oath because I don't know.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did the judge make any comments during the hearing regarding his basis for the decision giving her the 30 days?
A. Her lawyer Kirkland, I believe is his name, said that a jail sentence for her would be a death -- it would be the same as a death sentence. Because of her health condition, she could not get the medical care in prison that she deserved. And I can only assume that that's what Judge Kinard based his decision on. I do not know.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the members? If not, Ms. Hull, you may have a seat. Let me explain to you what our procedure is. When we have a witness who comes forward to testify, we allow the candidate to come back and respond to information that we have received during the course of that testimony.

We don't because of the fact that we could go back and forth forever, we don't ask the witness to come back up. We do leave the record open, however, in the event you have additional details you would like for us to look at. And I would ask you if you do come upon information you think is relevant to either one of the cases that please forward it to Ms. McNamee or to the Screening Committee and we will consider that.

We do -- we leave the record open for the purpose, but what we'll do at this time is ask Judge Baggett to step forward and to take the witness chair and to respond to your testimony. When we screen Judge Kinard, we'll ask him to respond to the allegations as well in that.
A. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Judge Baggett.
JUDGE BAGGETT: Yes, sir.


| Printed Page 6670, May 17 | Printed Page 6690, May 17 |

Page Finder Index