NANCY GILLIAM ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Petitioners were held in contempt and jailed for refusing to answer questions at trial while claiming Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the contempt conviction on certiorari review, but stayed proceedings to allow petitioners to seek further review in the U.S. Supreme Court due to the federal constitutional question involved.
The court affirmed the contempt conviction, finding no harmful error in either the District Court of Appeal's or trial court's decision. However, the court stayed proceedings to allow petitioners to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court due to the federal constitutional question involved.
[1] A court may affirm a lower court's decision if it finds no harmful error.
[2] A court may stay proceedings to allow a party to seek further review in a higher court, particularly when a federal question is involved.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“committing them to jail on a charge of contempt for refusing to answer certain questions, notwithstanding their claiming the benefits of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 9, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. against self incrimination”
Describes the core issue: whether Fifth Amendment privilege provided a valid defense to contempt charges for witness non-compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners were subpoenaed as witnesses in a criminal trial and refused to answer certain questions, claiming the protections of the Fifth Amendment …
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 Federal Question cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners seek by conflict certiorari to have reviewed in this Court a decision by the District Court of Appeal, Second District, Fla.App., 267 So.2d 661, which affirmed a decision of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, committing them to jail on a charge of contempt for refusing to answer certain questions, notwithstanding their claiming the benefits of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 9,1 Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. against self incrimination.
Following affirmance by the District Court of Appeal, petitioners were taken into custody and then filed petition for certiorari here under our Rule 4.5, subd. c(6), 32 F.S.A. which provides an automatic stay but subject to review at either appellate level. Under the circumstances here present, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, Fla.App., 267 So.2d 658, entered its opinion and order dissolving the stay resulting in petitioners’ imprisonment. Thereafter, petitioners, having no other alternative, sought a discretionary stay order in this Court pending action on the review here of the decision by the District Court of Appeal. This Court entered a rule nisi commanding the State’s Attorney in and for the Circuit Court of Pinellas County on behalf of the State of Florida, to show cause why the judgment of imprisonment should not be stayed pending final action by this Court on the certiorari petition, and released the petitioners on bail of $1000.00. The State’s (prosecuting) Attorney, appearing on behalf of the State of Florida, answered the rule nisi and by agreement of counsel the matter was set for argument in this Court.
In the meantime, the criminal trial in which petitioners here were sought as witnesses was getting underway, and in the public interest, this Court expedited the argument and waived the normal procedural rules.
In order to bring the matter on for review, this Court issued a writ of certiorari.
The matter now having come on for final disposition on the record before us and argument of counsel having been heard and this Court finding no harmful error in the decision of the District Court of Appeal or the trial court, it is ordered that the decision under review is affirmed, and it is further
Ordered that the filing for a petition for rehearing is dispensed with, and it is further
Ordered that in view of the federal question, which we believe to be involved, proceedings in the District Court of Appeal, Second District, and in the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, are hereby stayed to and including Tuesday, October 24, 1972, in order to allow petitioners to seek review in and apply to the Supreme Court of the United States for such further stay, if any, as that court might deem appropriate.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilliam v. State, 267 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
-
State v. Ducharme, 881 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…tice shall automatically operate as a stay pending review, except in criminal cases, when the State, any public officer in an official capacity, board, commission or other public body seeks review. ... Fla. R.App. P. 9.310. . See Gilliam v. State, 268 So. 2d 379 (Fla.1972). . Rule 9.310(a) authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to grant a stay of its order pending appeal "conditioned on the posting of a good and sufficient bond, other conditions, or both.” On remand, the burden will then be where i…
Authorities Cited
- Gilliam v. State, 267 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- In re State Attorney's Investigation Subpoenae v. Turner, 267 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)