South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

In South Carolina, we do not have judicial general elections but rather judges are appointed by the legislature. In my opinion, this is a better system by far - in the interest of judicial independence, judges should never be subject to political pressures, their election or re-election dependent on what group of constituents they please with their decisions. South Carolina's system of judicial selection is rightfully designed to place judges on the bench who have the knowledge, skill, and temperament to be fair and impartial.

This is why an article I read on TheState.com today bothers me - it seems that our system of judicial selection is not foolproof, and our judges are not free of politics after all. Senator Mike Fair of Greenville and Senator Glenn McConnell of Charleston have embarked on a smear campaign against Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Goode, seeking to have him removed based on two sentences that he handed down in criminal cases. You see, our system of "appointment" comes down to votes after all, and McConnell and Fair seek to garner enough votes in the legislator to remove Judge Goode from the bench. Judge Goode cannot defend himself against these types of allegations, because he cannot and should not comment publicly on his rulings in cases.

In December, Judge Goode sentenced Talisha Levette Smith, a day care operator, to 5 years of probation following her guilty plea to slapping a 7-month-old girl so hard it caused bleeding on her brain. The charge carried a potential sentence of up to 20 years. Smith had no prior record, and the article does not go into what mitigation was presented at the hearing in the case. In 2007, Judge Goode sentenced a sex offender, Zail Ray Gavin, to 6 months followed by 3 years of probation following a plea to a charge of "peeping tom." Apparently Judge Goode had the nerve to retain jurisdiction over the case and stated that he wanted to help rehabilitate the man.

I don't know Judge Goode personally, and I have never appeared before him, but according to the article he has served as a circuit court judge since 1999. It is disturbing that these two politicians would cherry pick these 2 decisions out of a decade of service and thousands of guilty pleas and go to the press in an attempt to cast a shadow on Goode's fitness to serve as a judge. The sentences imposed were within the range that was given by the legislature. A judge is required to evaluate the facts of each case and issue a sentence that is fair and that serves justice to all parties involved. By publicly criticizing a judge's decisions in this manner, it sends a message to all judges - if you want to keep your job, justice based on the facts presented in court takes a back seat when the press is watching - lock them up.

Since we are cherry-picking this particular judge's cases, a quick google search turns up two more cases: in October of last year, Judge Goode sentenced a man named Roderick Dean to 15 years - the maximum allowable by law - following a guilty plea to lewd act on a minor. If anyone is wondering, I would not want to appear before a judge who would give the maximum sentence following a guilty plea - Dean could have taken his case to trial and done no worse. In 2007, Judge Goode sentenced Brandon and Ragane Suggs to 5 years each for child abuse - the prosecutor allowed for a cap of 5 years and Judge Goode gave them the maximum allowed under the terms of their plea agreement.

Which brings us to another issue. More often than not, sentences in guilty pleas are worked out beforehand by the prosecutor and the defense attorney, each of whom knows the file and has lived with it for months or even years. The judge, who hears the facts of the case for only a few minutes during the guilty plea, almost always accepts the recommendation of the attorneys although he or she is not required to. More often than not, a judge is not to blame when what seems like a lenient sentence is given to an offender who elects not to go to trial, just as the judge is usually not to blame when a particularly harsh sentence is handed down.

Regarding the first case, McConnell says: “For a person who admitted to some wrongdoing to go into probation, I wasn’t satisfied with it,” and, regarding the peeping tom, McConnell says "he can’t understand why Goode keeps giving Gavin repeated breaks, despite having his case for several years. On the one hand, he just starts weakening the probation. It’s as if he’s trying to get (Gavin) into rehabilitation.” So - McConnell's view is that rehabilitation has no place in our justice system anymore? If a person admits to wrongdoing, then they should go to prison, regardless of the facts that a judge finds in a particular case? I would venture a guess that McConnell and Fair are capitalizing on an opportunity to grandstand and impress their voters on how tough they are on crime, and I hope that the remaining legislators are not swayed by this kind of rhetoric.

When a judge is qualified to serve, has the requisite knowledge and temperament, and certainly when a judge is able to show compassion some of the time, that judge should not be ousted from his job based on unpopular decisions, and sitting judges should not be placed in the position of feeling pressured not to do justice in any particular case for fear of public criticism, whether an appropriate sentence is harsh or lenient. Our system of appointments, overall, works well. Let's not break it.