STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
NICHOLAS CASTELLANO, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's state attorney sought to prevent a criminal defendant from deposing a mediator who could testify about threatening statements made during a Citizens Dispute Settlement Program mediation. The court rejected claims of privilege and held that no legally recognized privilege protects CDSP communications, leaving any confidentiality protection to legislative action.
No privilege exists for CDSP communications. The compromise and settlement rule protects only admissibility of compromise offers to prove liability, not the discoverability of threatening statements in a criminal context. CDSP mediators are not entitled to prosecutorial privilege simply because the program is associated with the state attorney's office.
[1] Privileges in Florida are established by statute or constitution, not by judicial decision.
[2] Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability, but this rule does not create a privilege against disclosure of sta…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“privileges in Florida are no longer creatures of judicial decision”
Establishes that privileges must be grounded in statute or constitution, not common law judicial creation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCastellano was charged with attempted first-degree murder. During discovery, the state identified Roger Mallory, a CDSP mediator, as having informatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.
The state seeks to appeal an order denying its motion to quash respondent’s deposition subpoena of Roger Mallory. Since this is a nonappealable order, we treat the matter as a petition for writ of certiorari.
The respondent was charged with attempted first degree murder. In responding to a demand for discovery, the state listed Mallory as a person having information about the case. The respondent subpoenaed Mallory for the taking of his deposition. Mallory is a mediator in the Citizens Dispute Settlement Program (CDSP) in the Tenth Judicial Circuit.1 The respondent asserts that Mallory will be able to testify that during the course of mediation the person who became the victim of the alleged attempted murder made life-threatening statements to the respondent. He maintains such testimony will support his contention of self-defense. The state filed a motion to quash the deposition subpoena urging that statements made to CDSP mediators were privileged. The court denied the motion to quash.
At the outset, we note that section 90.501, Florida Statutes (1983), provides:
90.501 Privileges recognized only as provided.—Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, any other statute, or the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Florida, no person in a legal proceeding has a privilege to:
(1) Refuse to be a witness.
(2) Refuse to disclose any matter. (3) Refuse to produce any object or writing.
(4) Prevent another from being a witness, from disclosing any matter, or from producing any object or writing.
Thus, privileges in Florida are no longer creatures of judicial decision. Marshall v. Anderson, 459 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
In this case, the state argues for privilege on two grounds. First, the state contends that communications made by parties in the CDSP are privileged as being in the nature of offers of compromise. However, the rule protecting offers of compromise appears to be one more of admissibility than privilege. C. McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 274 (2d ed. 1972); 4 J. Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence § 1061 (rev. ed. 1972). The admissibility of offers to compromise is addressed in section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983):
90.408 Compromise and offers to compromise.—Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value.
The plain language of the provision only excludes evidence of an offer of compromise presented to prove liability or the absence of liability for a claim or its value. Therefore, even if the admissibility of such evidence could be equated with the privilege not to disclose the evidence, there is nothing in the statute remotely applicable to the testimony sought herein. This section is simply not relevant to the situation where a mediator testifies in a criminal proceeding regarding an alleged threat made by one party to another in a prior CDSP setting.
Alternatively, the state asserts that since the CDSP is an investigatory arm of the state attorney, the privilege accorded to statements made to a prosecuting attorney .should be extended to those made to a CDSP mediator. See Widener v. Croft, 184 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 192 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1966). We know of no rationale to make such an extension. The parties to a CDSP program are simply attempting to resolve a dispute so that a criminal prosecution will be unnecessary. All statements are made voluntarily by persons under no legal compulsion to attend. The record reflects no authority for the mediator s statement that the parties communications were confidential. The fact that he may have so advised the parties that their communications would be held confidential does not now excuse him from being compelled by respondent to testify concerning what was said.
There is no legal basis for a privilege which would prevent the respondent from obtaining Mallory’s testimony. If confidentiality is essential to the success of the CDSP program, the legislature is the proper branch of government from which to obtain the necessary protection.
Certiorari denied.
SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur. . In essence, this program offers an alternative to a formal prosecution for enumerated misdemeanors.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ward L. Huet and Joan Huet v. Hillary Tromp and Andre Tromp, 912 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ations because they do not fit the definition of work product in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3). The rule expressly covers “documents and tangible things ... prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” See State v. Castellano, 460 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). That case held that a mediator’s observations of a person charged with a crime, in a mediation session, was not privileged under any statute or rule. Information relating to a matter which is the subject of litigation, which is…
-
Francois Guerrier v. State, 811 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…under Florida law are those established by The Florida Evidence Code, any other statute, the federal or Florida constitutions, and the Florida Supreme Court pursuant to its rule making authority. See § 90.501, Fla. Stat. (2001); State v. Castellano, 460 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Marshall v. Anderson, 459 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Thus, with the exception of rules adopted by the Florida Supreme Court, “privileges in Florida are no longer creatures of judicial decision.” Castellano, 460 So. 2d at 481…
-
Dennis and Mary Hill v. State, 846 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…Fla. 26, 6 So. 164 (1889). . See Kerlin v. State, 352 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1977). . Dobbert v. Strickland, 532 F.Supp. 545 (M.D.Fla.1982), affirmed, 718 F. 2d 1518 (11th Cir.1983); Kerlin v. State, 352 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1977). See also State v. Castellano, 460 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). . Guerrier v. State, 811 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). . O’Neill v. O'Neill, 823 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); State v. Famiglietti, 817 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). . Carson v. Jaelcson, 466 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 19…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marshall v. Anderson, 459 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Widener v. Croft, 184 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Busbee v. State, 192 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1966)
- Douglas v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 192 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1966)