Attorneys at Law gages? PERSISTENT.IUNWAVERIING DesIa Ballard - 1 Harvey M. Post Of?ce 80116338 West Columbia, SC 29171 226 State Street West-Columbia, ph 803.796.9299 fx 803.796.1066 d?sabailardem I March 23, 2018 -V1'a Us. Mail. . - .John Nichols Esquire Of?Ce of Disciplinary Counsel Post Of?ce Box 12159 . . Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Re: I CircuitCourt JudgeRobert E. Hood .Dear John: I The folloWing 1s a repOrt regarding what I believe to be judiCial misconduct by Circuit Court Judge Robert E. Hood, and therefore something that I am required to report to your. of?ce . . . for investigation as you deem appropriate. ..We represent Charles Carpenter, an inmate at SCDC who has been incarcerated since 1990. - Mr. Carpenter retained us to seek a writ of habeas corpus; his position was that his lawful sentence had been fully served and he was being illegally detained. After considerable research into the matter. we were able to identify several signi?cant and novel 1ssues, any one of should have resulted 111' a successful outcome, so we agreed to seek that relief on his behalf. I am attaching a copy of the complaint (Without exhibits attached, as they are substantial) we ?led 1n Richland County on behalf of -.Mr Carpenter against the Department of Corrections seeking Mr Carpenter immediate 1e1ease from customdy . I Judge Casey Manning was the ?rst to hear arguments in that matter, and issued an order directing that we add ?the. State?I as a party and serve the Attorney General, which we I I did. Retired Chief Justice Toal next heard the Defendants motions to dismiss and denied them. - Judge Hood heard the case on the merits non-jury on June .6 2017. We Waited to ?le this report with you until Judge Hood?s invOlvement had concluded1 beCause we did not want our report to appear as an attempt to in?uence Judge HoOd actions or decisions in this matter. At trial, no testimony was presented, although Carpenter introduCed multiple exhibits. At . the end of the hearing, Judge Hood indicated that he was taking the matter under advisement The . IfOlIlo'wing Monday, June 12-, 2017, Judge Hood?s of?ce advised that he? ?would like a time this'I' 1 We just submitted our initial brief on appeal of Hood?s ?nal orders 111 this matter, which ?nally gave us the time to gather all the relevant documents to submit to Ionu. I Mr John Nichols, Esquire . In re: .Circ'uit COurt Judge Robert B- Hood - March 23 2018 - Page2 of5 I I . Week to discuss this case in chambers. Exhibit A. After hearing from all counsel, Judge HooId . the In chambers Conference for 10: 00 a.1n.lo11 June 13 2017. Exhibit B. The 1n- -chamb'ers conference was attended by Judge Hood and counsel for the parties. My partner Harvey Watson was physically present along with Danton on behalf of SCDC, . and Clay Mitchell on behalf of the Attorney General? 5 of?ce. II participated by telephone and took I contemporaneous notes as- the 1n-chan1bers conference proceeded. Those notes are attached as - Exhibit C2. Judge Hood said he was not going to grant habeas c0rpus and have Mr. Carpenter ?turn around and sue the state Judge Hood proposed that Carpenter execute a full general release - - .in fewer of the State, in Which case he would be willing to grant Carpenter? petition. Judge Hood directed that Carpenter would ?give up any claim against the state? and the release shbuld be ?very I . I broad Judge Hood said the documents Should be drawn so that neither the State nor SCDC was - admitting any fault, and it was his intent to ?protect the state. Judge Hood asked the parties to - . "work out the details and agree to that resolution no later than June 3.,0 2017. 7d. That same day, Carpenter counsel reached Carpenter by telephone and he agreed to] release any civil Claims he may have against any department of the State of South Carolina as a 1_ condition of the grant of habeas corpus as proposed by Judge Hood. Carpenter?s cOuns'el communicated Carpenter agreement to a release to JUdge Hood 3 proposal to defense counsel. Exhibit D.- Carpenter executed a full general release (that we drafted) 1n favor the State and the Department of Corrections as proposed by Judge Hood,- and a oOpy of the full release was transmitted to defense counsel by email on Friday, June 1-6, 2017. Exhibit Then came several weeks of no communication with either Judge Hood or defense counsel.- On Friday, June 23, 2017, we cOntacted defense counsel to inquire as .to the status of their discussions with their respective clients since the June 30, 2017 deadline imposed by Judge Hood was approaching. Exhibit F. Counsel for SCDC responded that SCDC was ?unable to alter or I amend Carpenter? sentence Exhibit G. Similarly, counsel for the State responded that the State I . as ?unable to consent to Mr. Carpenter 5 release.? Exhibit H. On Monday,I June 26, 2017, Carpenter counsel sent to Judge Hood a proposed order, - narrow1y drafted. to grant habeas corpus in the manner indicated by Judge Hood 111 chambers, along - . with the correspondence between counsel and a copy of the general release executed by Carpenter - I- . as requested by Judge Hood. Exhibit 1. I To preserve the record, Carpenter counsel ?led the entirety of the correspondence and I commirnication referenced above, including the full release signed by- Carpenter, With the Richland' .1 County- Clerk. of Court, so the events folloWing Judge Hood 5 proposal for a consent resolutiOn of 2 I?have the original notes; the attached is .a photocopy. - Mr. John Nichols, Esquire In re: Circuit Court Judge Robert E. Hood MarCh 23, 2018 Page 3 of5 . . the petition for writ of habeas corpus were properly a part of the record. 3- Exhibit J. Judge Hood I secretary cOn?Irmed reCeipIt of the June 28, 2017 correspondence and advised that Judge Hood Iwa'sI . 1 on vacation' She related,- however, ?please feel free to continUe to work toward a final resolution I if at all possible, Exhibit K.I On, June 30, 2017, Carpenter? counsel sent Judge Head a proposed order addressing 1115' I merits of the petition for writ of 'habeas corpus, in light of the objection raised by counsel for the .. State. Exhibit 4 Judge Hood went silent - I 1 Was at the RiChla?Ind County courthouse on another matter on July 1120117 while Judge - Hood was doing guilty pleas in another courtroom. After my Other matter concluded, I sat in the __IaUdienCe 1n Judge Hood? courtroom, close enough that he could see me but far enough back that} it did not appear as if 1 Was attempting to interfere- with the proceedings. He made contact with me several times. After approximately. 30 minutes, Judge Hood refused to take a plea and I abruptly walked out of the courtrOom and left the bench. The attorneys in the courtroom appeared - 'confused.- about what had just occurred, but since the judge had not announced a recess, they . remained in the courtroom I exchanged pleasantrie's With several of them that I knew. I The recess lasted approximately 3-0 45 minutes. About 10- 15 minutes after the recess - Istarted, a prominent criminal defense attorney whose name I did not then know, and now do not re_,call entered the Courtroom frOm the side d001 with a younger gentleman. He greeted the people in the room as he passed through, then he excused himself through the back door immediately. - . behind the jadge". bench (Where mere mortals are forbidden to go). He and his companion were gone about 15 minutes, then they 1etu111ed to the courtroom, again greeted people, then left by the I same side door from which they had entered. Judge Hood returned to the bench approximately 10 minutes later. The visiting attorney did not have any cases before the judge during the several" I hours that I was in the courtroom and no one from the solicitor Is of?ce left the courtroom to . accompany the defense counsel into Judge Hood 3 chambers Judge Hood continued to take guilty pleas for approximately another hour, and. when it appeared there were no other matters to be heard, Judge Hood Iasked. the prosecutors if there was anything further. He made no contact with me, but by then I was the only person sitting in the audience. Several of the prOSecuItors responded in the negative and I stood just as Judge Hood stood and turned to exit the d00r behind the bench. I said, with enough volume to insure Judge - Hood IheardII me, ?Your Honor, may I approach?? Judge Hood tarned his head to the right, did not - 3; The Cler?k 5 off ce returned the $2.5 00 check we had fOrwarded as a ?ling fee, but con?rmed that the ?documents placed Exhibit . 4 Neither Judge Hood- n01 defense counsel have disputed any recitation of events memorialized by Carpenter? counsel. in the multiple communications with the Court _a?er the June 13, 2017 conference in chambers. Neither Ihave defense counsel disputed our recitation of- Judge Hood?s proposal for a IIgIrant of habeas corpus in exchange for Carpenter?I 5 full release _1nfaIvor Iof the State. - Mr John Nichols, Esquire I In re: Circuit Court Judge Robert B. Hood March 23 2013 Page 4 of 5.. - look at me, and said? no, 11121 am? in such a loud voice that the others 111 the courtroom turned to I look at me, as if seeking as explanation for Judge Hood? 5 outburst. 1 left immediately to avoid any questions from the people who had witnessed the event, When I returned to my office, I emailed defense counsel and copied Judge Hood, advising - that 1 had attempted to speak to Judge Hood while at the edurthouse, and asked for another status I conference. Exhibit N1 Both opposing counsel responded to, in essence, say they were leaving .- I 1' that up to Judge Hood.- The following day, Judge Hood requested ?proposed 01 ders? from both '1 - defense counsel. Exhibit 0. The directive provided no guidance as to how Judge Hood intended to rule. Both defense counsel later sent pIropOSed orders to Judge which, of course, ruled 1n f, favor of their respective clients without the benefit of Judge Hood having provided input as to what his ruling was going to be. Exhibit There was another long period of silence, despite contacting Judge HoOd. 1n late August to resubmit all the previously submitted proposed orders Exhibit The signed orders were finally I prov1ded to all counsel of record on October2, 2017, more than a month after they were apparently signedUntil the merits hearing 1n this matter on June 6, 2017, Carpenter and his- counsel were .. unaware that Judge Heed had previously served as a prosecutOr fer the statewide grand Jury. 5 111' retrOSpect, and with that knowledge, there seems to be an explanation for Judge Hood-?8 efforts to directly advocate for the State and to protect his former employer Carpenter?s counsel can only - I assume that Judge Hood? 3 reticenc-e to meet or communicate with counsel- for the parties after I Carpenter accepted Judge HoOd?s' proposal to grant habeas corpus to Carpenter in exchange for a full general release in favor of the State (which proposal was accepted by Carpenter) must have . '1 . stemmed from Judge H00d?s realization that he had stepped over IIthe line 1n advocating for the I State and proposing the deal which Carpenter accepted. I In his Petition for Original Jurisdiction ?led with the Supreme Court, Carpenter counsel brie?y described Judge Hood?s bizarre offer, and noted that we were submitting this complaint to -- your office I Carpenter counsel believed at all times that Judge Hood? 5 proposed release 1n exchange for a- grant of habeas corpus .Was likely improper. See EAO 05-17.6 HoWever', after consulting I I .- II with appropriate persons, Carpenter and his counsel consented to the proposal as made by Judge I- Hood because it would rapidly IeffeCtuaIte? the ultimate and proper result in this action, Which 5 http? 1w? sIccoulItsI. oratcn?cuzt? I I - 6 That opinion, dated October 21, 2015, opined that a solicitor could NOT ?use the criminal process to obtain a '1 favorable result for a third partyI in a civilI action (potential Ior actual)I even if the solicitor has no direct involvement in the civil action.? . - Mr. John Nichols, Esquire - ?In re: Circult Court Judge Robert IE Hood "March23, 2018; Page-'5 of5 . counsel has attempted to expedite? from the outset. Nevertheless, I was so bothered by Judge _HOod? actions that I consulted with Lee Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel at the time, both- immediately after the conference and then throughout Judge. Hood? 3 several months of silence between June and OCtober 2017. Exhibits through T. She agreed with me that I had to go - I along with the proposal for the bene?t of my client, and to get him home safely I . reported Judge Hood to your of?ce. for investigation as to any misconduct We have documented this unfortunate series of events to the extent possible. Please let u?sI. I know if you require anything further. With watmI personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours, Desa Ballard.- 'desab@desaballard corn 7 The initial, separate, habeas corpus pleading 1n .the matter was captioned as ?Petition for Writ of Habeas Cor-pus (expedited). While no. order was every. signed Speci?cally designating the matter as expedited, the Chief Administrative Judge assisted with an expediting scheduling of 1n the matter. - - - -