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 6680, May 17 | Printed Page 6700, May 17 |
Printed Page 6690 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: If you'd come forward. You're still under oath.
JUDGE BAGGETT: Thank you, sir.
EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Judge Baggett, I'm handing up to you your transcript --
A. I have it. I've got it.
Q. You have it?
A. I have it. Yes, I was there.
Q. Judge Baggett, I would just ask you to respond with the transcript in hand to your recollection of the day and the thought processes that --
A. Oh, yes, I remember it quite well. It's one of those perplexing situations that you're wholly frustrated with what you would like to do. First of all, she was charged in a minor way for a major crime. She stole $13,000 and she was indicted for taking money under false pretenses which carries only up to three years or a fine of $500. That was frustrating enough as it was.

She had a record that would completely justify her being incarcerated for the maximum of three years and I sympathize with this lady about this. I wanted to put her in jail and if you look at the transcript, you will see where I said that. I did not feel comfortable about this, but I relied upon the representation made to me by Mr. Henry Kirkland, a respected member of many years at the Bar, whom I've known personally for many years.

He presented to me a document from Doctor Stanley Juk, a renowned cardiologist, and when all these facts were given to me and when they were fairly recent facts when they were presented to me -- let me backtrack a minute. She first pled nolo contendere, no contest, and I accepted that, but after I got further into it and saw her record, I insisted that she plead guilty, to admit her guilt in a hearing. She did. I made her admit it. She pled guilty. I wouldn't accept nolo.

Doctor Juk presented me with this dilemma in his report. She had had three hospitalizations as myocardia infarctions. She had two arterial transplants. Not transplants, bypasses. She had two coronary artery bypass surgeries and she had been recently admitted on an emergency basis for a Class 4 chest pain. It goes on to say that she was most definitely in line and needed a heart transplant.

In addition to that, she had some gynecological problems that were suspicious of being cancerous. She was awaiting surgery on those things.

Now, I'm looking at this woman who deserved more than three years and if I gave her three years, I don't know when she'd get out, but I do know this, if she's placed in the South Carolina Department of Corrections, the State was in line to pay possibly as much as a quarter of

Printed Page 6691 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
a million dollars for a heart transplant. And I do not know what the other expenses would be for gynecological problems.

All I could see was the State of South Carolina being made to undertake to pay all these major expenses for a property crime, property criminal, indeed a very bad one, who could only face as much as three years and be out in probably under two. And I just had to balance those things and I just could not see putting this on the taxpayers of South Carolina to make them pay for this heart transplant and all these other things.

I do not apologize for that, gentlemen. I'm sorry that this lady feels as she does and I could see how she would feel that way. These are the charges that I made and -- and that's it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Representative Alexander.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q. One can't help, but wonder where the lady is now if she needed all of these things.
A. I couldn't tell you.
Q. Do you have any idea?
A. I don't know, Mr. Alexander.
Q. When did this occur? The sentencing, when was that?
A. I had the --
MS. HULL: It was in October.
A. August. August would be the formalized plea and I sentenced her in October.
Q. Of ninety --
A. '93.
Q. '93?
A. Yes, sir. I've not had any more --
THE CHAIRMAN: Tell me about the restitution. Was restitution ordered in the case and was any paid?
A. All but $3,000 I think in that case has been made. That's what was told to me. She was on $500 Social Security Disability and that's all she had I was told. And it was pointless -- I think the law is made to look foolish when it orders something that's impossible to do. It's one of the theories that I've learned. It may look good. But if you don't have any chance of collecting, what good does it do?
THE CHAIRMAN: Was --
A. I tried to get the bank in to testify as to anything. They've been uncooperative. It was a useless point in my trying to get her to pay restitution.

Printed Page 6692 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Was there a recommendation made by the Solicitor's office in the case or was it a case where they made no recommendation?
A. As to sentencing?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
A. I don't accept recommendations from the prosecution. Never have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Senator McConnell.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. Judge Baggett, as I understand, your decision was based on the fact that the medical evidence indicated to you that we were -- the State was going to pick up substantial liability?
A. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Q. How about the consideration that she probably might go out and do this again or that she was already on parole?
A. I can't answer that.
Q. Or probation, I guess, you know.
A. I can't answer that, Senator. I think it was pretty clear that when she was brought back to court that she go to jail without question. She would in my mind. It's a difficult call. I can see that it admits of some fair criticism, but I don't think that I should make the taxpayers pay a quarter of a million dollars for -- to keep this woman in jail a few months.
THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Thank you, Judge Baggett.
A. Yes, sir.

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY OF JUDGE BAGGETT AT PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 29, 1994:

JUDGE BAGGETT - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. You are the second most senior member of the Circuit Bench and I'd like to ask you what are the most significant changes that you've seen in the Circuit Court bench during your tenure there?
A. Well, I think, first of all, the numbers have fluctuated. When we first came on, the nine of us in
'76, there had -- there was a tremendous backlog because of the fact that the County courts were being dissolved, so we accepted all of those cases and we had a tremendous backlog and so up until about 19 probably 85, 86, we began to whittle that down. And we began to be able to handle cases with more facility. So I think that's one of the major changes.

What we're seeing now is the build back -- building back up of the case loads and we have had, too, significant increases of litigation because of certain substantive changes in the law, primarily the abolition of immunities of all sorts, which have brought in a great amount of the

Printed Page 6693 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
litigation and the Unfair Trade Practices Act, a great many acts of the General Assembly and decisions of the Supreme Court have opened up more avenues for litigation. And so we're being faced and challenged constantly almost on a monthly basis to learn new laws and find out what these things mean. The Omnibus Crime Act, or the Reclassification of Crime Act, all these things, the contributory negligence, consideration of the comparative negligence which we had to learn all over again, so it's been a constancy in learning that we've had to undergo. I think there's been more movement in that area than probably at any other time that I can recall in the law.
Q. While you've been on the bench, what's been your most challenging case and why?
A. I think the Presbyterian Church litigation case. It was a nonjury case and we had some outstanding lawyers in there. It was of national concern because the issue presented as to how it was that dissidents could withdraw from the Presbyterian Church and if so, who owned the church property. And it was an interesting case and I just loved doing research on it and write an opinion which you have as a part of your material there.

The result was so striking when you look back at it, when 39 people could control the church property were out of a congregation of 700, which was a result of it. And when you think of that kind of result, you know it took some really digging to be able to justify that. And I was perfectly satisfied with the result and I'm happy to say that opinion was never appealed. It was the law in the case and I was told there was no basis for an appeal because I had covered all the holes in it and there was no need to it. I was really happy with that and proud of it.
Q. What advice would you give to new lawyers just starting out?
A. Well, new lawyers just starting, if you haven't learned already go to night school or trade school, learn how to use a computer. When you learn to use your computer, buy a lap top.
Q. Everybody needs a lap top computer?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. What is your opinion, Judge Baggett, about the proposed Rules of Evidence, the new Rules of Evidence, statutory Rules of Evidence?
A. I haven't studied them. I couldn't tell you to save my life to be honest with you.
Q. Do you think that they're necessary? The Court is discussing coming out with Rules of Evidence.
A. I haven't studied them. I couldn't possibly tell you that.
Q. Have you served as an acting appellate judge?
A. Yes, I have.

Printed Page 6694 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
Q. And your experience there, how has it been?
A. Well, it was real interesting. Rather awesome. I think I've sat on about four cases, the latest of which was a Thrift case which was a tremendous case. We met many times on that. And it was a wonderful experience. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think I'd really -- the Thrift case, in particular, convinced me that I would enjoy being on the Supreme Court.
Q. What is your philosophy of the appropriate demeanor for the judge in a courtroom, in his courtroom?
A. How you conduct your court?
Q. Yes.
A. You mean in the courtroom? I believe the -- a court is somewhat like a church. It's a shrine of sorts and I think unless you have the proper decorum and respect that people are not going to respect the law. I think that includes keeping the noise down, limiting access, requiring proper dress, proper manners of judges and the lawyers and having witnesses of that sort and I think that's important. I recently wrote a little article that was published in the Trial Lawyers Magazine concerning that subject and I enjoyed doing that because I may have been accused of being a little old fashion about some of the things that were put in, but I do think they're important, giving the proper respect to the court and to the law and so I think that's speaks about as well as I could say about that.
Q. What qualities of the term judicial temperament are your strongest?
A. I think courtesy is one of them and a sense of constancy and seeking to be fair, trying to find the right result to do justice and that's a very difficult thing to do in many cases. But my ambition, as I perceive the law to be, is to do justice to the case we have before us.

I mean justice is a very fleeting thing. It depends upon the mentality and the judgment of people. Justice, I submit, is almost a divine concept and what little wisdom we're given imparted to us to try to accomplish that, I think, is a very difficult thing to do, but I think open-mindedness and fairness and honesty in all that you're doing are the keys to that.
Q. Are there aspects about being on the Circuit Court bench that you would miss if you became a new associate?
A. Well, the contacts, the people, lawyers, the courthouse people. I've been in every county in the state. I've met some wonderful people. I've had some great experiences. I'd miss that, that contact. I really will.

But I will say this, though, the grind and the stress of the Circuit Court will not be missed by me. I want to say that pretty clearly. Every day you've got to go meet new challenges, every day you're going to have to sentence people and a week goes by, and you sentence a hundred people

Printed Page 6695 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
or so and you have to decide each case individually, it's a stressful job and I don't particularly -- I don't -- I'm not going to miss that aspect of it.

I'll miss the fellowship of it, but I think the less stressful job of an appellant court will be very nice.
Q. Right now, Judge Baggett, how do you deal with that stress?
A. I've had the good fortune of being able to cleanse my mind as I go home every day. I sort of flush it out, all those things that have been bothering me and I start over new, every day with a new mind, a new mind, unless it's something really deep. I don't let it bother me. I shed it all and take it off when I take my robe off and I go home and deal with that and my wife is very considerate of me. We've been married for 50 years and she knows me and we just get along fine and we just don't have any problem with that.
Q. We have looked at the 30-day report and you don't show -- 30, 60 and 90-day report, you don't show any cases outstanding for the period --
A. No.
Q. -- that we were looking at. Also, could I ask you how you remain current? Could you describe your work habits?
A. Well, I haven't had a lot of nonjury work lately. Most of my work has been in General Sessions criminal work and so as a result of that, you don't have any reason to have anything overhanging.

I believe that the best time to make your decision is when you've heard something. And if you hear it, you're never going to be in a better position to make a decision than you are right then, assuming you've got the proper law briefs and things that you're ready to do it and so I make my decisions.

Generally speaking, I will direct the attorneys -- the prevailing attorney to write the opinion, submit a copy to opposing counsel and then submit it to me for final approval in the ordinary case.
Q. You did mention an article you wrote for the Trial Lawyers magazine. Have you participated in the presentation of other CLE's or the writing of other articles?
A. I wrote a little article for South Carolina Circuit Judges Association, which was sort of private, but I wrote a little thing about the circus, a little just thing -- a thing about taking my granddaughter to the circus was published in the Florence paper, but I like to write. And I think I'm going to be doing more of that in the future. I've not written anything other than what you referred to.

I used to take part in JCLE's a good bit as a panelist and I've been to -- I spoke to the trial lawyers on some issues of capital murder cases and opening statements to the defense bar. That's about it.

Printed Page 6696 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
Q. What is your philosophy about ex parte communication, sir?
A. Well, obviously, we all know now that's taboo, that you cannot do it. I mean we don't do that. I can recall one time as we were talking as I was listening here, I had a multiparty, multi million dollar environmental case that had been pending in Lexington County for about six years. It had been specially assigned. I tried to get rid of it.

I called a settlement conference and I used one of the devices that is used in arbitration and in mediation and I asked each side would they agree to let me speak to each side separately in an effort to try to resolve it. And they agreed and it was very helpful.

I would take the parties, the lawyers off to the side and talk about it and see how we could come to a conclusion on it, send him out, take the other side in, talk to them and then try to bring them together. I came awfully close to do doing it. And two years later, the same method was used and it was settled by someone else, multi million dollar settlement. That was an exception, though.
Q. Your son is, as I understand, a lawyer in Greenwood?
A. Yes. That's correct.
Q. Does it ever occur that you need to recuse yourself in any of those cases?
A. No. I never -- he practices in the Greenwood area. The only time that we have that is I may hold court in Saluda or McCormick and I never hear anything from him at all. When it comes to other cases from his firm, I tell the lawyers involved to ask the -- to tell your client that a member of this firm -- that the judge is a father of a member of the firm, that if they have any doubt about the problem whatsoever, I'll recuse myself, otherwise we go ahead and do it.

I do that because we are -- in my little county, we have such little court and we have got to dispose of the cases, but I let them know what the relationship is. My son never appeared before me, but the other members of the firm, I let them know in advance and then they make the decision what they want to do.
Q. Do you see this changing in any way when you -- if you move up to the Supreme Court?
A. No. No. Not at all, except I wouldn't hear anything out of his firm at all.
Q. What is your policy about accepting food and meals, social hospitality from attorneys?
A. Well, I just don't have any problem with that. I don't get any offers of it anymore. So there is no harm, no problem, just like perhaps you folks. It's not a problem. Not a problem.

Printed Page 6697 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
Q. You and I will go out for coffee later.
A. Okay. Okay.
Q. Judge Baggett, what are your ethical considerations about participation in extra -- I want to call it extracurricular. That's not the right word. Extrajudicial organizations, social organizations or -- community group?
A. Counselor, I almost live in a monastery. I didn't realize it at first what it was like to be a judge, but I soon learned that whereas most of my friends were lawyers, I could no longer have them in that kind of relationship. I dropped out of all clubs except my Masonic order, where I'm now a life member of the Blue (phonetic) lodge. That's all I do, and my church.

Now, I don't have anything to do with anything else. Nothing. I don't belong to a country club. I don't play golf. I don't do any of those things.
Q. Do you see yourself becoming more of a monastic lifestyle kind of person being on the Supreme Court? Would that make it an even more sequestered --
A. I don't think so. I don't think so. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not without friends. And I have a large family, but I don't see that's any problem. It won't make any difference, which is not to say that I don't necessarily enjoy that.
Q. Do you have a letter of recommendation, Judge Baggett, from the Lexington County Bar?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Or from the president rather --
A. The president, that's correct.
Q. From the president. Could you explain that, how that came about? Did you ask him for that?
A. I asked -- we needed five letters and I find it awkward
-- you know, ya'll said don't use lawyers that appear before you on a regular basis. And lawyers are the ones that I know better than anybody else, so I asked the president what he thought about it.

They first wanted to pass a resolution and I said don't do that. You've got to wait until the screening takes place and then you can consider it, after the report is made. But I said if you all want to do anything, poll your Executive Committee and if you want to make a recommendation as opposed to an endorsement, that'd be fine with me, but I needed some -- needed letters and so that's how that came about.
Q. That's all I have.

Printed Page 6698 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the Members? Thank you, Judge Baggett.
A. Thank you.

ADDENDUM TO TESTIMONY OF JUDGE BAGGETT:

March 31, 1994

The Honorable James H. Hodges
Chairman
Judicial Screening Committee
211 Gressette Building
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee last Tuesday and am grateful for the courteous treatment given me.

A question was asked of me by counsel for the Committee as to what I thought of a proposal of the Supreme Court to provide official rules of evidence. I responded that I had not read them and therefore could not comment on the subject. I felt dumbfounded by not being able to answer what appeared to be an appropriate question.

I later had an opportunity to discuss this with Ms. McNamee, counsel for the Committee, and we both agreed that there was a misunderstanding of the question.

Upon further inquiry of Chief Justice-Elect Chandler, I find that the subject of adopting official rules of evidence has been and is a subject of long study and there have not been any publications of the proposed rules.

Obviously, this explains why I could not answer counsel's question. I certainly do not mean to criticize her at all.

If possible, please make this a part of the record.

Respectfully,

/s/Julius H. Baggett

JHB:lm

END OF PRIOR TESTIMONY OF JUDGE BAGGETT.

Printed Page 6699 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is Judge Randall T. Bell. Would you come forward, please.
RANDALL THERON BELL, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Judge Bell, your last screening was February 23, 1989 and that was for a seat on the Court of Appeals that you currently hold. Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
JUDGE BELL: I have.
THE CHAIRMAN: And is it correct?
JUDGE BELL: It is correct. As an afterthought as I was looking, not at the Summary that this committee had done, but at the full questionnaire, it occurred to me that it is of some relevance to the question the committee and the General Assembly have to decide what kind of practice experience a judge had. I have furnished to counsel for distribution to the committee, if you want it.

I realize the committee cannot -- members cannot read every document in this record. You have to rely on a very competent staff to sift through it and summarize the important things, but these are available to you. It is simply a copy of four pages of my screening questionnaire 15 years ago when I was offering for another seat and it does outline some of my practice experience.

Let me emphasize also that sometimes people think that because your experience in private practice is with a large law firm that you don't understand something about practice in small law firms or because you do some arguments in the US Supreme Court that you don't understand anything about what goes on in a Magistrate's Court in South Carolina.

I was the head when I was in private practice of something called the Appellate Litigation section in my firm. That's something of a misnomer because about 70 percent of our work was trying cases in the trial courts, about 30 percent was appeals. And a lot of -- although the firm that I was with had a lot of big sort of Fortune 500 clients, the work that I did there was not -- I represented some of those clients.

I did both things for them on the transactional side of the practice and on the litigation side of the practice, but a lot of my work was because I was associated either to help in a trial or an appeal by a sole practitioner in a place like Saluda County, something like that. I did a lot of work with lawyers who were in small counties and have one- or two- or three-man practices, small law firm practice.

I also represented school boards, county councils, city councils, public service districts in these little counties and so the impression that because

Printed Page 6700 . . . . . Tuesday, May 17, 1994
I was in a firm that had a lot of big clients is that somehow that I either have no experience or I have some bias towards that kind of practice or that kind of litigation. I think it's not consistent with my record and I thought that might be something the committee should know and the General Assembly should know.

| Printed Page 6680, May 17 | Printed Page 6700, May 17 |
Page Finder Index