Printed Page 520, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 540, Feb. 6
|
Printed Page 520, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 540, Feb. 6
|
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Ms. Pendleton 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.
Ms. Pendleton 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:
Ms. Pendleton has taught the following courses at Greenville Technical College: criminal Law - (Five semesters) Basic concepts of the Criminal Justice System; evidence and procedure (Six semesters) 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments; and Federal Rules of Evidence, criminal investigation (Two semesters) Constitutional limitations and crime scene analysis.
The Joint Committee found Ms. Pendleton to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Pendleton has not been rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Pendleton graduated from Cumberland School of Law in 1986 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Ms. Pendleton associated with the firm of Mauldin and Allison from 1986 to 1987, was an Assistant Circuit Solicitor in the Thirteenth Judicial
Ms. Pendleton described her practice over the past five years as 100% criminal.
In response to a request by the Committee, Ms. Pendleton provided supplemental information regarding her practice in Family Court. This information was incorporated into the record of Ms. Pendleton's public hearing.
Ms. Pendleton provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(a) State v. Anders and Simmons (under appeal). This case involved a 1.2 million dollar fire loss for which the insured and his employee were charged with Arson 3rd, Burning to Defraud Insured, and Conspiracy. A joint investigation by ATF, SLED and the Greenville County Sheriff's Office was presented to the United States Attorney's Office which refused to indict based on their belief that a jury would not convict. In spite of the fact that both defendants had airtight alibies, the state could not name or produce the person who actually set the fire, and the state's chief witness was a self-proclaimed "Psychic," the jury returned "Guilty" verdicts on all counts.
(b) State v. Kilgore, et al. This case involved four young men charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st degree, two counts each, and Conspiracy as a result of a plan whereby Kilgore made a date with a young lady only to return to an apartment where the others participated in a "Gang Rape." A prior investigation with the exact same facts had not been prosecuted because the victim refused to testify. The significance of this case was the conviction of all defendants including Kilgore whose only participation was the luring of the victim to the apartment. (Affirmed on Appeal)
(c) State v. Ariail, 426 S.E.2d 751 (S.C. 1993). The Defendant was convicted of Arson 3rd degree and appealed arguing that arraignment is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. The court affirmed the conviction and held that arraignment is not a constitutional or statutory right, but, rather a mere formality.
(d) State v. Janet Hawkins Opinion No. 95-UP-200 (S.C. Ct., App. filed June 29, 1995). Hawkins was a school Psychologist assigned to counsel a 13 year old male. During a four-year time span, she engaged in sex acts with the victim which she eventually reported to her own therapist who in turn notified
(e) State v. Barksdale, et al. 428 S.E.2d 498 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993). This was the first modern case dealing with multiple defendants acting together as a "Mob" to inflict physical harm resulting in the death of the victim. This case is significant because Ms. Pendleton elected to try the defendants for Lynching 1st degree rather than Murder in hopes of convicting them all. This trial resulted in case law which defines "Mob" and provides correct jury instruction on "Intent" in the context of Lynching.
The Committee expressed concern over Ms. Pendleton's limited experience in certain areas of family law.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Pendleton's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Ms. Pendleton 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. Pendleton is divorced and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Pendleton 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. Pendleton has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Pendleton is active in professional and community activities.
Ms. Pendleton 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. Pendleton testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Pendleton 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. Pendleton meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Pendleton qualified. The Bar reported that Ms. Pendleton "has broad experience as an Assistant Solicitor in the Family Court. She has shown creativity and inventiveness in prosecuting juvenile offenders and domestic violence cases. It is believed that her lack of experience in other facets of Family Court practice would not hamper her ability to be an effective Family Court Judge. Ms. Pendleton is intelligent, knowledgeable in the law, and well respected by those interviewed."
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
Mr. Abbott 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.
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott taught one course at Coastal Carolina and approximately 6 courses at Horry-Georgetown Technical College, consisting of a general overview of law from the historical background of the Common Law to Computer Crime. The emphasis of the courses was in the areas of business and contract law.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Abbott to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Mr. Abbott met the Committee's expectations on the practice and procedure questions in his prior screening, he was given, and he accepted, the option of incorporating his performance during the prior screening into the present record.
Mr. Abbott's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Abbott graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1972 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Abbott associated with his father from 1972 to 1975, shared an office with his father from 1975 to 1982, and has been a sole practitioner from 1982 to present.
Mr. Abbott described his practice over the past five years as 48% civil, 2% criminal, and 50% domestic.
Mr. Abbott provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Spain v. Owens - The case involved an attempt by the Plaintiff to have a resulting trust established in estate lands of her husband which were previously deeded to the Defendant. Mr. Abbott handled the appeal from an adverse decision of a Master for the Defendant. The Court found a lack of jurisdiction and remanded for a new trial.
(b) DSS v. Rowell - The case involved allegations of child abuse. The child was placed in foster care although the mother was never charged with any wrongdoing. After a consent agreement was reached allowing custody to remain with DSS, the action was dismissed based upon federal and state statutes which set time limits for intervention by state agencies.
(c) Smith v. Smith - A domestic relations action granting custody, child support, alimony, and attorney's fees. In order to
(d) Kelly v. Kelly - Case involved an attempt to overturn an Order of the Court based upon allegations of perjured testimony. The relief sought was denied based upon case law which requires that perjury must be accompanied by extrinsic or collateral fraud in order to set aside a judgment.
(e) Estate of Conner v. Conner - Case involved an attempt by Mr. Abbott's client to have funds reimbursed due to a forgery of a check prior to decedent's death. An agreement was reached whereby the majority of funds were returned notwithstanding a question as to the survival of the cause of action.
Mr. Abbott also provided the Committee with three domestic appeals which he has personally handled:
(a) Tamara T. Abbott v. Aubrey J. Gore, Jr., 304 S.C. 116, 403 S.E.2d 154 (Ct. App. 19__).
(b) Ann Theresa Hyde v. Jules Verne Hyde, 302 S.C. 280, 395 S.E.2d 186 (Ct. App. 19__).
(c) Joree N. Turbeville v. James A. Turbeville, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Rule 23.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Abbott had engaged in an active trial practice in the family courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Abbott's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Abbott appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Abbott has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Abbott served in the South Carolina National Guard from 1966 to 1972. He was honorably discharged in 1972 with the rank of E-5.
Mr. Abbott is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Abbott 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. Abbott meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Abbott qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Abbott "is perceived by his peers as knowledgeable and possessing the necessary intellect to make a good Family Court Judge. He has an excellent temperament and exhibits mature judgment. He would be an asset to the bench. Mr. Abbott has unquestioned character and enjoys an excellent reputation in the community. His ethics, honesty, and integrity are above reproach. He is perceived to be fair, unbiased, and impartial. He would not be influenced by the lawyers or litigants."
Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson has lectured at CLE's on employment law and the Ethics Act.
Judge Anderson authored an article titled "A Survey on Attributes Considered Important for Presidential Candidates," Carolina Undergraduate Sociology Symposium, April 17, 1980.
The Joint Committee found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Anderson's last Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV (1994).
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Anderson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1984 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Judge Anderson began his career in 1985 with the Attorney General's office where he handled the extradition functions in the criminal division. He later prosecuted criminal cases and was assigned as counsel to the State Ethics Commission. He also served as a committee attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee and as a prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board. He has also done Medical Board prosecutions, Attorney General opinions, and criminal appeals. He has served as an Administrative Law Judge since February 1, 1995.
Judge Anderson provided the Joint Committee with his five most significant orders/opinions:
(a) Baughman v. South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation and Webster, No. 95-ALJ-17-0091-CC (March 17, 1995). Application for an on-premise beer and wine permit and an on-premise sale and consumption license for mini-bottle.
(c) Vigilant Insurance Company v. South Carolina Department of Insurance, No. 95-ALJ-09-0214-CC (July 5, 1995). Request of a homeowner's insurance premium rate increase.
(d) Hatch v. South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation and Clemson United Methodist Church, No. 95-ALJ-17-0182-CC (June 26, 1995). Application for special beer and wine permits for Carolina Panther home games played at Clemson's Memorial Stadium.
(e) Willis v. South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation, No. 95-ALJ-17-0135-CC (May 5, 1995). Application for an on-premise beer and wine permit.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Anderson's temperament is excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson is married and has no children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Anderson 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. Judge Anderson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Anderson has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Anderson testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Anderson testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Anderson 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 Anderson meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Anderson qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Anderson "is considered an intelligent, diligent, hardworking administrative law judge. He is described as an independent judge who is not afraid to make tough, unpopular decisions in accordance with the law. Judge Anderson is well regarded by his peers and other members of the legal community as a judge who is fair and even tempered. His demeanor was described as very good."
The following persons were unanimously[1] found qualified:
H. T. Abbott, III
Lee S. Alford
Ralph K. Anderson, Jr.
Ralph King (Tripp) Anderson, III
Robert S. Armstrong
James R. Barber, III
Stephen S. Bartlett
John L. Breeden, Jr.
James E. Brogdon, Jr.
Timothy L. Brown
Walter B. Brown, Jr.
Thomas C. Cofield
------------------------------------------
[1] Senator Saleeby did not participate in the screening nor determination of qualification for Jean H. Toal or Tom J. Ervin. Representative Delleney did not participate in the determination of qualification for any candidate in the Circuit Court At-Large, Seat 13 race.
Printed Page 520, Feb. 6
| Printed Page 540, Feb. 6
| This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:59 P.M.