WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998
Wednesday, May 20, 1998
(Statewide Session)
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:
O God, from everlasting to everlasting the same, give us to see that the priceless wisdom gained in our yesterdays is to be woven into our todays and tomorrows. As custodians of many good things, make of us good stewards of all that has been entrusted to us. Cause us always to look to You Whose mercy is like the wideness of the sea. Show us Your way, then give us the determination to follow it.
To Your altar of understanding we lift up the offering of humble and grateful hearts for Yours is the power and the glory now and forever. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
MOTION ADOPTED
Rep. BARFIELD moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Harold M. Huggins of Nichols, which was agreed to.
REPORT RECEIVED
JUDICIAL MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION
TO:The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM:F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
DATE:May 18, 1998
In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975, S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.
Respectfully submitted,
Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Senate Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Representative Ralph W. Canty
Representative William Douglas Smith
Dr. Harry M. Lightsey, Jr.
Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Richard S. Fisher, Esquire
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications
Date Draft Report Issued:Friday, May 15, 1998
at 3:00 p.m.
Date and Time Final Report Issued:Sunday, May 17, 1998
at 3:00 p.m.
Judicial candidates are not free to seek
or accept commitments until
3:00 p.m. on
May 17, 1998
Summary Chart
The following chart includes a list of all candidates. If the candidate has a "*" symbol under a category (i.e. Academic Ability), that symbol indicates that the Commission expressed concern about the candidate in that area. The placement of a "*" symbol is not, in and of itself, an indication of a candidates' failure to comply with the Commission's established criteria.
These abbreviations were used in the following chart:
Const. Qual., Constitutional Qualifications
Prac. & Proc., Practice and Procedure
Acad. Ability, Academic Ability
Char., Character
Rep., Reputation
Phy. Hth, Physical Health
Men. Hth, Mental Health
Exp., Experience
Temp., Temperament
First Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
CandidateFindingsConst.Prac&EthicalAcad.Char.Rep.Phy.MentalExp.Temp.
Qual.Proc.FitnessAbilityHthHth
F.L. Prickett Qualified
J.F. WalshQualified
J.C. Williams Qualified
Eighth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
CandidateFindingsConst.Prac&EthicalAcad.Char.Rep.Phy.MentalExp.Temp.
Qual.Proc.FitnessAbilityHthHth
J.R. McCravy Qualified
J.M. Rucker Qualified
W.T. Saunders Qualified
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 2
CandidateFindingsConst.Prac&EthicalAcad.Char.Rep.Phy.MentalExp.Temp.
Qual.Proc.FitnessAbilityHthHth
S.H. John Qualified
P.H. Thomas Qualified
R.J. Wilson Qualified**
Master-in Equity
CandidateFindingsConst.Prac&EthicalAcad.Char.Rep.Phy.MentalExp.Temp.
Qual.Proc.FitnessAbilityHthHth
R.F. Cothram. Qualified
(Clarendon Cty.)
C.N. Davis Qualified
(Lexington Cty.)
Introduction
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. The Commission has carefully investigated the candidates currently set for screening and found eleven candidates qualified for judicial office. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission is operating under its new law which went into effect July 1, 1997, and which has dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission’s finding of “qualified” or “not qualified” is binding on the General Assembly. Furthermore, the Commission is required to submit no more than three names for any particular judicial race; therefore, for two races the Commission was required to pare the number of candidates presented for consideration by the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started previously. The Commission has asked Family Court candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on that particular court. These questions were posed in an effort to provide the members of the General Assembly more information about candidates and their thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates’ responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.
In assessing each candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the “failed to meet expectations” or the “met expectations” category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
The Commission has also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. The Commission was concerned that since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people’s personal and professional lives, all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state’s judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees composed of people from a broad range of experience (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for varied organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds) were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a confidential report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission’s evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these confidential reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee’s report so warranted.
The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1)survey of the bench and bar;
(2)SLED and FBI investigation;
(3)credit investigation;
(4)grievance investigation;
(5)study of application materials;
(6)verification of ethics compliance;
(7)search of newspaper articles;
(8)conflict of interest investigation;
(9)court schedule study;
(10)study of appellate record;
(11)court observation; and
(12)investigation of complaints.
While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state’s judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate’s violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission’s nine evaluative criteria that would impact on a candidate’s fitness for judicial service.
The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.
This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities very seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. If you would like to review portions of the screening transcript or other public information about a candidate before it is printed in the Journal, please contact Irma R. Pringle or John P. Hazzard, V at 212-6610 or Elizabeth Atwater at 734-3125.
This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court, Masters-in-Equity, and the Administrative Law Judge Division.
•Denotes information taken verbatim from the candidate’s personal data questionnaire that was submitted by the candidate as a part of the application process.
F. Lee Prickett, Jr.
First Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 1
Commission’s Findings:QUALIFIED
(1)Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission’s investigation, Mr. Prickett meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Circuit Court.
Mr. Prickett was born on March 3, 1950. He is 48 years old and a resident of St. Matthews, South Carolina. Mr. Prickett provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since November 1975.
(2)Ethical Fitness:
The Commission’s investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Prickett.
Mr. Prickett demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Prickett 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. Prickett testified that he is aware of the Commission’s 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Prickett to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission’s practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Prickett described his past continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)SC Association of Counties Annual Seminar - 1993;
(b)SC Association of Counties Attorneys Institute - 1993;
(c)SC Bar - This Was The Year That Was 1993;
(d)SCTLA Annual Convention - 1994, 1995;
(e)SCAC County & Municipal Attorney’s Institute - 1994;
(f)CISI SC Elder Law & Medicaid Planning - 1995;
(g)SCTLA Auto Torts XIX - 1996;
(h)SC Bar Basic office Computer Systems - 1997; and
(I)SC Association of Counties - Legal Issue of Counties 1997.
(4)Character:
The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Prickett did not reveal any evidence of complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission’s investigation of Mr. Prickett did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Prickett has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Prickett was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission’s investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)Reputation:
Mr. Prickett reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was “BV.”
(6)Physical Health:
Mr. Prickett appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)Mental Stability:
Mr. Prickett appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)Experience:
Mr. Prickett was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in November 1975.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Prickett worked as a paralegal with the law firm of Gressette & Gressette until he was admitted to the Bar in November 1975. Upon admission to the Bar, he was hired and worked as an associate for the same law firm, working for L. Marion Gressette and Lawrence M. Gressette. In 1980, he was made a partner. The firm's name was changed to Gressette & Prickett. Lawrence M. Gressette left the firm in 1983, and Mr. Prickett continued to practice with L. Marion Gressette until his death in 1984. Mr. Prickett maintained his own practice until 1990, when he joined with John G. Felder and Charles W. Whetstone to form Felder, Prickett & Whetstone.
Mr. Prickett’s firm is now practicing as Felder, Prickett & McGee, LLP. Mr. Prickett has been practicing law in Calhoun County, South Carolina, for his entire legal career of 22 years. The firm is a small town general practice. He handles all types of real estate transactions and closings, and is an approved attorney and agent for Lawyers Title Insurance Company. In that capacity he deals with all banks and financial institutions making real estate loans in Calhoun and Orangeburg counties. He prepares deeds, mortgages, wills, and Powers of Attorney, as well as other business legal documents. He also practices in the Probate Court and handles civil and criminal matters.
Mr. Prickett has had 20 years’ experience handling Workers' Compensation cases for both employers and claimants. He has represented several self-insured Workers' Compensation funds including Merchant's Association and Automobile Dealer’s Association. He has appealed Workers' Compensation cases.
He also has 20 years’ experience appearing before the South Carolina Public Service Commission handling regulatory matters and has represented both applicants and protestants in trucking authority cases. His firm represented Southeastern Freight Lines for many years on all regulatory matters before the Public Service Commission.
He has been the attorney for Calhoun County for the last ten years, representing the County Council on all legal matters including litigation involving the county, issuing of bonds for county operations and capital improvements. He has appeared before state regulatory agencies and drafted ordinances and resolutions for County Council. He provides legal advice for the Calhoun County Tax Assessor and other county agencies with the exception of law enforcement.
His general practice gives him a wide range of legal experience. Many of the administrative and regulatory issues are handled by the Circuit Court on appeal.
Mr. Prickett reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)Federal:Few
(b)State:Often
(c)Other:He has appeared before the Workers’ Compensation Commission and the Public Service Commission on a regular basis.
Mr. Prickett reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)Civil:50%
(b)Criminal:20%
(c)Domestic:30%
Mr. Prickett reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)Jury:10%
(b)Non-jury:90%
Mr. Prickett provided that he served as sole or chief counsel.
•The following is Mr. Prickett’s account of his most significant litigated matters:
(a)State v. Irick, 94-GS-38-1461; 94-GS-38-1462; 94-GS-38-1463 (Not reported). The defendant in this case was indicted on one count of Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and two counts of Murder. The case was tried in January 1996 in Orangeburg General Sessions Court before Honorable Victor Rawl. The defendant was found Not Guilty on all counts by a jury after several days of trial.
The case is significant because it covered many evidentiary matters and issues in criminal defense, including dying declarations, severance, Brady motions, bond hearings, request for exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence.
(b)State v. Pipkin, 294 S.C. 336, 364 S.E.2d 464 (1988)
I represented James Pipkin on a Driving Under the Influence charge in General Sessions Court, Orangeburg County. The defendant was convicted at trial and I appealed his conviction to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Prior to taking testimony, the trial judge heard a Motion to Suppress the results of both the breathalyser and the blood test since the blood sample was sent to SLED for analysis. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and mandated a suppression of both the breathalyser and blood test results.
This case was significant because it determined that a defendant charged with Driving Under the Influence was only required to submit to one examination by the State of his blood alcohol content and thus was entitled to retain possession of blood drawn during an independent test which he had requested after having submitted to a breathalyser test.
(c)State v. Dasher, 298 S.E.2d 215, 278 S.C. 454; 297 S.E.2d 414, 278 S.C. 395
I, along with L. Marion Gressette, represented Leon J. Dasher. Mr. Dasher was a police officer who was indicted on two separate indictments alleging criminal conspiracy to transport, store, and distribute a controlled substance. In the first indictment, the overt acts alleged cited my client with the financing of the importation and distribution of cocaine, and in the second indictment the overt acts alleged cited the financing of the importation and distribution of marijuana. Both indictments alleged conspiracy during overlapping periods with the same individuals. Dasher was found guilty at trial of the crime of criminal conspiracy. This conviction was overturned by the trial judge on a Motion for Judgment non obstante veredicto. The State appealed and the case was significant because it established the right of the State to appeal such a verdict. However, a separate trial judge dismissed the second indictment on the grounds that it violated the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. The State appealed again and the Supreme Court sustained the dismissal of the second indictment. The second case was significant because the prosecution of the defendant under the second conspiracy indictment was barred by former jeopardy because both indictments charged them and others with conspiring to transport, store with intent to distribute, and distribute certain quantities of controlled substances with the dates of conspiracies overlapping, the principals involved in alleged conspiracies were substantially the same, and the alleged conspiracies involved transporting drugs into same place.