HUGH J. BURNETTE, PETITIONER,
v.
GAYLE R. STANTON, ETC., 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.
Burnette, facing DUI manslaughter charges and a civil wrongful death suit, sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring him to answer interrogatories and produce documents in the civil case despite his Fifth Amendment privilege. The court held that Burnette's Fifth Amendment privilege protected him from disclosing information about the facts underlying his affirmative defenses, as such disclosures could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict him in the criminal case.
The court held that Burnette's Fifth Amendment privilege protected him from answering the interrogatories and that the discovery order should be quashed. The information sought could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Burnette in the criminal prosecution, and a court may compel answers only if it is perfectly clear that the answers cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate.
[1] The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litigant has reasonable grounds to believe that a response would furnish…
[2] A court may compel a litigant to answer discovery questions only if it is perfectly clear that the litigant is mistaken in their apprehension and that the answers cannot…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litigant has reasonable grounds to believe that the response to a discovery request would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against the litigant.”
Establishes the legal standard for asserting Fifth Amendment privilege in civil discovery when criminal charges are pending.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurnette is charged with DUI manslaughter of David Stanton. Stanton's estate also sued Burnette for wrongful death. In the civil suit, Burnette assert…
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 Dui Manslaughter cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, J.
Petitioner, Hugh Burnette, is charged with the DUI manslaughter of David Stanton. Stanton’s estate has also sued Bur-nette for wrongful death. Burnette seeks certiorari review of a discovery order in the civil case which requires him to answer interrogatories and a request to produce, despite his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litigant has reasonable grounds to believe that the response to a discovery request would fur nish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against the litigant. See Magid v. Winter, 654 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA1995). See also Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 266 n. 1, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983) (a witness is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege whenever there is a realistic possibility that the answer to a question could be used in any way to convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial). A court may compel a litigant to answer questions only if it is perfectly clear that the litigant is mistaken in his or her apprehension and that the answers to the interrogatories cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate. Magid, 654 So. 2d at 1039.
In this case, the order compels Burnette to answer interrogatories about the facts underlying the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and mechanical defect asserted by him in the civil suit. The order also compels Burnette to disclose the names of witnesses, both lay and expert, with knowledge of the facts supporting the defense of contributory negligence and requires production of the curriculum vitae of any expert named. The information sought requires disclosure of the factors which caused or contributed to the automobile accident underlying the criminal prosecution and could furnish a link in the chain of evidence required to convict Burnette. Therefore, the order compelling Burnette to answer the interrogatories is quashed. As Burnette is not required to name the expert witnesses supporting his affirmative defenses, the request to produce the experts’ curricula vitae is moot.
PETITION GRANTED AND ORDER QUASHED.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyle v. Buck, 220 A. 3d 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…urns on hands). The order requiring production of the Porsche does not require the production of testimonial or communicative evidence. Therefore, it is not a departure from the essential requirements of law. Boyle relies upon Burnette v. Stanton, 751 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), but that ease is distinguishable because it concerns testimonial evidence. Burnette involved a defendant in both a wrongful death civil suit and a manslaughter criminal prosecution. The fifth district applied the Fifth Amendment…
-
O'Neal v. SUN Bank, N.A., 754 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ing a discovery proceeding if the civil litigant has reasonable grounds [*172] to believe that direct answers to deposition or interrogatory would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him. See, Burnette v. Stanton, 751 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Magid v. Winter, 654 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). A court may compel a litigant to answer questions only if it is perfectly clear that the litigant is mistaken in his apprehension and that the answers to the interrogatories…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983)
- Magid v. Elliot C. Winter, 654 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)